Dialogue: Bill hands offenders get-out-of-jail passes

By WAYNE MAPP*

There is a perception that the Government's Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill achieves the objectives of Norm Withers' referendum for tougher penalties. In fact, Mr Withers has publicly supported it.

Closer reading of the bill, however, reveals a different story. Under the guise of an apparent toughening of the law, there is potential for many more offenders to be released much earlier than at present.

All offenders, with the exception of those in preventive detention and serving a minimum non-parole period, are eligible to apply for release at one-third of their sentence. The one-third rule extends well beyond the existing law, which applies only to non-violent offenders.

Justice Minister Phil Goff's bill will allow serious violent offenders, such as rapists, bank robbers and people guilty of aggravated assaults, to apply for release at one-third of their sentence. Only truly exceptional offenders in these groups will receive much longer sentences.

There is no doubt that the existing law needed to be strengthened. At present, serious violent offenders get automatic release at two-thirds of their sentence. But at least this rule has the merit that they are not released until two-thirds of their sentence has been completed.

Most people believe strongly that there should not be automatic release at two-thirds of the sentence, and I proposed a member's bill which would have abolished this automatic release. Such offenders should be able to apply for parole only at the two-thirds stage, and many would not get it.

Ironically, under the guise of abolishing automatic release, this bill now offers the prospect that serious violent offenders will be able to apply for parole at one-third of their sentence. Under the present law, this option is reserved for non-violent offenders, but the Government would extend this to all offenders.

The Government's own visiting expert, Donald Schmid, a United States Justice Department lawyer, recommended a much tougher line. He suggested the abolition of parole, mandatory minimum sentences for multiple offences, and harsher sentences for hardcore repeat offenders.

Papers released under the Official Information Act show an extraordinary negotiation between Mr Goff and Matt Robson, the Corrections Minister. Mr Goff argued for parole eligibility at half the imposed sentence. Mr Robson argued for one-third.

It is clear that Mr Robson, representing a minor party, won the contest. He has a reputation for being liberal on these issues, but he does not reflect community expectations. Mr Goff's defeat on this issue has gravely weakened the bill.

The result is a clear trade-off. In return for tightening the rules at the top end for a small number of extremely violent offenders, a much larger group qualify for early release.

Release at one-third of the sentence bears little relationship to the actual term of sentences imposed by courts. This damages public faith in our criminal justice system.

Much has been made of the provisions of the bill on preventive detention for extremely dangerous criminals who pose a continuing danger to the community. It has been used for notorious rapists Malcolm Rewa and Joseph Thompson.

In fact, the new provisions will still be quite limited. Although the age has been reduced from 21 to 18, an existing pattern of serious violent offending must still be established. A more appropriate test should be whether a person is likely to reoffend. If this is a real risk, the court should be able to impose preventive detention.

Mr Goff has also decided that suspended sentences and corrective training should be abandoned. The abolition of suspended sentences will remove an important tool from the judicial armoury.

Judges are able to impose a significant sentence reflecting societal standards in relation to crime, but suspend the sentence in appropriate circumstances. The prison sentence of two years for Mark Middleton recognised that threatening to kill is a serious matter. Suspending the sentence meant that his special circumstances (including the fact he could not kill the offender because he was in prison, and the fact that the threat was in part intended to convey the family's disgust that the offender could be eligible for early release) could be taken into account.

The Government has packaged the bill for the public by focusing on five key issues:

* It provides for a range of penalties for murder, with a minimum of 17 years served of a life sentence for the most serious, to less than life for murders such as mercy killings.

* It provides for sentences near the maximum for the worst offences within a class of offending.

* It changes the rules on preventive detention.

* It ends the right to automatic release at two-thirds of a sentence for serious violent offenders.

* It consolidates, not reduces, penalties, including abolishing suspended sentences and corrective training.

Understandably, public expectations of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill have been high. The Government certainly indicated it would meet the call for higher sentences for the most violent criminals.

No one expected that the trade-off would mean lower sentences, not only for the non-violent offenders but also for rapists, bank robbers and muggers.

The bill can still be changed. Making a submission to the justice and electoral select committee by October 5 will send a clear message of what the public wants in its criminal justice system.

* Dr Wayne Mapp is the National justice spokesman.