Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010

Last updated

Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
New Zealand Parliament
Passed25 March 2010
Royal assent 31 May 2010 [1]
Commenced1 June 2010
Repealed16 August 2022
Introduced by Judith Collins [1]
Repealed by
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Act 2022
Status: Repealed

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 was an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that denied parole to repeat violent offenders, and imposed maximum terms of imprisonment on repeat offenders who commit three serious violent offences - unless it would be manifestly unjust. [2] The law was known informally in New Zealand public, media and government circles as the "three-strikes law". [3] [4] [5] [6]

Contents

The bill passed its third reading on 25 May 2010. It was supported by the conservative National and libertarian ACT parties but was opposed by the Labour, Green, and Māori parties. [3] It became law when it received royal assent on 31 May 2010. [7]

It led to some anomalous sentencing outcomes [8] with questionable evidence that it helped to reduce violent offending. It was repealed on 9 August 2022, by the Sixth Labour Government. [9]

Purpose

The Sensible Sentencing Trust, led by Garth McVicar, played a significant role in promoting the idea of a "three strikes and you're out" sentencing law in New Zealand from as early as 2004. [10] The Ministry of Justice says the law was "intended to deter repeat offenders with the threat of progressively longer mandatory prison terms, and to penalise those who continued to re-offend through a three-stage process." [11]

Key provisions

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 created a three-stage system of increasing consequences for repeat violent offenders. The Act applied to 40 qualifying offences comprising all violent and sexual offences with a maximum penalty of seven years or greater imprisonment. It covered murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, sexual violation, abduction, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. [4] [12] Since the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 prohibits retroactive application of laws to disadvantage an offender, the law only applies to offences committed on or after 1 June 2010.

A first warning is issued after an offender who is aged 18 or over is convicted of a qualifying offence. Once the offender has received a "first-strike" warning, it stays on their criminal record permanently unless their conviction is overturned. The warning must be given verbally by the Judge and followed up in writing for it to be valid. [13] If the offender is subsequently convicted of another qualifying offence, they receive a final warning. If they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, they will serve that sentence in full without the possibility of parole. The first and final warnings will stay on the offender's record. [4] [12]

On conviction of a third qualifying offence, the court must impose the maximum penalty for the offence on the defendant. The legislation stipulates that if the offence the court must also order that the sentence be served without parole, unless the qualifying offence is manslaughter or court considers that it would be manifestly unjust. In cases of manslaughter, a minimum non-parole period of 20 years applies instead, unless the court considers that it would be manifestly unjust, in which case the standard 10-year non-period for life imprisonment applies. [4] [12]

If the second or third qualifying offence is murder, then the court must impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, unless it deems it manifestly unjust to do so. [14]

In the case a previous qualifying offence is overturned, the courts must set aside all other qualifying offences' sentences and warnings, and re-sentence and re-warn as if the overturned offence never occurred. Sentencing judges for second and third qualifying offences must state in their sentencing judgment the sentence they would have given but for the Act to assist in case of re-sentencing. [15]

The Act also introduced the option to impose life imprisonment without possibility of parole for murder regardless of the offender's previous convictions. If an offender aged 18 and over is convicted of murder, and the sentencing judge believes no minimum parole period would satisfy the purposes and principles of sentencing, they may impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. As of 2022, Brenton Tarrant, perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings, is the only person sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under this provision. The provision for life without parole was not repealed with the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Act 2022.

History

Legislative passage

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act was first introduced into the New Zealand House of Representatives on 18 February 2009. The Bill passed its first reading by a margin of 64 to 58 votes. While it was supported by the ruling National Party and its ACT and United Future coalition partners, it was opposed by the opposition Labour, Green, and Jim Anderton's Progressive Party as well as the Fifth National Government's support partner the Māori Party. The Bill's supporters argued that a three strikes law was needed due to insufficient sentencing and parole laws while opponents argued that the Bill would not reduce crime but contribute to higher incarceration and recidivism rates. [16]

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill was referred to the Law and Order select committee on 18 February 2009. The committee received a total of 1,075 submissions on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill; with 32 opposing the Bill, 729 supporting it, and 308 supporting it in principle. Between May and June 2009, the committee also heard 57 submissions in Auckland and Wellington. The Law and Order select committee reported back to the House on 26 March 2010, recommending the Bill to proceed with modifications. [17] The largest modification was changing the third strike penalty from life imprisonment with 25 years non-parole to the maximum sentence without parole, after the Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson found the original penalty breached the cruel and unusual punishment provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [18]

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill passed its second reading on 4 May 2010 by a margin of 63 to 59. A majority of the New Zealand House of Representatives voted to accept the amendments recommended by the Law and Order select committee and to pass the Bill through its second reading. While National and ACT supported the Bill, it was opposed by the Labour, Green, Māori, Progressive, and United Future parties. The Bill's supporters including its sponsor Minister of Corrections Judith Collins, fellow National MP Melissa Lee and ACT leader Rodney Hide argued that a three-stage sentencing regime would increasing public safety while providing a warning to offenders to amend their ways. Opponents of the Bill including Labour MPs Lianne Dalziel, Parekura Horomia, Chris Hipkins, Green MP David Clendon, and Māori Party MP Hone Harawira argued that it was punitive, would boost incarceration rates, and discouraged the rehabilitation of prisoners. [19]

On 25 May 2010, the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill passed its third and final reading by a margin of 63 to 58 votes. While National and ACT supported the Bill, it was opposed by the Labour, Green, Māori, Progressive, and United Future parties. During the final reading, Collins reiterated the Government's commitment to law and order and public security while reiterating that the three strikes sentencing regime would not apply to offenses committed by juveniles under the age of 18 years but would only apply to 40 specific serious offences. [20] [3] The Bill received royal assent and became law on 31 May 2010. [1]

Effectiveness

Since its passage, the so-called "three-strikes law" has been controversial in New Zealand society. Critics have criticized the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act for its alleged punitive approach to justice and for disproportionately affecting the Māori community. [6] By contrast, it has been supported by conservative advocacy groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Family First New Zealand. [5] [21]

According to the Ministry of Justice, there is little evidence that three strikes legislation reduced serious offending; it restricted the judiciary’s ability to consider the individual circumstances and context of the offending; it impacted more adversely on Maori who are already overrepresented in the prison system and in subsequent cases, the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court found sentences imposed under the regime contravened the Bill of Rights Act. [11] Despite its ineffectiveness, the National Party said it will reinstate the legislation when it becomes the Government. Referring to the anomalous sentencing of Wiremu Allen described below, National’s Justice spokesperson, Paul Goldsmith, said: “It is unimaginable that offenders such as Wiremu Allen, who was convicted of a third strike offence which entailed breaking into a house, demanding money from the victim and then shooting him, would not receive the maximum mandatory sentence today. [22]

Anomalous results

In December 2016, a mentally ill man, Daniel Fitzgerald, was sentenced to seven years in prison after he approached a woman he didn't know and kissed her on the cheek in the street in Wellington. He already had two strikes for similar offending in 2012 and 2015. Under the three strikes law, the judge had to impose the maximum prison sentence of seven years for the kiss, designated as indecent assault. [23] Fitzgerald served four years. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the sentence of seven years under the three strikes law was so grossly disproportionate that it breached his human rights. Without the three strikes law, the sentence would have been six months. Fitzgerald was awarded $450,000 in compensation by the government for the four years he spent in prison. [24]

In July 2020, Wiremu Allen incurred his “third strike” after he was involved in an accidental shooting in the Hutt Valley. Allen is a member of the King Cobra gang. He and a younger man had forced their way into a Stokes Valley flat in the early hours of June 15, 2019, trying to collect a debt. Both men had pistols and the victim was shot in the knee when the younger man's pistol discharged, which the Crown accepted was accidental. Although he didn't shoot the victim, Allen pleaded guilty to wounding with reckless disregard. Because it was his third strike, the judge had to sentence him to seven years’ in prison, the maximum for this crime. At sentencing, Justice Karen Clark said Allen would have received only two years and one month in prison if not subject to the third strikes regime. His lawyer, Chris Nicholls, said that without the punitive three strikes restrictions, after the time he had already spent in custody on remand, Allen would have been released in four weeks and sent to an intensive treatment and rehabilitation programme. [25]

Repeal efforts

Following the formation of the Labour coalition government after the 2017 general election, Labour's Justice Minister Andrew Little announced that it would be scrapping the three-strikes law. Little argued that the law was doing little to facilitate rehabilitation of violent offenders and was contributing to New Zealand's growing prison population. Little's announcement was criticised by ACT Party leader David Seymour. [26] [27]

On 30 May 2018, Justice Minister Little announced that the Labour coalition government would be taking steps to repeal the "three-strikes law" in early June. [28] In response, the Sensible Sentencing Trust's founder Garth McVicar commissioned a poll of 965 adults which claimed that 68 percent of New Zealanders approved of the law and 20 percent did not; including 63 percent of Labour supporters and 48 percent of Green supporters. [29] On 11 June 2018, Andrew Little announced that the Government would be abandoning its efforts to repeal the "three-strikes law" due to opposition from its coalition partner, the populist conservative New Zealand First. [30] [31] [32]

In mid–November 2021, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi announced that the Labour-majority government would be introducing the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill to repeal the majority of Sentencing and Parole Reform Act. Faafoi described the "three-strikes law" as "archaic, unfair, and ineffective" and claimed it had led to "absurd and perverse" outcomes. While the proposed repeal legislation was supported by the Labour and Green parties, the opposition National and ACT parties defended the "three strikes law." National's justice spokesperson Simon Bridges and ACT's justice spokeswoman Nicole McKee claimed that repealing the "three strikes law" would "re-victimise" victims and encourage gangs and violent crime offenders. [33] [34]

On 9 August 2022, the Labour Government's Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill passed its third reading in Parliament, becoming law. The bill was supported by the Labour, Green, and Māori parties but was opposed by National and ACT. Justice Minister Kiri Allan welcomed the repeal of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, describing it as "anomaly in the New Zealand justice system" and a "knee-jerk reaction" to crime by the previous Fifth National Government. Similarly, Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere welcomed the repeal of the "three strikes" legislation, arguing that it was "punitive rather than restorative justice and rehabilitation." By contrast, the National and ACT parties' justice spokespersons Paul Goldsmith and Nicole McKee opposed the repeal, stating that the Government was ignoring rising crime rates and vowed to reinstate the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act if re-elected into Government at the next general election. [9] [35]

Statistics

YearFirst warningFinal warningThird strike
2010160––
20119111–
20121,31012–
20131,33316–
20141,27532–
20151,29152–
20161,424561
20171,506831
20181,5191015
20191,2991086
20201,1841007

[4]

Polling

A 2018 Poll found that 68% supported the Three Strikes law. It also found that with party supporters, National supporters support the law with 78%, New Zealand First supporters at 66%, Labour party supporters at 63%, Green party supporters at 48% [36]

Related Research Articles

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

The Department of Corrections is the public service department of New Zealand charged with managing the New Zealand corrections system. This includes the operations of the 18 prisons in New Zealand and services run by Probation. Corrections' role and functions were defined and clarified with the passing of the Corrections Act 2004. In early 2006, Corrections officially adopted the Māori name Ara Poutama Aotearoa.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

In Canada and England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Dangerousness in law is a legal establishment of the risk that a person poses to cause harm. Other countries, including Denmark, Norway, and parts of the United States have similar provisions of law.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

Preventive detention is an imprisonment that is putatively justified for non-punitive purposes, most often to prevent further criminal acts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in New Zealand</span>

New Zealand lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights are some of the most extensive in the world. The protection of LGBT rights is advanced, relative to other countries in Oceania, and among the most liberal in the world, with the country being the first in the region to legalise same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oranga Tamariki Act 1989</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 or Children's and Young People's Well-being Act 1989 is an Act of the New Zealand Parliament that was passed in 1989. The Act's main purpose is to "promote the well-being of children, young persons, and their families and family groups." In June 2017, the New Zealand Parliament passed amendment legislation renaming the bill the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in New Zealand</span> Use of cannabis in New Zealand

The use of cannabis in New Zealand is regulated by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, which makes unauthorised possession of any amount of cannabis a crime. Cannabis is the fourth-most widely used recreational drug in New Zealand, after caffeine, alcohol and tobacco, and the most widely used illicit drug. In 2001 a household survey revealed that 13.4% of New Zealanders aged 15–64 used cannabis. This ranked as the ninth-highest cannabis consumption level in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act 1961</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Crimes Act 1961 is an act of New Zealand Parliament that forms a leading part of the criminal law in New Zealand. It repeals the Crimes Act 1908, itself a successor of the Criminal Code Act 1893. Most crimes in New Zealand are created by the Crimes Act, but some are created elsewhere. All common law offences are abolished by section 9, as are all offences against acts of the British Parliaments, but section 20 saves the old common law defences where they are not specifically altered.

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life.

David Garrett is a lawyer and former member of the New Zealand House of Representatives. He entered parliament at the 2008 general election as a list MP for ACT New Zealand, having been ranked fifth on that party's list. He was ACT's spokesman on law and order until he resigned from the party on 17 September 2010. On 23 September 2010, he resigned from Parliament, following revelations that he had fraudulently obtained a passport in the name of a deceased infant in 1984.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sensible Sentencing Trust</span> New Zealand political advocacy group

The Sensible Sentencing Trust was a political advocacy group based in Napier, New Zealand. The Trust's stated goal is "to educate both the public and victims of serious violent and/or sexual crime and homicide" It focuses on advocating for the rights of victims and tougher penalties against offenders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crime in New Zealand</span> Overview of crime in New Zealand

Crime in New Zealand encompasses criminal law, crime statistics, the nature and characteristics of crime, sentencing, punishment, and public perceptions of crime. New Zealand criminal law has its origins in English criminal law, which was codified into statute by the New Zealand parliament in 1893. Although New Zealand remains a common law jurisdiction, all criminal offences and their penalties are codified in New Zealand statutes.

Life imprisonment has been the most severe criminal sentence in New Zealand since the death penalty was abolished in 1989, having not been used since 1957.

The youth justice system in New Zealand consists of organisations and processes that deal with offending by children aged 10–13 years and young people aged 14–16 years. These differ from general criminal processes, and are governed by different principles.

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have changed numerous times since the first election in New Zealand in 1853, with prisoners experiencing varying degrees of enfranchisement. The only time that all prisoners have been allowed to vote in elections in New Zealand was from 1975 to 1977. In 2010 the Electoral Act 1993 was amended to disqualify all prisoners from voting. In 2020 this law was amended so that only persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more are disenfranchised.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill (New Zealand)</span>

The New Zealand Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill was a Government bill introduced to the NZ Parliament on 26 March 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicole McKee</span> New Zealand politician

Nicole Raima McKee is a New Zealand politician. She has been a Member of Parliament for ACT New Zealand since the 2020 general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Act 2022</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Act 2022 is an omnibus Act of Parliament passed by the New Zealand Parliament that repeals the elements of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, which constitute the so-called three-strikes law. The bill passed its third reading on 9 August 2022 with the support of the governing Labour Party, the allied Green Party, the Māori Party but was opposed by the opposition National and ACT parties. The following year the Sixth National Government took power and has pledged to reinstate the three strikes law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Sentencing Parole and Reform Bill". New Zealand Parliament . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  2. ↑ "Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010: Purpose". New Zealand Legislation. Parliamentary Counsel Office . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 "Controversial 'three strikes' bill passes". The New Zealand Herald . New Zealand Press Association. 25 May 2010. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Three strikes statistics". Ministry of Justice . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  5. 1 2 "Three Strikes". Sensible Sentencing Trust . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  6. 1 2 Rumbles, W. (2011). "'Three Strikes' sentencing: Another blow for Māori". Waikato Journal of Law. 19 (2): 108–116. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  7. ↑ "Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010". New Zealand Legislation. Parliamentary Counsel Office. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  8. ↑ "Three strikes law to be repealed, opposition parties furious". NZ Herald. 11 November 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2022.
  9. 1 2 Huang, Christina (9 August 2022). "Parliament votes to scrap three strikes law". 1 News . TVNZ. Archived from the original on 10 August 2022. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
  10. ↑ Three Strikes for New Zealand? Repeat Offenders and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill 2009, Auckland University Law Review
  11. 1 2 "Repeal of the three strikes law". www.justice.govt.nz. New Zealand Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 25 September 2022. CC-BY icon.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  12. 1 2 3 "Qualifying offences in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010". New Zealand Parliament . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  13. ↑ R v Allen, 2018NZDC14972 (27 July 2018).
  14. ↑ Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, Section 86E
  15. ↑ Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, Section 86F and 86G
  16. ↑ "Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Compliance, First Reading". New Zealand Parliament. 18 February 2009. Archived from the original on 28 December 2022. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
  17. ↑ "Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill: As reported from the Law and Order committee". New Zealand Parliament . 26 March 2010. Archived from the original on 28 December 2022. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
  18. ↑ "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill" (PDF). Ministry of Justice. 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 August 2022. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
  19. ↑ "Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Second Reading". New Zealand Parliament. 4 May 2010. Archived from the original on 28 December 2022. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
  20. ↑ "Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading". New Zealand Parliament. 25 May 2010. Archived from the original on 9 July 2022. Retrieved 28 December 2022.
  21. ↑ "Three Strikes Law". Family First New Zealand. 25 May 2010. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  22. ↑ Three Strikes Repeal Makes New Zealand Less Safe, National party, 9 August 2022.
  23. ↑ Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald granted leniency for kissing stranger despite three strikes law, NZ Herald, 10 May 2018
  24. ↑ New Zealand man jailed for seven years under discredited ‘three strikes’ law awarded $450,000, The Guardian, 29 September
  25. ↑ Third-striker gets maximum for role in shooting victim in knee, Stuff, 23 July 2020
  26. ↑ Braae, Alex; Cook, Miranda (1 November 2017). "Three strikes and it's out: Labour scrapping controversial law". Newstalk ZB . Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  27. ↑ "Three strikes law to be scrapped – Little". Radio New Zealand. 1 November 2017. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  28. ↑ "Beginning of the end for three strikes law". Stuff.co.nz. 30 May 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  29. ↑ Akoorie, Natalie (2 June 2018). "Three strikes law supported by 68 per cent of Kiwis, survey finds". The New Zealand Herald . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  30. ↑ "NZ First forces Labour to ditch three strikes law repeal". Newstalk ZB. 11 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  31. ↑ Young, Audrey (11 June 2018). "Sensible Sentencing Trust thanks NZ First for halting plans to repeal of Three Strikes law". The New Zealand Herald . Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  32. ↑ "Three strikes law to stay as Labour say NZ First unlikely to support repealing it – 'This is about making good decisions, not fast decisions'". 1 News. 11 June 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  33. ↑ Weekes, John (11 November 2021). "Three strikes law to be repealed, opposition parties furious". The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 13 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
  34. ↑ "Three strikes law - you're out: Justice Minister to repeal". Radio New Zealand . 11 November 2021. Archived from the original on 13 November 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2021.
  35. ↑ Neilson, Michael (9 August 2022). "Three strikes law gone: Labour fulfils 2017 campaign promise, Nats and Act rail against move". The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 9 August 2022. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
  36. ↑ "Career crims on 3 strikes average 63 convictions". The New Zealand Herald . Archived from the original on 6 May 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.