Government sentencing legislation failed first test, says ACT

A nine-year sentence for a man who bashed his mother showed new Government legislation had failed its first serious test, ACT said today.

Haden Karl Brown, 22, of Kaitaia, could serve only three years after being sentenced in the High Court at Whangarei yesterday.

He had admitted the attempted murder of his mother, Sue Brown, and arson on June 20 last year.

It was one of the first major sentencings in the country under the Sentencing Act 2002, which took effect on Monday.

Prisoners are now entitled to apply for parole after serving one-third of their sentence.

Brown has already spent one year in custody, and so could apply for parole in two years.

ACT justice spokesman Stephen Franks apologised for getting emotional about the case at a press conference today.

"Sue Brown is on a walking frame, can't speak for the rest of her life, and is in care," he said.

"The man who bashed her will be well cared for, three meals a day, a menu for breakfast, cooked breakfast, and probably out in three years' time."

New Zealanders would be asking how could the offender be better off than the victim.

"How could anyone see that as justice? I get accused of being emotional about it ... emotion in this area is simple common sense."

Legislation was saying "let them out, we know a predictable proportion will reoffend, we're not sure which proportion it is, but in the hope that some will rehabilitate, we will let them out."

Prison and parole had been proven not to rehabilitate, he said.

The comments of Justice Salmon in sentencing Brown had showed contradictions in the legislation, Mr Franks said.

"The judge went through the new sentencing Act and it told him to be tough, and it told him to be lenient, and it possibly also told him to breach the Bill of Rights Act," he said.

"He didn't really know what to do and he thought other judges might come to other conclusions.

"Here is a man who attempted murder, burnt his mother's house down, tried to get away with it and may well be out in three years.

"Even if he is not out in three years, the family will be going through a parole hearing every year for three years."

ACT had tried to warn Parliament of the flaws in the legislation, to little avail.

That was a "burning frustration" to Mr Franks, a lawyer by profession, as Justice Minister Phil Goff was saying that the law was tougher.

"He had absolutely no grounds for saying that, there has been no change in the criteria that the parole people apply -- in fact, it's been narrowed.

"The only thing they are allowed to look at now is whether there is an undue risk to the safety of the community.

"Prisoners must be let out if it can't be demonstrated that they won't do it again."

Mr Franks told NZPA he had so far been unable to get the sentencing notes for the case.

Under the new Act, the parole board has the power to keep Brown in prison for the full nine years.

Under the old Act, prisoners convicted of violent offences (excluding murder) were automatically released after serving two-thirds of their jail term.

Justice Salmon said it would be up to the parole board to determine whether Brown represented a continuing threat to society when he became eligible for parole.

Imposing sentence, Justice Salmon took into account Brown's guilty plea, and the fact he was a first-time offender and had been suffering from a depressive illness at the time of the attack.

The injuries inflicted on Mrs Brown have left her with little chance of ever living an independent life again.

A medical report said Mrs Brown was blind in one eye, could not speak, was unable to dress herself and had little control over her bodily functions.

- NZPA

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.