Victim on sentencing crusade

Paula Steffert says guilty pleas are given far too much weight by judges. Picture / Greg Bowker

Ten years ago Paula Steffert suffered a horrific rape and now she is on a crusade to ensure her attacker stays behind bars for good.

She wants to take her fight to Parliament, where she plans to team up with the Sensible Sentencing Trust to try to force legislative change. The Victims Rights Act of 2002 is "weak" and a waste of time and space, she says.

Her tolerance ran out at the beginning of this year, after having endured repeated bureaucratic blunders over the past decade.

In February she read a Weekend Herald story about how her attacker had struck again - this time against a 15-year-old girl. The girl had been making her way home from a day out shopping, just before Christmas 2004.

The assault took place in broad daylight. Leo Darin Goodwin, released from prison on parole three months earlier, forced the girl to perform oral sex, threatening to kill her if she chose to bite.

He was free at the time because he had served eight years of the 12 for which he was sentenced after the 1996 attack on Ms Steffert.

She says she told the Parole Board at the time that she predicted Goodwin would offend within one year. "I gave him too much credit."

Ms Steffert was aghast when she read of Goodwin's sentencing in February. It angers her that nobody had told her of the fresh charges against him.

"The Victims Rights Act of 2002 doesn't allow me to be informed unless the crime is specifically against me."

For the 2004 attack, Goodwin received a minimum nine-year term which included preventive detention.

The fact Ms Steffert had no apparent right to know of the 2004 offence is only one of a list of things that irritates her. While having a high regard for the police, she feels "incredibly" let down by politicians and the Justice Ministry and Corrections Department.

Upon reading of Goodwin's 2004 crime Ms Steffert wrote to Justice Minister Mark Burton saying she was aware of the legislation that required victims of crime to record themselves on the notification register should they want to be informed on matters relating to the crime committed against them.

She wrote of her initial anguish in 1997: "The first failure of this system came when I returned home one day to a very distraught mother who had just read on teletext that the offender had had his sentence reduced from 15 years to 12 years on appeal. I was not notified of this appeal."

Later, as part of the rehabilitation programme, Goodwin was allowed a day's release from prison into Hamilton City.

Ms Steffert received a letter notifying her of this, but it was dated two weeks after the day he was scheduled to be released.

When she rang to point this out, the Corrections Department told her the release date was the following month - a mistake had been made in the letter sent to her.

Goodwin was released an unknown number of times without her being informed. "We're [victims] only informed if it's a day's release unaccompanied. If they're released with a prison guard we're not informed at all."

In March 2005 Ms Steffert was suddenly told by Corrections that Goodwin had been recalled to prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence. But she wanted to know why.

She phoned for an explanation: "All they told me at the time was that he had been recalled to prison because 'his behaviour was causing concern'. It's total bureaucracy."

She wonders who the system is set up to protect.

Goodwin's 15-year term imposed in 1997 was reduced to 12 years because the original sentencing judge had not placed enough emphasis on Goodwin's guilty plea.

Ms Steffert feels "pleas" should be irrelevant, or that they are given far too much weight by judges who must follow the sentencing legislation. There should be no bargaining chips for defence lawyers and their clients for serious charges, she says.

Confusion is caused in the system because victims and departmental staff are "bombarded with different legislation" (including the Sentencing Act, the Victims Rights Act, and the Parole Act) and the fact there are so many different agencies that become involved in communicating with victims, Ms Steffert says.

Before Goodwin's 1996 attack, he had already served a year in an Australian prison for a sexual assault.

Ms Steffert says he should never be released again. New Zealand should follow a tough line such as "three strikes and you're out".

"It seems to me the referendum conducted in the 1999 election has made no difference," she told Mr Burton in her letter. "I would like to see a review made of the Victims Rights Act of 2002 to achieve its intended goal."

Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust said further submissions for a tougher line against prisoners and more rights for victims were filed with Parliament last month.

Submissions were part of an inquiry into victims' rights, which has been ordered by the justice and electoral select committee.

"We have victims rights in terminology only - they [victims] have no legal status and no legal representation allowed," he said.

In the trust's submission, victims should have a "constitutional right" for input into sentencing. Offenders should also be forced to pay a personal debt in the form of compensation to their victims.

IN THE DARK
Rape victim Paula Steffert:

* Was not told her attacker had appealed against his sentence - reduced from 15 years to 12.

* Was not told he had offended again.

* Was told he had been released for a day as part of a rehabilitation programme but did not have to be told if he was released from prison accompanied by a guard.

* Was told her attacker had been recalled to prison, but was not told why.