Catriona MacLennan: Scales of justice seem to favour rich and powerful

A fundamental principle of a legal system is that it treats people equally. This is epitomised in the symbol of justice: a blindfolded woman holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other.

The blindfold symbolises what the law should strive for: impartiality, lack of bias and a refusal to be influenced by wealth, gender, race or position.

Unfortunately, this is not what occurs in New Zealand courts. People who are poor, brown and powerless repeatedly receive harsher penalties than those who are rich, white and powerful.

Sports stars and actors, in particular, walk out of court with sentences far more lenient than my clients receive for the same offences.

The latest example is that of an All Black's partner. Hayley Armstrong pleaded guilty and was convicted on six fraud charges relating to $61,000 she misappropriated from the Auckland Rugby Football Union while she was employed as its events manager.

Her lawyer told the court that she suffered from a personal problem. On top of that, her worries were exacerbated by having to conform to the public concept of what an All Black partner should look like.

Armstrong was sentenced to 300 hours' community work.

Contrast that with people appearing in the Manukau District Court on fraud charges.

I cannot think of any client I have dealt with, in the past eight years in South Auckland, who would not have been sent to jail for defrauding $61,000.

In relation to benefit fraud, people appearing in Manukau District Court used to be sentenced to jail if the amount was more than $20,000.

Over the past two years, however, the tariff has become harsher and people now face jail for amounts exceeding $10,000.

There may be significant mitigating factors in such cases. Desperate parents may have no money to feed children, and there may often be misunderstandings about application of the complex law relating to relationships in the nature of marriage and benefit entitlement.

Defendants may be supporting, on one benefit, many family members who otherwise have no income.

But none of these factors will stop South Auckland defendants from being sent to jail.

Why is it that the courts can show understanding to wealthy people who are dishonest to foster their social aspirations, but dismiss the plight of those who are desperate and simply seeking to survive ?

There have been numerous other examples in recent years. An MP involved in a car accident that injured his passenger was granted diversion, meaning that he did not receive a conviction.

In South Auckland, there is a policy of no diversion for traffic matters.

An actor charged with assault was also granted diversion, when one of my clients would probably have been refused it and told that the matter was too serious.

A sports star who was disqualified from driving was not only granted a limited licence with an extraordinarily wide scope but was merely fined and not further disqualified when caught driving outside the terms of that licence.

Canadian John Davy, the short-lived chief executive of Maori Television, was sentenced to jail, but for a term short in comparison to those imposed on my clients.

At the Manukau District Court, no diversion will be granted to people charged with theft as a servant. But those appearing in Auckland District Court will be diverted for theft as a servant.

This is a particularly glaring anomaly.

Theft as a servant is the charge faced when people steal from workplaces. A conviction on such a charge is very serious because it will, for the rest of the person's life, make it difficult for them to obtain work.

Granting diversion to some and not to others on such a charge places additional employment hurdles in the way of those who already often lack qualifications and marketable skills and face difficulty in obtaining jobs.

Confidence in the legal system is a crucial, but fragile, thing.

Blatant examples of different treatment of people according to their status in the community do much to erode that confidence. The result of that is cynicism about the law, coupled with anger about perceived injustices.

Society as a whole is threatened by that.

* Catriona MacLennan is a South Auckland barrister.