Editorial: How Middleton missed his chance

Mark Middleton is no hero. Nor is the suspended prison term for threatening to kill his step-daughter's murderer a victory, even if those in the Auckland District Court's public gallery who applauded Judge Michael Lance, QC, saw it as such. Middleton may have become a cause celebre for these people, and their demand for tougher sentencing laws. But, in reality, he is a man who, no matter how understandably aggrieved, deliberately flouted the law.

Middleton was convicted for expressing his avowed intent to take the law into his own hands, not for his strongly held views on the justice system's treatment of criminals. For a jury to have found otherwise would have been to take the dangerous step of condoning vigilante justice.

Middleton's supporters had, of course, good reason to feel relief, if not triumph. Two weeks ago, at the time of conviction, Judge Lance told Middleton that his threats to "crucify" Paul Dally made it likely he would be imprisoned. In the end, the judge opted for the more moderate option of nine months' prison, suspended for two years.

The unusual decision to remand Middleton in custody should, however, have added substance to that sentence. Middleton could have been released on bail; he was not about to flee the country. But a fortnight in Mt Eden Prison would convince most that a repeat visit for a much longer period, was not to be contemplated lightly.

Middleton and his most ardent supporters would do well to ponder Judge Lance's sentencing comments. The lynch mob approach, said the judge, was quite unacceptable. If justice succumbed to such an approach, society slipped into anarchy and lawlessness. That will doubtless rankle those who rallied around the country carrying placards advocating "Life for a life" and suchlike. They, however, appear to want to deny the evolution of justice, and the development of a system which deliberately sets out to deliver justice dispassionately.

That system is constantly evolving. The Judiciary and the Government should not be deaf to groundswells of popular opinion, the more so when there is widespread anger at light sentences, parole provisions and the failure of successive governments to act decisively. And this is where Mark Middleton could have played his most effective role.

The abhorrent manner in which his stepdaughter was murdered made him a natural voice for the many demanding harsher penalties for murderers and rapists. Rather than deliberately flouting the law, he could have been been a powerful voice for a far stronger line and changes to the parole system that would ensure murderers such as Dally remained behind bars.

That path is, of course, paved with frustration. No one knows that more than Norm Withers, who forced a referendum on the justice system after his mother was brutally beaten. His proposal for minimum sentences for serious violent offences and a greater emphasis on the needs of victims won overwhelming support at the last general election.

Many of those who voted for that proposal, and who have now rallied behind Middleton, seem to believe the referendum achieved nothing. They are wrong. Judges have begun handing out longer minimum non-parole periods in jail. Take the 17 years handed down to Scott Watson, or the 13-year non-parole period given to the killer of Mangakino Constable Murray Stretch.

The Government has also listened, even if its wheels sometimes turn with a maddening slowness. A bill on sentencing, following a review designed to get tougher with the worst criminals, is due to be brought to Parliament this month.

Regrettably, Middleton chose not the course prescribed by democracy but that suggested by anarchy. He deliberately challenged the rule of law. For that, even widespread support for his views on the justice system's shortcomings offers no exculpation.