It has been reported that affidavits given to Judge Cunningham included one from King Tuheitia himself, declaring that his second son would never be considered as his successor if he had a criminal history. Judge Cunningham, perhaps not unreasonably, came to the conclusion that while the drink-driving offence was "moderately serious," the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the offence.
The consolation for those who have been outraged by her decision is that Paki has reportedly been punished by his family, and will be undertaking various programmes designed to change his ways. That is equally true for a great many non-royal defendants, however, and doesn't do much to support the argument for a discharge without conviction. A common or garden defendant would at best hope that submissions of that nature would reduce the penalty somewhat.
Northland regional councillor and former MP Dover Samuels spoke for many when he rejected the judge's logic. Paki had "got off" because of the possibility that one day he would be the Maori King, he said, a fact that might be relevant to a few people in Tainui but was not relevant at all to young Ngapuhi. Ngapuhi kaumatua David Rankin was of a similar view. He noted that Paki would not need to be police vetted to succeed his father, and said he should have been made an example of.
The remorse that Judge Cunningham no doubt factored into her decision might also be questioned. One of the theft victims said the court had been told that the victims had been contacted and offered apologies. Paki and his co-offenders had not contacted or apologised to him.
That has a familiar ring to it. Genuine remorse is not difficult to recognise, and it isn't particularly common. Failing to contact and apologise to victims, having claimed to have done so, suggests that Paki's remorse does not run especially deep, and adds to doubt that the case made for this young man to be discharged without conviction was more opportunist than genuine.
Police were late last week reported as still thinking about appealing Judge Cunningham's decision, but even if that doesn't come to pass those who have been outraged might further console themselves with the adage that leopards don't change their spots. Paki's contributions thus far to society via social media suggest that he is racist and potentially a friend of the Mongrel Mob. At 19 he still has time to grow up, but the signs aren't all that flash. The 'source close to the family' might well be right that he is not considered fit as the successor to his father, and a betting man might wager that he will be back before the court one day.
Perhaps change will begin when he becomes an unmarried father in September, although fathering children out of wedlock might be regarded as another sign that he should be considering some less exalted means of making a living.
It is important that judges have the ability to recognise that there are cases where the impact of a conviction really will outweigh the seriousness of the offence. In the writer's experience that generally applies to lesser offences than burglary, theft and drink driving (at least where the alcohol level is far in excess of the legal limit, as it was in this case). It also relies on the plea for clemency being based on fact, which may not have been the case in this instance.
There are two very significant issues here though - that the courts must be seen as impervious to status, and that the impact of a conviction even for commoners can last a lifetime. That is a message that all 19-year-olds would do well to heed.
The more common plea made by those who see themselves as having status is for permanent name suppression, generally granted on the same basis as this teenager's discharge without conviction, that the impact of being publicly named would have a significantly disproportionate effect. That request is becoming uncomfortably common, and in recent times has been granted to supposedly prominent individuals convicted of offences including sexual abuse. The courts must appreciate that public shame is often an integral part of the justice system, and the granting of on-going anonymity should be contemplated only in very special circumstances, including the protection of innocent parties.
Meanwhile a discharge without conviction and name suppression are rarely available to the ordinary defendant, but the impact of a conviction will often be significant and long-lasting, not least in terms of future employment and travel. Does the fact that a conviction might well haunt a 19-year-old for the rest of his life warrant a discharge without conviction? Does the fact that a drink-driving conviction, for example, will cost a truck driver his job warrant special treatment? The answer to both those questions is generally no.
Granted, some teenagers grow out of their penchant for doing dumb stuff, and this prince of the Maori realm might well grow out of the urges that left him at Judge Cunningham's mercy. Convictions might have robbed him of his royal birthright, but convictions rob every 19-year-old offender of their future to some degree. That is the reality of crime and punishment. Those who have the most to lose have the most to gain from behaving themselves, a lesson that this young man probably has yet to learn.
