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 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.

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

Indeed, that the majority of our judges are useless soft wankers.

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.

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!

Criminals in this country have no fear of punishment….. Not that we all have not thought that before….

The appeals court will automatically reduce those sentences by three years instead of their usual two.

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.

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?

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