Kiwiblog

A guest post by former MP David Garrett on the Three Strikes law:

This week, figures on convictions since the “three strikes” legislation came into force were released. 132 offenders were convicted of 209 “strike” offences. 151 of the convictions were for “pure violence” offences –including aggravated robbery (59), robbery(29), wounding with intent (33) and injuring with intent (20). There were also 58 convictions for indecent assault.

As some commentators at the time have noted – with some justification – indecent assault can cover a fairly broad continuum from the “drunken grope” to near rape. In my view the relative seriousness of various forms of indecent assault is a red herring – or at least a separate debate. None of the other “strike” convictions thus far can be described as “minor offences”, although others will no doubt argue otherwise.

These early results are entirely to be expected. At the time the Bill was being debated, there was all manner of ill informed – and downright dishonest – claims that “three strikes” would see people locked up for minor offences including theft. It seemed not to matter how often it was explained that the Bill was carefully drafted to target only repeat violent offenders – the misinformation campaign went on.

All of the convictions since June 2010 were first strikes, meaning the offenders who were actually sent to prison are still eligible for parole as before. The only thing that changed was those offenders now have a first warning on their file – which will have real consequences when they appear again for a violent offence – and most of them will.

A registrar of my acquaintance runs a District Court in a provinical area. She has paid particular attention to the “strike” offenders appearing for sentence in that court. She tells me that almost without exception, they are familiar faces, having appeared before – some on many occasions – often for violent offending.

She also tells me that most of those sentenced appear to pay little attention to the warning, although if their lawyers are doing their jobs, the offenders will have been told that as a result of it, a further conviction for a strike offence will have a significantly different outcome. Next time, any custodial sentence will have to be served without parole, and even in our ridiculously liberal justice system, a second conviction for a strike offence will almost certainly result in a prison sentence.

The debate about whether three strikes “works” will continue regardless of the results. I have no doubt that even if in three years time violent crime has dropped significantly, the liberal left will refuse to believe that a more punitive approach has anything to do with it. Sadly the left are like that.

The late Dr Dennis Dutton told me a few years ago of his great amusement at the disquiet in American liberal academia when homicides in New York City plummeted in the early 1990′s. Those in the ivory towers embarked upon a feverish search for “the real reason” homicide had declined from about 2500 in 1990 to about 450 per year at the end of the decade. They simply could not accept that something as “simplisitic” as more police on the street with a different attitude, and sentence enhancement measures similar to a “three strikes” approach could have been the reason.

New Yorker’s didn’t care what the reason was, they were just happy to be able to take their kids to Times Square on a Sunday afternoon without being hassled by drug dealers or robbed. Most New Zealanders will be similarly happy that 132 violent offenders now have their first strike, and that within a few years a good proportion of them will be locked up for a long time.

Like David, I’m looking forward to the legislation leading to some repeat violent offenders getting locked up for a long time, so they can’t continue to offend.

The Herald reports:

Discredited MP David Garrett will reportedly resign his seat in Parliament tomorrow, after last week quitting the Act Party over revelations he acquired a passport in 1984 using a dead child’s identity.

Mr Garrett – a list MP – in recent days has indicated that he won’t stay on as an independent MP but is yet to formally announce his decision.

However Radio New Zealand, which Mr Garrett used to announce his resignation from ACT, is reporting that he will now step down altogether.

I’ve been saying all along that I was sure David would resign from Parliament, once he quit ACT.

The HoS reports:

Disgraced MP David Garrett is ready to quit Parliament for the good of the Act Party.

Garrett said last night it was “very much more likely” he would stand down from Parliament before the next election. “I am in a very dark place right now,” he said.

To be fair to Garrett, he has done the right thing in quitting ACT – and so quickly. Unlike others who went to court to fight for their right to remain, he has put the interests of his party ahead of himself. I also give kudos for his resignation statement which said:

I can do nothing to change the past. For any number of reasons, I wish I had not done such a stupid and dreadfully hurtful thing in 1984. When my wrongdoing was revealed, the worst aspect of it all for me was reading the letters written by the mother and sister of the dead boy whose identity I used to obtain the passport.

As a result of my own actions, my political career is almost certainly over, but that is not my greatest concern. The worst aspect of all of this for me is that those who have seen fit to do so have opened the wounds of the boy’s mother and sister all over again. As the person who inflicted those wounds in the first place – however unwittingly – I must take ultimate responsibility for that.

I wrote letters of apology at the time – letters I realised were woefully inadequate, but there was nothing else I could do. I wish to reiterate my profound regret for the distress and hurt my thoughtless actions inflicted on two women, one of whom is elderly. I am simply unable to imagine how it must have felt at the time they first learned of what I had done, and I am equally unable to imagine what they must feel now.

I still well recall my horror when I read the letters from the boy’s relatives, one of them in the handwriting of a clearly elderly lady. I do not think I have ever felt worse.

There is certainly no excuse for what I did, and I make none.

His statement reeks of sincerity.

I have little doubt Garrett will resign from Parliament, and not try to stay on as an Independent MP. And this was before the extra complication the HoS reports on:

Their willingness to put the party’s interests ahead of their own came as a Howick woman, who met Garrett on an internet dating site, revealed he tried to woo her with a McDonald’s dinner and a private viewing of the film Casablanca.

A McDonald’s dinner? No wonder it didn’t work out!

The Herald reports:

The Act Party has been “thoroughly” discredited and its ministerial positions should be removed, Labour leader Phil Goff says.

Now I have been critical, both on this blog and on radio, of Rodney’s decision not to force Garrett to make his offending known before the election. It was an error of judgement, and ACT have been damaged by it.

But I’m sorry, it is just too much to have Labour get sanctimonious on this, and declare that because of this, Rodney is unfit to be a Minister.

Need I remind people of Taito Philip Field – the MP found to have committed numerous corrupt practices while a Labour Minister and MP.

Field’s offending was not 26 years before he became an MP. It was while he was an MP. Field’s offending was not incidental to him being an MP – it was corruption in the course of his MP duties. And it was corruption aided by his Ministerial colleague who rubber stamped almost every immigration application made by Field.

And what happened when allegations were made. The Labour leadership defended Field. They said he was only guilty of working too hard.

And even after the full scale of his offending was made clear by the Ingram Report, the Labour leadership still defended him. If Rodney Hide is unfit to be a Minister, then Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were equally unfit to be Ministers.

Even worse, Labour never booted Field out for his criminal offending. He only got booted out when he talked of not standing for Labour.

And the final indignity came after he was found guilty of 11 charges of bribery and corruption (and 11 of perverting or obstructing the course of justice). Labour not only refused to apologise for the huge shame Field was, but they refused to even accept he was guilty. I’m not making this up – go check the records. The only comment they would make is they “acknowledge” the verdict.

So yes Rodney made a mistake, and yes ACT is damaged. But for fucks sake the last thing we need is a lecture in ethics from the party that gave protection and defence to a corrupt MP. If Labour ever get around to actually apologising for their defence of Field, then maybe they get to be taken seriously on ethical issues.

UPDATE 1218: David Garrett has resigned as a member of ACT. He is taking two weeks leave to decide whether or not to continue as an Independent MP.

For my 2c David can not continue as an Independent MP. He is a List MP and got there on the ACT list. He may need a few days to come to this conclusion, but it is the only viable one.

Earlier: I’ve spent a couple of days thinking about this, and I have to conclude the future is bleak for ACT. Not terminal necessarily, but their brand may be too damaged to repair.

It was a critically bad decision to keep Garrett’s offending secret. While what he did was very bad (and one can only have immense sympathy for the family of the deceased infant, who are having to cope with all of this), it could have been handled, if prior to the election it was revealed. NZers do not expect MPs who have never made mistakes.

But keeping it secret, while one rails against crime and suppression orders means that ACT is seen as hypocritical. And the nature of the offence risks them being seen as a bad taste joke.

So how do they move forward?

An absolute minimum is that David Garrett must be removed as Law & Order Spokesperson. It is impossible for him to perform that role with credibility anymore.

But I don’t think that will even be enough. So long as David remains in the ACT Caucus, this will remain an issue. Some may say it is unfair (remember Trevor Mallard remained an MP despite being convicted of assault – while an MO, of another MP, and in the lobby of the debating chamber), but this is about political survival.

Also recall that there will not be inquiries into whether Garrett should have disclosed his Tongan conviction to the courts. I am sure he will face complains to the Law Society. The Tongan doctor is alleging a different set of facts to him, and more witnesses may come out about that. ACT can’t afford to have this dominate reporting on them for weeks and months to come.

If Garrett resigns, then Hilary Calvert would become an MP. She is well regarded within ACT (not a star, but a safe steady performer insiders say) and she is loyal to the leadership. It is a myth that she would be a vote for Heather.

So in my opinion ACT need to do that. However, that still leaves them some problems.

Rodney’s standing is damaged by this, and questions will be asked about why Garrett is deemed necessary to resign now, yet Rodney was happy to have him as an MP when it was secret. Rodney will need to acknowledge that this should have been made public before the election. Now to be fair to Rodney he was not the only person who knew of this.

Another issue, is where did this stuff on Garrett came from? If it did come from people with ACT, then it signifies that they have scorpions in their ranks who are happy to kill off the entire party so long as they can poison their target. As I understand it the number of scorpions is small – four or so. But they may need to be exterminated.

But even if you get past that, you have the very difficult challenge of re-establishing a brand for ACT that can attract support and allow Rodney to retain Epsom.

I would say ACT has mainly had three brands – low taxes, hard line law & order and perk busting.

Both of the latter two brands are destroyed or seriously damaged. That laaves the low tax brand. The problem there is that a minor party’s impact on tax policy is always going to be relatively small. And anything you do achieve the bigger party can get credit for,

What else can ACT build their brand on – they can go down the “Maori Party has gained too much path”. But Winston is already there, and he will always be able to push that barrow more effectively.

They can position themselves as the anti ETS party. But now 1 July has been and gone, and the world did not end, I am not sure if it will be much of an issue next election.

Maybe to some degree, one can’t draw up a path for survival at this point. But one can take a couple of steps in the right direction. See how you are doing, and then plan the next two steps. But any mis-steps are likely to be fatal.

If anyone has a copy of the original post made at Red Alert, which they edited – could you please send it to me.

UPDATE: Thanks to the many readers who sent a copy through.  What they deleted was:

By David Parker and Phil Twyford

We understand this is a serious matter but we think ACT and National have some questions to answer.

To Rt Hon John Key Prime Minister and Minister of SIS: When the Israelis stole identities of children for false passports, did the Government force the Israeli Ambassador to resign and leave the country, and if so, has the Government considered a similar response to Government MP David Garrett?

Supplementary: Has the Minister received any intelligence reports about ACT MPs or is that an oxymoron?

Supplementary: Has the Minister received any intelligence reports about Ilich Ramírez Sanchez (aka Carlos the Jackal) having escaped prison in France and being sighted in Tonga and New Zealand?

To Hon Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement that he is bringing “transparency and accountability to local government”?

Supplementary 1:  How can he expect transparency in local government when he in central government has suppressed David Garrett’s criminal record for two years and his own for even longer?

Supplementary: Will he reinstate Heather Roy who has demonstrated a strong commitment to transparency by proactively releasing documents to the media?

To Hon Maurice Williamson the Minister of Customs: Is the Minister confident the new Smartgate system is capable of picking up false passports?

Supplementary: What sort of passport would facilitate the quickest progress through Smartgate: a diplomatic passport, the new Kiwi digital passport, or a David Garrett passport, and is this just more good news for the Government?

Supplementary: What percentage of ACT politicians have convictions for drunk and disorderly behaviour in airports and would this be picked up by Smartgate?

To Hon John Boscawen, Minister of Consumer Affairs: Does misleading and deceptive conduct breach the Fair Trading Act?

Supplementary: Does he think it was misleading and deceptive conduct for Mr Garrett, in his presence, to tell journalists last week that he had no other convictions?

Supplementary: Is it now ACT party policy that conviction politicians must have criminal convictions rather than principles?

Supplementary: Will the Government be prosecuting Garth McVicar and “Sensible Sentencing Trust” under the Fair Trading Act for crimes against tautology?

That’s our first stab. We invite readers to submit their own questions below.  Especially ACT MPs or staffers who may well have more information they wish to share.

Don’t know why they deleted them. I think they’re great!

From Mike E:

MikeE_NZ is pretty happy right now that David Garrett didn’t read The Silence of the Lambs.

Hat Tip: Not PC

1. Applying for a passport in the name of a dead child is a seriously bad thing to do – even for someone in their 20s. I myself had some well known legal problems in my 20s, but was never this stupid.
2. It was 26 years ago. By itself it does not make himself ineligible to be an MP, or even a law & order spokesperson.
3. The decision by the court in 2005 to discharge without conviction was in my opinion correct, but the granting of name suppression was wrong. There should have been some consequences for the offending.
4. David Garrett was right to disclose this to the ACT Party when he sought nomination.
5. It was a incredibly bad call to not disclose it publicly prior to him entering Parliament – even more so considering his high profile on law & order issues.
6. Thinking it would not eventually come out, reflects bad political judgement on behalf of both Hide and Garrett.
7. As far as I know, a defendant is able to breach his own name suppression, and reveal his or her own court experiences. Using name suppression as a reason not to have revealed this earlier is a cop out.
8. This, along with the Tongan assault conviction, seriously undermines Garrett’s ability to continue as law and order spokesperson. I’d put Heather into that portfolio, and move Garrett into other areas where he has a strong background such as industrial relations.
9. Again, if this had been disclosed in 2008, I doubt it would have received more than a passing “Wow what a stupid thing to do when you were young”, and it would not be hurting ACT today, when they least need this.

The Herald reports:

Act’s law and order spokesman, MP David Garrett, was convicted of assault in 2002 in Tonga, he confirmed last night.

Mr Garrett, who led the party’s “three strikes” policy on tougher sentencing for serious violent offences, has not publicly disclosed his conviction.

But Act leader Rodney Hide said Mr Garrett had disclosed it to him before he joined the Act list at No 5 for the 2008 election.

It was the right thing, to disclose it to the party. The issue is whether it should have been disclosed publicly.

Mr Garrett issued a statement giving his version of events after TV3′s Campbell Live last night revealed the conviction.

Mr Garrett, who worked as a lawyer in Tonga, said he was attacked outside a bar in Nuku’alofa by Dr Mapa Puloka, head of psychiatry at the local hospital.

Campbell Live claimed the altercation was over Dr Puloka’s former wife.

Mr Garrett said his own jaw had been broken in two places after he was attacked from behind.

He had returned to Middlemore in Auckland for treatment and then laid a complaint with the Tonga police. After Dr Puloka was charged with assault, he in turn laid a complaint of assault against Mr Garrett.

Mr Garrett denied the assault and produced two witnesses, the bar’s bouncers, at the trial but was convicted and fined $10.

He had immediately lodged an appeal and has yet to be given a reason as to why it has been delayed.

Dr Puloka was fined $100.

The fact Puloka’s fine was ten times greater than Garrett’s suggests he was the aggressor.

Many MPs have minor convictions but Mr Garrett’s non-disclosure is more relevant because crime is the primary focus of his parliamentary career.

If it was any other MP, then there would be little interest in a $10 fine. conviction. But considering the strong stand David has taken on law & order, it would have been wiser to reveal the conviction (and his side of the story) early on.

But that is the only criticism I would make. I don’t think it undermines the stance David has taken on law & order issues, and his commitment to tougher sentences.

Bloody Jadis. I turn my back for a few hours and she does a post on sterilisiation of child abusers after listening to Michael Laws on Radio Live. David Garrett comments, and suddenly it is in the newspapers, on Morning Report and all over the blogosphere.

I suppose time to add my own 2c to the debate:

1. Absolutely against any compulsory sterilisation. Apart from the fact no surgeon will operate on a non consenting patient, the state should not have the power to remove someone’s fertility.
2. Not supportive of the proposal to pay child abusers to get sterilised, as it will only target poor child abusers, and may be thin end of wedge.
3. However am open to having a debate on whether one could have it as an early release incentive for people who have been convicted of child abuse and actually gone to prison.

One of the reasons we send people to prison is to protect the community. If someone is sentenced to three years jail for child abuse, then is the community better protected by having them come out at 2.5 years and unable to have more children, or at three years and likely to have more children, whom will grow up abused, and in turn probably becomes abusers themselves.

By not having a monetary incentive, it removes the potential problems of being more attractive to poor child abusers.

Also by limiting it to people in prison, and convicted of child abuse, it means you target the worse of the worse.

I’m sure there are strong arguments against such a policy also, and I am not saying I support it without question. But unless one just wants to wring your hands about the child abuse problem, it may be a more palatable option than monetary incentives which I would not support.

David Garrett has a blog I have discovered, and his latest entry is on why he is against the death penalty:

Having lived in a country where the death penalty remains on the books as a discretionary sentence for murder, I can say with some certainty that one of the results of having a capital sentence even as an option is what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” by juries unwilling to convict because they know or believe the person concerned will be executed, and they cannot cope with that on their collective conscience.

I suspect Garrett is right – more killers might be found not guilty, due to juror reluctance to return a verdict which can result in execution.

I have also come to believe that Life Without Parole (LWOP) which is available as sentence in many American States – and soon will be here – IS actually probably a worse punishment than the 20 or so seconds of terror prior to instant death by judicial hanging as was practiced here and in England.

The downsides of LWOP of course include the cost, and as Burton has demonstrated (he will never leave prison alive and he knows it), someone serving LWOP can kill again with impunity – there are guards as well as prisoners in jail – and there is nothing more the state can do.

I have different reasons for being against the death penalty. I just do not like the idea of giving the state the power to execute its own citizens – even the killers. Plus the chance of killing an innocent person.

The Herald reports:

A diluted but still hardline version of Act’s three strikes policy is now on the negotiating table with the National Government.

Act MP and three strikes architect David Garrett said Act would support any amendment that would have impact, citing a “three strikes and the max” version.

Instead of the third strike offence leading to the offender being “struck out” with a 25-year-to-life sentence, they would instead get the maximum sentence for the offence.

Mr Garrett said this would see an offender whose third strike offence was aggravated robbery serving 14 years – the maximum prescribed in the Crimes Act – rather than the four or five years such an offender would likely serve now.

I wish to point out back in March I blogged:

I would change the third strike from life (with no parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty set down for that offence

I think this achieves the aim of dealing harshly with repeat offenders, but avoiding the possibility of someone getting a life sentence for a relatively minor offence.

The three strikes and the maximum version would also allow for a “life means life” sentence if the offender’s third strike was murder, which would satisfy the call of many law-and-order hardliners.

Yep. It is worth noting that murderers can also now get sentenced to life with no parole under changes introduced since the election.

I hope National can back the law as amended. The main issue will be what crimes qualify as a strike.

Of interest to some will be whether the amended law, if supported by National, meets the iPredict contract:

This contract pays $1 if the National Party votes for the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) at its second reading. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill must include a requirement that courts impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years for the third qualifying sentence for this contract to pay $1.

It would seem not to meet the contact, based on the Herald story. The longer description is:

1. The National Party votes for the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) at its second reading.

2. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) includes a “three strikes requirement”, defined below.
For the purposes of this contract, a “three strikes requirement” means:

1. The definition of serious violent offense (or equivalent wording) in the bill includes, at a minimum, murder and attempted murder.

2. Courts are expected to be REQUIRED to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 20 years for the majority of offenders on their third serious violent offence.

As some serious violence offences have maximum penalties of less than 20 years, I think this contract will close at zero, even if National vote for the law as amended. However this is based on the NZ Herald story being accurate!

The Dom Post reports:

The firebrand MP is in hot water again after claims that he challenged a Labour MP to “take this outside” during heated exchanges in a select committee. …

ACT leader Rodney Hide said he was not aware of the complaint, but dismissed the claims. “When the Labour Party says things, my experience is they’re not true.”

Rodney has a fair point, but it is also true David has taken a fair while to shall we say adjust to the way Parliament and MPs should operate. Not having been there, I have no idea what really happened.

Prime Minister John Key says if allegations against ACT MP David Garrett are true, Parliament should take a hard line in disciplining him.

That is a good attitude for the PM. I recall a previous PM who refused to comment in any way negatively about conduct of Government MPs not from her party. You gained the impression that if Winston has opened up with a machine gun on Lampton Quay, Helen’s response would be something along the lines of “Winston’s murdering of 87 civilians and three police officers on Lampton Quay was done in his capacity as an MP, not as a Minister and hence is an internal matter for NZ First to comment on. As Prime Minister I have no responsibility for what Mr Peters does as Leader of NZ First”

UPDATE: From NZPA:

ACT leader Rodney Hide says his MP David Garrett did not threaten a Labour MP.

Labour alleged Mr Garrett suggested he and Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove “take this outside” during an argument in a closed session of Parliament’s law and order select committee.

However, Mr Hide says he said “let’s just leave that outside”, meaning “let’s get on with the work.” …

Mr Hide told NZPA he was angry and accused Labour of making up allegations, laying complaints that would fail in order to get media attention; and abusing the process by making public details of a closed session of a parliamentary committee.

He said Labour leader Phil Goff had set a bad example by putting out partial stories to grab headlines.

“If they thought they had a case against David Garrett, and the allegation is a serious one, they would have done it properly, put it to the Speaker and shut up,” he said.

“If someone had threatened another MP in a way that was a breach of privilege it would be very serious indeed, and be sent off to the privileges committee to be handled properly. You wouldn’t be running off to the media.”

If the Speaker decided there was no case to answer Labour should apologise, Mr Hide said.

Rodney makes a good point – if you know your case is strong you don’t pursue it through the media.

It is part of our constitutional conventions of parliamentary privilege that people can give evidence to select committees without fear of retribution for what they say. Therefore I regard it as a bad look to see the story:

After Bart Birch, Uaea Leavasa and Satish Prasad criticised how Auckland Central Remand Prison was run under private contractor GEO between 2000 and 2005, Mr Garrett weighed in.

“You say that you don’t want to go back to working in this environment – to the private [sector]. You’d be aware that given your submission here, you wouldn’t get offered a job anyway, would you?”

Fortunately other MPs intervened:

Other MPs were visibly disturbed by the remark and National’s Shane Ardern was quick to reassure the men that they should feel free to speak their minds. “Can I say, from my own party, you can sit here without fear or favour,” he said.

The committee’s acting chairman, Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove, added his support to Mr Ardern’s remark.

David Garrett’s comment was most unwise. You could defend it as saying he was stating the obvious, but in that case there was no need to state it. And at worst it looks like trying to warn people off criticising private prisons.

Questions at select committee should focus on the submission, the bill and related policy issues. If I made a submission arguing that (for example) Kiwibank should be sold, I would not expect to have an MP tell me that I should not expect to ever get any work from NZ Post.

The HoS reports:

A Government MP has been reprimanded for lewd conduct just weeks after the resignation of National’s Richard Worth.

Act MP David Garrett was spoken to by party leader Rodney Hide after making sexual comments to a female member of the party’s Parliamentary office.

Hide said last night he had cause to speak to Garrett after learning the fledgling MP had made “off-colour” remarks. He said he hoped the incident would not lead to the end of Garrett’s career as a member of Parliament. …

Hide said the matter could be escalated to the Parliamentary Service – which employs the staff member – if there was a formal complaint. He had met with the staff member to assure her any complaint she made would be handled properly.

Hide said Garrett was “a guy who has come from a rough, tough background”.

“I explained to him we set high standards in our Parliament across all parties.

“It is a learning experience in becoming an MP. I said it is good he can learn quickly – because he has to.”

Act president Michael Crozier said he had been unaware of the incident but expected a report to be made to the party’s board when it next met in a few weeks. “David has a lot to learn. He really hasn’t been in the Parliamentary side of politics before. You have to learn quick.”

University of Otago political scientist Bryce Edwards said Hide could not be faulted for his handling of the incident. But he said the incident was a “blow” for Act and the National Government.

Rodney sounds pretty unimpressed. As he said, you need to learn quickly what you can and can’t say when you are an MP. That’s one reason I’ll never be an MP – my sense of humour is far far too black to survive such a standard.

No Right Turn has died of shock, upon finding he agrees with ACT MP David Garrett on how it is “incomprehensible” that the police officer who shot Naitoko is not facing charges.

Garrett says:

While not charging the officer concerned with manslaughter is probably justifiable, it seems incomprehensible that the officer is not facing charges under the Arms Act for failing to properly identify his target

The Herald on Sunday editorial also touches on this today.

The Herald reports:

The Act MP who designed the proposed three strikes law says National has expanded it to include offences like bestiality in a “Machiavellian” attempt to make it look unworkable.

National has toughened the law by adding 20 crimes like bestiality, incest and acid throwing to the list of “strike offences” that could see a repeat offender sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period.

But hardline Act MP David Garrett said many of the new offences arguably did not justify a life sentence and were possibly an attempt to undermine three strikes.

“It may be a Machiavellian move by National designed to sink the three strikes provision. Many will say incest, for example, while a deeply unpleasant offence, should not be a reason to send someone to jail for 25 years.”

Good to see there is agreement on that. But I don’t think it is so much designed to undermine three strikes, as that National is focused on the second strike – what offences should mean you do not get parole if you get a second conviction of over five years.

Justice Minister Simon Power said Act had actually agreed to the expanded list of offences.

Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National’s own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.

Mr Power said when three strikes was merged into the bill, “as part of that process Act offered to adopt our list of offences, and we accepted.”

The problem faced here is that you want the second strike (no parole) to cover a much wider range of offences than the third strike (life with no parole for 25 years at least) because the third strike is so severe.

I think there is a workable solution to this, that also overcomes some of the Bill of Rights issues around someone given a 25+ year sentence for an offence that normally has a maximum sentence of say 10 years.

I would change the third strike from life (with no parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty set down for that offence (with no parole if a finite term).

So what you would have at each stage

1. Normal sentencing and normal parole
2. Normal sentencing and no parole
3. Maximum sentence and no parole

What are the maximum sentences for the various crimes that National wants included:

• Sexual violation – 20 years
• murder – life (so non parole of at least 25 years on 3rd strike)
• attempted murder – 14 years
• manslaughter – life (so non parole of at least 25 years on 3rd strike)
• wounding/injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
• aggravated wounding/injury – 14 years
• aggravated assault – 3 years
• assault on a child – 2 years
• cruelty to a child – 5 years
• using a firearm against a law enforcement officer – 14 years
• committing a crime with a firearm – 10 years
• Compelling indecent act with animal – 14 years
• incest – 10 years
• acid throwing – 14 years
• robbery – 10 years
• aggravated burglary – 14 years
• kidnapping – 14 years
• indecent assault  – 7 years
• attempted sexual connection with a family member who is under 18 – 7 years
• abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection – 14 years

This would still provide for very harsh penalties for the third strike, but would not treat murder the same as wounding. Take rape as an example.

The starting point for rape (off memory) set by the Court of Appeal is seven years. So a rape with no aggravating factors would get seven years and with parole the rapist would be out in four years and eight months.

Now if he raped again, the court might give him ten years for the second strike. And no parole means he would serve ten years – double the first strike.

And if he raped a third time, when it is an automatic maximun penalty of 20 years with no parole.

Of course he might get preventative detention also, but that is not guaranteed.

I think this would be a win win. ACT still gets a three strikes law and a major win. The Bill of Rights issues over getting 25 years for an offence set down in statute as having a maximum sentence of say 10 years are dealt with, and most importantly hardcore repeat offenders stay behind bars for much much longer.

Rodney may have his hands full with David Garrett. At Backbenches last Wednesday he surprised a few by advocating a Sheriff Joe type prison of war camp at Waiorou for hardened criminals, with food to cost only 75c a day instead of the current $5.

And the HoS reports he caused waves at Eye to Eye, and was allegedly drunk. However (and you have to look hard to find this, the show was recorded in June before he was an ACT candidate):

During the show, Garrett, speaking slowly and occasionally slurring, made rambling comments which were rubbished by the other panellists, particularly former Act MP Deborah Coddington.

My motto is to drink after the TV show, not before! Mind you on election night it was a mxiture of both!

Coddington said she was shocked by Garrett’s attitude: “He was really rude to me. He walked up and said `Deborah Coddington, my brother hates you’.”

She said recording was stopped several times because of Garrett’s behaviour but didn’t think any more about the incident until Act announced Garrett as a list candidate.

Which was some months ago.

Garrett confirmed he made the comment to Coddington.

“That was a stupid thing to say. But I might have said it stone cold sober.”

He denied he was homophobic and said the other panellists had not listened to his arguments.

“What I said was, paedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Deborah Coddington just didn’t get it.

“I am not saying gays are the same as paedophiles. One of my closest friends is flagrantly gay. He was the MC at my wedding.”

Garrett said he “certainly regrets” his long lunch and had rung Hauiti to apologise. “It’s certainly not appropriate behaviour for an MP.”

Not a helpful story, but when I first read it, I thought this had just happened this weekend. It is somewhat of a different story that it was before he was even a candidate.

Oh and for the record homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder.

The election may be over but Backbenches carries on. Tonight:

• David Garrett, ACT List MP
• Keith Locke, Green List MP
• Charles Chauvel, Labour List MP
• Nikki Kaye, National MP for Auckland Central

They’ll be talking about the new Government, and voter turnout. So come along to teh Backbencher by 8.30 pm for a 9 pm start. Or watch it on TVNZ7.

Should also serve as a good excuse for people to have a couple of drinks to celebrate or commiserate the election outcome.

The Standard speculates that David Garrett may be ACT’s mystery No 5 candidate. He is a barrister associated with the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

By coincidence Garrett had a column in the Herald on Wednesday on Labour’s sudden interest in banning gangs:

There is nothing particularly radical about Labour’s endorsement of a policy banning gangs – which begs the question why it has taken so long. …

Given Labour’s long opposition to such laws it is difficult not to be cynical about its timing now – eight weeks from an election.

Indeed. The chance of Labour actually passing a law to ban gangs is around equal to their chance of developing nuclear weapons.

The point is well made that banning gangs per se may not in fact be such a good idea – at least while the Mongrel Mob and Black Power strut around in their patches or “colours” they are easily identifiable.

True.

Criminal non-association laws would have the same effect without the disadvantages.

The police are aware who most gang members are and which of them have criminal records. If consorting with known criminals becomes an offence, groups of intimidating thugs on our streets would quickly become a thing of the past. Problematic laws banning gangs themselves would become unnecessary.

But how many criminals are needed for it to become consorting? Some would argue Cabinet would become illegal

Although it’s about 25 years too late, Labour’s belated realisation that gangs are just criminal organisations, and not some alternative to whanau, is a welcome development. Pity it comes so close to an election.

Just a coincidence I am sure.