Editorial: Explaining court's way of thinking

Gwenda Bush, 63, is sentenced on fraud charges at North Shore District Court.

Online publication of more decisions from our courts has come at a good time, given a perplexing sentence in Auckland this week.

The subject: A 63-year-old scammer and sob-story specialist, Gwenda Christine Bush, one of many names used in amassing 600 convictions and a string of jail sentences in a 40-year criminal career. At it again. As it happened, a pastor was in her corner, but the judge recognised her claims of Godly repentance were probably more of her serial deception. He gave her a verbal lashing.

"This is a woman who has the most appalling record of dishonesty offending I have ever seen," he was reported to have said.

Unfortunately, that came in justifying consent for media to photograph her in court and publish the images. The sentence was just 12 months' home detention, followed by six months' supervision, and a warning that if she steps out of line in that time, she can bring her toothbrush next time.

Aaah, where's Sensible Sentencing when you need them. The common factors with this type of offender are that they don't stop, unlike most others convicted in court they are devoid of any feeling for others, they have no redeeming features, and victims come in queues.

If incarceration of the offender is a matter of public safety - and statistics indicate too many people are being jailed - then Bush is a strong candidate for having the key thrown away. The decision takes some explaining, which is why judges' decisions are usually long and complicated, albeit usually with a strain of common sense.

New website www.districtcourts.govt.nz will publish about 2500 decisions this year and 4000 next year. It unlocks the door to understanding how these decisions are made, even if one still disagrees.