Government moves to influence penalties

Key Government department chief executives listen to the presentation (from left) Howard Broad (Police), Barry Matthews (Corrections), Peter Hughes (Social Services) and Leith Comer (Maori Development). Picture / Mark Mitchell

The Government has moved to seize greater control of the way judges are sentencing offenders in an effort to avoid building more prisons and increase the resources spent on preventing re-offending.

A raft of changes to the sentencing and parole regime were unveiled yesterday, an implicit acknowledgement that major reforms in those areas introduced in 2000-2002 contained, and also failed to address, significant systemic flaws.

Underpinning the reforms is a belief the public needs greater "truth in sentencing", which will be enforced via a new Sentencing Council.

Both concepts were slammed by Phil Goff when, as Justice Minister in 2002, he shepherded the Sentencing and Parole Acts through Parliament.

But yesterday he refused to comment on the about-turn, and Prime Minister Helen Clark sidestepped questions.

The Government hopes the "effective interventions" strategy will enable it to exert more control over sentencing, so it can better manage inmate numbers and Corrections Department resources.

It hopes the strategy will save it the cost of building another jail, if not several, necessary under current prison muster projections and costing about $250 million each.

The Government acknowledges prisons are often not an effective way to reduce offending.

There were 7730 inmates in jail this week, a number forecast to grow to 8600 in 2009 and 8956 in 2011.

The current building programme will accommodate the 2009 muster, but not the projected 2011 one. The Government calculates the new plans will take 480 beds off the 2011 projections.

The Sentencing Council, made up of five judges and five political appointees, will draft sentencing guidelines for the judiciary.

The Justice Minister will be able to make requests of the council.

The Law Commission, charged with investigating the proposal, said in a report released yesterday that it would give the Government and Parliament more control over sentencing policy.

The protection of the independence of the judiciary was essential, the commissioners said.

"It is because of our belief in this principle that we make our recommendations. Too often the judges become the meat in the sentencing sandwich."

Judicial discretion in sentencing would be maintained by enabling judges to depart from the guidelines if it was in the "public interest", which they would be required to explain.

Judges had been extensively consulted, altering the commission's proposals significantly, but "this was not designed to secure their support", the report notes - hinting at some judicial discomfort with the plan.

To achieve greater truth in sentencing, the Government said it would significantly tighten parole eligibility, loosened for many in 2002 but not generally resulting in people serving less time.

It did not, however, want to make the average offender serve more time in prison by the parole changes - so would reduce the actual sentence lengths handed down by judges.

Helen Clark said too many longer sentences were being imposed by judges, raising the prospect the changes would result in some shorter sentences being actually served.

But Justice Minister Mark Burton suggested the changes weren't intended to achieve that.

However, the commission noted major inconsistency across sentences which could result in significant big changes to length served for some offences.

The commission said the Government should also ask it to review all maximum penalties and recommended that sections of the Sentencing Act directing judges to impose the toughest penalties for the worst offenders be repealed to ensure real consistency between sentences could be achieved.

This would greatly undermine the 2002 changes and the Herald was unable to ascertain from Mr Burton's office yesterday whether the Government had accepted these recommendations.

New Zealand First, United Future, the Greens and the Maori Party all expressed some degree of support for the reforms yesterday, but will want to see the final shape of legislation before pledging their backing.

National Party justice spokesman Richard Worth said it was a "smoke and mirrors exercise" designed to drive down prison costs.

CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM INCLUDE:

* Sentencing Council to give judges more guidance on sentence lengths, partly through more Government and parliamentary intervention.

* Government gets more ability to control and predict prison musters and resource needs, provide for greater consistency in sentences and curtail different sentencing practices across regions. Sweeping reform of the Parole Act.

* Parole eligibility at one-third of sentence is returned to two-thirds for most sentences of longer than two years. Prisoners serving 12 months or less must serve whole sentence. Primary aim is to restore public confidence in "truth in sentencing". However, actual sentences imposed will be reduced, so a similar amount of time is spent in prison (would require reduction of 25 per cent of average length).

* Introduction of home detention as sentence in its own right for lower-level offenders instead of as alternative or partial alternative to prison sentence. Cheaper than prison. Set to come into effect next July. Will avoid 310 beds being built.

* New tier of community sentences, sitting above community work and supervision.

* Electronically monitored curfew and intensive supervision. Includes larger and more complex set of rehabilitation and reintegration conditions than now available.

* Two new drug and alcohol treatment units in prisons and two further general purpose special treatment units to provide intensive rehab in prisons.

* Greater use of restorative justice across the board. Studies show it helps victims and offenders.