Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Matthew - yes there is. The following offences are triable summarily:
1. those that say they are.
2. those that say they are triable indictably, but which are listed in schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act.
Of the 36 offences covered as strike offences, the following are triable indictably (numbers are sections of the Crimes Act):
131(1) Sexual connection with dependent family member
131(2) Attempted sexual connection with dependent family member
134(1) Sexual connection with young person under 16
134(2) Attempted sexual connection with young person under 16
134(3) Indecent act on young person under 16
135 Indecent assault
138(1) Exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment
138(2) Attempted exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment
198A(2) Using a firearm to resist lawful arrest or detention
198B Commission of crime with a firearm
234 RobberyIt is not based solely on the maximum sentence. Robbery has a maximum of 10 years, but can be proceeded against summarily. Wounding with intent to injure, and aggravated injury - both with 7 year maximums - must be tried indictably.
-
I don't understand it.
Certainly. Offences can be proceeded against in two different ways in New Zealand - indictably, and summarily. The indictable jurisdiction is for more serious crimes. The most serious crimes have to be heard indictably. Minor offences are all heard summarily. A bunch of offences in the middle can be done either way (either party can elect to place these offences in the indictable jurisdiction).
The summary jurisdiction has fewer safeguards than the indictable jurisdiction. It still provides a fair process, but for example, there aren't preliminary hearings, you can't challenge the admissibility of evidence before trial, and there are no juries. As a trade-off, a judge's powers in the summary jurisdiction are not as extensive - the maximum sentence that may be imposed in the summary jurisdiction is 5 years imprisonment - even if the maximum sentence for the offence is 7 years or higher.
When a offender is proceeded against in the indictable jurisdiction, everyone takes it more seriously. The actual sentences imposed are usually higher (even for identical offences), and the process has even more formality.
Given the consequences of strike offending, my suggestion is that all strike offences should be run in the indictable jurisdiction. Or perhaps that if someone is convicted of a strike offence that the police have decided to lay summarily, that that is in indication that even the police don't think it is particularly serious, and it therefore shouldn't count as one of the serious crimes for which strike consequences apply.
-
It's already under fire from the judiciary
If only the judge had read the bill, or the changes, he'd know his concerns were misplaced. Burglary is not a strike offence.
-
Not burglaries, but aggravated burglaries.
-
So, is the shift from "life with a non-parole period of 25 years" to "maximum sentence with no parole" sufficient to overcome the A-G's BORA concerns about disproportionate punishment?
A life sentence with no possibility of parole for a drink-driving causing death 30 years after a conviction for a drunken groping that resulted in no jail time, and 18 months for being a party to an aggravated burglary for driving someone to and from the scene of a burglary they conducted on an empty office while carrying a crowbar?
Yeah ... that's not disproportionate at all.
-
Those two groups wanted to include smacking? Why? I thought the SST didn't want smacking to even be an offence. Why would they want it to be a strike offence? For PR purposes?
For incompetence purposes.
They didn't know what they were doing. The SST's draft didn't even include attempted murder!
-
again - that's because people who aren't in prison are being affected (by being sent to prison).
Saying that this is about corrections policy is like saying a policy to provide completely free healthcare for everyone under 18 is a policy about senior citizens, because healthier children will live longer, and there will be more senior citizens.
The effect of this policy on the corrections portfolio is entirely tangential.
-
It's not about people in prison. It's about people in court. People in prison are completely unaffected.
-
So the Associate Minister of Corrections strongly opposes the Corrections policy of the government.
Although this is now being fronted by the minister of corrections, that is most likely because the minister of justice - who has responsibility for this bill - privately disagrees with it. This is a justice policy, not a corrections policy.
-
Only a few hundred more - but it looks like you're being all tough with teh crime. That's what matters.
Umm, it's not just how it looks, they really are getting tough.