Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben - see my comment above - aggravated assault has been removed from the list of specified offences.
-
So Graeme, with the new list of included offences, what's the lowest possible "usual" sentence for those? You mentioned three years in your original entry, does this still hold under the new offences list?
No it does not.
All the three year offences and five year offences which were listed in it have been removed. The least serious offences included are offences with maximum terms of 7 years (indecent assault, underage sex, sexual conduct with a family member, wounding with intent to injure etc.).
That would still be my major gripe - two relatively serious offences, then you commit a more minor offence with maximum sentence of three years and you're off for 25?
To be honest, it's probably going to have to be more than two relatively serious offences. Your first relatively serious offence is highly likely to result in less prison time that the five years required to count as a strike. Before one gets a first strike they'll almost certainly have been in trouble and probably have been in prison (unless the first is very serious).
-
Rammed through, George?
I realise it was debated yesterday instead of waiting until Tuesday, but it was sent to select committee.
-
I find this kind of bizarre. Surely people guilty of these are more in need of intensive psychiatric treatment than 25 years in prison? Especially given that all the various permutations of statutory rape are included separately.
They'll only get the 25 years if they have two separate convictions for other offences in the list each of which was though serious enough to result in a five year prison term.
-
Except that I assume the power of a judge to order a non-custodial sentence for the third offence would be removed by the Bill - is this correct?
For the third strike, yes. For the third offence, probably not.
The power of a judge to order a non-custodial sentence on an offender convicted of a specfified offence who has already received two separate post-enactment prison terms of at least five years (for specified offences) has been removed.
In which case possibly more people thrown in prison. Admittedly, not many more, but hey, I'm a pedant.
Possibly, but I suspect you'll find the power is more imagined than real. Anyone in this boat is going to get a prison sentence under the present law.
-
Bruce Emery's manslaughter of Pihema Cameron would have been serious enough to count as a strike.
Edit function needed :-)
Bruce Emery's manslaughter of Pihema Cameron would NOT have been serious enough to count as a strike.
-
And what else has changed?
2. This isn't just the SST's/ACT's three strikes law with a few changes, it's really National's two strikes sentencing law with additional consequences for a third strike added in.
It is worth noting that the Attorney-General's report indicates only that the aspects of the bill coming from the SST's proposal were inconsistent witht the Bill of Rights. The other bits were fine (from a BORA perspective).
3. Only sentences of 5+ years imprisonment count as first or second strikes. An aggravated robbery that gets you four years imprisonment will be treated no differently from now. Bruce Emery's manslaughter of Pihema Cameron would have been serious enough to count as a strike.
4. Gone is the requirement for the maximum applicable sentence to be imposed on the second strike. Rather, on the second strike, if the sentence exceeds five years, there will be no eligibility for parole. If it doesn't exceed five years, it doesn't count as a strike.
-
Meaning more people in prison, surely?
Elementary logic suggests, yes.
Yes. More people in prison, but not more people thrown in prison.
If this - an increased prison muster in 15 years time, was what was being complained about, then the complaint is reasonable. I had understood "throwing more people in prison" to mean sending people there who wouldn't otherwise be.
Sending someone to prison for six months = 1 person thrown in prison.
Sending someone to prison for life without parole = 1 person thrown in prison... -
Hopefully I can get back to y'all later.
The bill is quite a bit less draconian than the drafts I'd been working from. Still draconian, and still worth of a report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but without a number of the issues I raised.
So what has changed?
1. The list of specified offences has grown. Some have gone, but more have been added.
Gone:
* injuring by unlawful act (thank goodness)
* injuring with intent to injure
* aggravated assault
* assault with intent to injure
* assault on a child or by a male on a female
* disabling
* cruelty to a child
* poisoning with intent
* infecting with disease
* providing explosives to commit a crimeThese offences formed the lower end of the SST's list. Missing too is the proposed inclusion of dealing with class A drugs.
Added:
* attempted murder
* attempted sexual violation, and assault with intent to commit sexual violation
* sexual connection with consent induced by threat
* incest
* sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years
* attempted sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years
* sexual connection with child
* attempted sexual connection with child
* indecent act on child
* sexual connection with young person
* attempted sexual connection with young person
* indecent act on young person
* indecent assault
* exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment
* attempted exploitative sexual connection with person with significant impairment
* compelling indecent act with animal
* abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection):
kidnapping
* aggravated burglary
* robbery
* aggravated robbery
* causing grievous bodily harm with intent to rob or assault with intent to rob in specified circumstances
* assault with intent to robAlso back, after being gone in the Parliamentary draft are:
* discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to do grievous bodily harm; and
* discharging firearm or doing dangerous act with intent to injure. -
Do we really need to be throwing more people in prison?
Not my area of expertise. However, I'd note that as drafted this bill it is difficult to see how this law would result in there being more people being thrown in prison. Rather, it will result in some people who would already have been thrown in prison, being thrown there for longer.