Go Judge Wade
The Herald reports:
Manukau District Court Judge Roy Wade will add an extra year to the starting point for prison sentences for criminals who commit aggravated robberies on small business owners.
From Monday, that will mean five years in jail, instead of the four-year guideline set by the Court of Appeal. …
“Anyone who holds up a retail shop in South Auckland, whether it be a dairy, a liquor store or any other kind of retail premises, is going to go to prison for a very long time,” the judge said.
“That will be the case whether they are young or old, and regardless of their personal circumstances. There will rarely be any question of home detention or community detention, and the only issue will be the length of the sentence.
And Judge Wade gets support from an unlikely source:
Experienced defence lawyer Lorraine Smith, who spends much of her time in the Manukau court, supported Judge Wade’s decision.
“When you consider the maximum penalty for aggravated robbery is 14 years, four years is no deterrent whatsoever,” said Mrs Smith.
“People have no fear. If sentences were higher, they might well think twice. But what’s four years when that time is likely to be sitting in the sun with their mates?”
And when you could get parole after one third of your sentence, due to Phil Goff’s 2001 law change (which they retreated from just before the election)
Counties Manukau district commander Superintendent Mike Bush acknowledged the area had the worst statistics for violent crime in the country.
But police were focused on organised crime, drugs, alcohol and youth, and had short- and long-term plans to tackle the problems.
A stronger presence on the street, made possible by the appointment of more officers under the Government’s plan for an extra 300 police, was already making a difference, said Mr Bush.
Last week, he said, the suburb of Otahuhu went 24 hours without a house burglary being reported, which was “unheard of”.
That just may be both the saddest and the funniest thing I have read today. Not that there were no burglaries, but that a burglary free day had never occurred previously.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:12 am
Maybe I’m missing something here….. The Court of Appeal recommend 4 years but Judge Wade is going to make it 5 years, however the maximum is 14 years.
Well why the hell not make the sentences 14 years??
That might actually make a few people think before they do the crime.
As Smith says, 4 years is nothing when they will probably sit in the sun with their mates, so what’s 5 years going to do???
November 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
There is a difference between starting point and maximum sentence.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
If the offender is eligible for parole that extra year will really be about 4 months. Some deterrent!!
November 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
“Anyone who holds up a retail shop in South Auckland… is going to go to prison for a very long time,”
This statement is incredibly racist*. Judge Wade is not fit to hold office and should be officially labelled a racist by Auckland students.
*Mt Albert by-election logic applies
November 21st, 2009 at 10:04 am
When a country invades another country, the invaded country has the right to attack the invader.
Yet if a New Zealander invades the home of another New Zealander, the invaded person does not have the right to attack the invader.
What signal does that send to the burglars of South Auckland?
November 21st, 2009 at 10:13 am
DPF….. So make the starting point 8 years.
J Mex…. It’s not racist at all, Judge Wade works in Manukau which is of course South Auckland, he doesn’t see the criminals from the North Shore. Although in saying that, a lot of the scum that commit offences on the Shore and other places actually come from South Akl.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am
It always pays to read the fineprint, Michaels…
November 21st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Pissing into the wind at best.
The appeals court will automatically reduce those sentences by three years instead of their usual two.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:15 am
Hmmm, a judge says he will toughen up on sentencing and still no one seems to be happy. I think there are some people who will never be satisfied.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Its a start for sure, but I very much doubt that this judge will act harsher than he is mentioning with sentences….. To many of these judges have their balls in their wives handbags, they need to harden up….
Criminals in this country have no fear of punishment….. Not that we all have not thought that before….
November 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
There is more of a problem with them not thinking they will get caught. A year or two won’t make any difference if they think they can get away with it.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Make the starting point death. There will be no second offenders.
NZ will leap to the top of the OECD table for lack of criminal behaviour.
Millions of overseas investors sick of being robbed and mugged in their own countries will be entering a bidding war to resettle here.
As the money flows in we will reach the top of the worlds tables for quality of life.
No Mowree will ever have to work again as the new settlers will subsidise their lifestyle (just as they should of course as Mowree are indiginous).
The rest of us who are not Mowree will still live OK, scrabbling for the crumbs falling through the cracks of the Mowree/Rich new settlers table.
Almost sounds like paradise really!
November 21st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Let me see if I understand. The Court of Appeal says (rightly or wrongly) that the starting point for sentences should be four years.
But Judge Wade has decided that crims who rob South Aucklanders are committing a worse crime than crims who rob people in West Auckland, or Tokoroa or Queenstown.
He has also deemed that crims who rob small businesses are worse than crims who rob large businesses. So you get a five year sentence for robbing the local fish and chip shop, but only four years if you rob Burger King.
Crims who come up before him will get an extra year’s jail compared to crims who get lucky and appear before a different judge.
Anyone else see that there’s something wrong here?
It seems to me that regardless of how many years jail such crims should get, that sentences should be consistent. AND, that any differential based on who is robbed and where should be decided by Parliament, not by individual judges.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“Anyone else see that there’s something wrong here? ”
Indeed, that the majority of our judges are useless soft wankers.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:48 pm
There is nothing unique about this Judge’s attitude except that he has shown the integrity and strength of purpose to defy the hierarchy and do what he judges to be right. This used to be the practice in the days of the Magistry and indeed it was quite common for criminal behavior to be punished diversely between jurisdictions. The Judges at all levels tended to be returned officers from the 2nd world war with the ability to come to grips with a problem, and make snap judgments without the procrastination at all levels that personifies the decline of the system that started as they died off. In my view the system of grey uniformity should be ditched, and the individual Judges should be free to impose penalties within the limits set by Parliament, then we would see the Crime rate reduce.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
He appears to be the typical attention seeking ‘Activist Judge’.
If the Court of Appeal says 4 years is the starting point and Wade is starting at 5 years this will presumably lead to a larger number of appeals to the Court of Appeal for sentence reduction which makes Wade’s childish behaviour just silly.
There needs to be consistency in sentences.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
November 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Could always just reforming our stupid drug laws and cut crime by a 1/3 but that would involve thought, something our leaders lack
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
J Mex (50) Vote: 14 3 Says:
November 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
“Anyone who holds up a retail shop in South Auckland… is going to go to prison for a very long time,”
Yeah right, pull the other one Judge. If you lot applied the full-force of the law with which you are enpowered to do, society wouldn’t have to face the day to day anguish of your collective incompetence. Example:following the ‘stab-a-tagger’, years of daily and constant tagging stopped overnight in that area. Says everything to the lawmakers and those that dispense it, how such sanctions can indeed, stop crime in its tracks.
The stupidity of this dumb-arse judge’s comments is breathtaking. The equally dumb-bros however, will take his comments literally and start pulling jobs in other suburbs were they think they’ll be up for less jail time, when collared.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
But Judge Wade has decided that crims who rob South Aucklanders are committing a worse crime than crims who rob people in West Auckland, or Tokoroa or Queenstown.
Regional variances have been recognised as legitimate exercises of discretion. Whether this will be is a matter for the appeal courts but it is possible. A Judge is entitled to take into account a number of factors including the prevalence of that crime in a community – so if South Auckland has a rash of ag robs then, in theory, stronger sentences could be delivered. I am surprised it was even necessary to refer to Home and Community detention seldom being an option as ag rob tends to be automatic prison even for a first offender.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
And as an aside no doubt the increased pressure on the Court system of more arrests by more police will be the fault of defence lawyers…