Section 27 or “cultural” reports have been described by the incoming government as written by “individuals without expertise or qualifications” and as “designed to influence judges to deliver lighter sentences”.
This understanding appears to form the basis of the National Party policy to remove funding for written reports. It also suggests a misunderstanding of the intent behind the Sentencing Act and the rise of written s 27 reports.
S 27 (and its predecessor, s 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985) arose from an urgent need to address inequitable criminal justice outcomes for Māori. It was based on evidence proving the failure of prison sentences to prevent recidivist offending and sought to prioritise community-based redress and rehabilitation whenever possible.
The initial vision was of whānau directly addressing the Court. In practice, however, this vision stumbled. Judges were ambivalent about whānau speaking in Court; whānau had little faith in criminal justice system processes; offenders often had no whānau willing or able to speak for them.
For more than 20 years, section 27 of the Sentencing Act was consequently dormant.