Kiwiblog

Stephen Franks blogs a review of a new book:

ACCORDING TO CONVENTIONAL criminological wisdom, crime can be significantly lowered only by eliminating its “root causes”: poverty, inequality, and racism. Policing, in this view, can only respond to crime after the fact by making an arrest; preventing crime from occurring in the first place lies in the domain of economic and welfare policy. What makes New York such a powerful natural experiment is that it is, in all respects but one, Zimring shows, nearly the same city as it was in 1990, when its homicide rate was five times higher. The previously assumed drivers of crime—poverty, income inequality, drug use—have not diminished; and family breakdown—conservatives’ preferred root cause—has worsened. 

This has parallels to the debate on the child abuse green paper currently happening. Rather than focus on what law changes the Government can make to help lower child abuse rates, many are saying that there is nothing you can do unless you address poverty and/or income inequality.

They are wrong.

Stephen further blogs:

The only element of the reform I saw not touched on in the review is the contribution of the NY  courts. They cooperated. Justice became much more swift and certain. They provided 24 hour a day sittings to get rid of delays and backlogs. Instead of declining to sentence because Rikers Island city  jail complex was full, they sentenced anyway and left it to the prison authorities to handle the consequences. When I was there a prison system designed for 14000 had over 20000 prisoners. The drop in crime has cured that. The muster is now generally comfortably below the design capacity. But as stressful as it must have been for all concerned, I’m sure if we asked the thousands of offenders who were saved from being murdered had the lawlessness of the 1990’s continued, the hardships of the peak imprisonment period were a small price to pay.

New Zealand used to be the opposite. Rather than have the level of offending determine the prison population, the authorities would let the capacity of the prison system determine sentencing. The Government made changes to bail and parole laws so we would not have over-crowding in prisons!

I recommend people read the full book review.

Meet Steven Karu.

On July 4 last year, Karu was riding a bus when he performed an indecent act, the Palmerston North District Court heard yesterday.

A 13-year-old girl on the bus saw what was happening and texted her parents, asking what to do. They told her to take a picture to show to the police and to get off at the next stop. She did. Trouble was, Karu got off too. …

On October 13 last year, Karu was jailed for one year on an indecency charge but while in Manawatu Prison awaiting sentence, he sent the girl a threatening letter dated August 22. …

“And on the back ‘original hoodlum pay back’.” There was also a picture of a gang gesture and the phrase “Highbury gonna get you”. The letter to the girl contained threats against her and her family.

In it, Karu described himself as “Highbury’s worst criminal”.

He also commented that he was due to be released when the girl would be aged 16, the legal age of consent for sexual intercourse.

His letter said:

“Delete the photo or else. “I don’t want you, me, and your mum and dad to have a problem. “I didn’t mean for this to happen, I’m sorry. “If my mum dies when I’m in here, so does yours and your dad.”

Sounds a lovely chap. But this is the part that staggered me:

Judge Lynch noted Karu’s long history of offending, dating back to 1989, which included more than 180 convictions.

I might be wrong, but I imagine more than a couple of those offences would be serious enough to qualify for a strike under the three strikes law.

Karu sounds like exactly the sort of offender who should no longer get the benefit of parole and shortened sentences. I think at 180 convictions we can all agree he is not going to stop offending.

Stuff reports:

The mother of a 16-year-old boy charged with a vicious sexual attack on a 5-year-old girl at a Turangi campground says she has been hounded from her home.

That should not happen, but ….

The woman yesterday said her family had been abused and had objects thrown at their house, she believed her son was merely “a suspect” and not the monster portrayed by media.

However, just moments later it was indicated, in court, that the youngster would likely plead guilty to the charges.

Saying he is just a suspect, at the same time as he is pleading guilty, is not going to go down well with locals. Contrition would go down better.

The brutality of the teen’s alleged attack on the daughter of European tourists at Club Habitat Holiday Park drew a vitriolic crowd to his first court appearance two weeks ago, but his mother yesterday stressed “he isn’t like that”.

Well, how many mothers have said that.

The Waikato Times has obtained photos of the 16-year-old drinking alcohol with friends and family and one picture with him expressing an anti-police message, from social networking site Facebook.

I’ve seen those photos also. In case he pleaded not guilty, I had refrained from mentioning them. But now he has indicated a guilty plea I can say the photos make him look exactly like someone who would commit serious crimes.

But the teen – who is charged with rape, burglary and sexual violation causing grievous bodily harm – was tidily dressed for yesterday’s appearance in the Taupo Youth Court.

I have no doubt he looked different to these photos.

He stood silently, with his head down. About a dozen supporters were present in court, and his mother read to the court a karakia he had written.

Through the prayer he asked God for forgiveness and to make him a “man without hate, anger and stress”.

I’m sorry. Call me cynical, but I seriously doubt he wrote that prayer.

Stuff reports:

New Zealanders have donated more than $8000 to the 5-year-old girl who was brutally violated in Turangi.

The girl was asleep with her three-year-old brother in a caravan at Club Habitat holiday park when she was attacked between 10.10pm and 10.40pm on Wednesday.

She needed four hours of surgery after receiving “heart-wrenching” injuries to her face and body in the sexually-motivated attack, Detective Inspector Mark Loper said.

Hundreds of people dropped off presents at Waikato Hospital yesterday and thousands more emailed or phoned with messages of support.

Police said the girl’s parents, believed to from Belgium, were incredibly appreciative of the generosity, but there was no capacity to take any more presents.

The family would only be able to take so much back to Europe and the surplus would help put smiles on the faces of a lot of sick children at the hospital.

Police said the family were reading all of the cards and messages being sent through the Waikato DHB email and they have been a huge support.

“We are very touched by the reactions of New Zealanders,” the parents said in a statement.

I was sickened and ashamed when I read of the barbaric assault on the five year old from Belgium. But this response from hundreds of total strangers epitomises the Christmas spirit, and is a wonderful reflection of most New Zealanders.

I just hope the Police catch the man responsible, and he is jailed indefinitely. Anyone who would do this to a five year old, with sexual motivation, can never be trusted out in the community again.

Over at Stuff I’ve blogged on an actual policy issue, shock horror. I chose law & order as I think it is a great example of a policy that actually matters to NZers, and has huge impact on our lives. An extract:

I regard law and order policies as among the most important, after the economy. Crime affects New Zealanders so profoundly. If you are a victim of crime, your life may never be the same again. Even a nonviolent burglary can leave you feeling vulnerable and violated, while serious rapes and sexual assaults many people never recover from. And those who lose loved ones to criminal acts must relive the horror and sadness constantly.

However, law and order policies affect more than just the victims of crime. Few of us are perfect and never break the law, whether it be speeding, littering, illegal drugs or more serious offences. It is important to have sentences that are appropriate for the crime. We don’t send people to jail for driving at 106kmh, but we might if they were driving at 190kmh for the fifth time, and almost certainly if they kill someone at that speed. …

I think there is some merit in [Labour's] approach. Sending someone to jail should be the last resort, and reserved for either extremely serious crimes, or someone who doesn’t respond to lesser punishments. Once you send someone to jail, they are probably going to remain a criminal for the foreseeable future, so the point of prison becomes protecting the community. Hence I tend to agree that sending someone to prison for just two months is of little value. Either keep them out of jail, or send them away for a decent period.

I suggest people read the full column.

Labour’s law and order policy is to repeal the three strikes law so repeat violent and sexual offenders get out of jail far quicker. National has just announced five new proposed law changes, on top of the 18 passed to date:

1. Make it harder for those accused of serious offences to get bail where there is a pattern of offending while on bail.
2. Make assaults on police and corrections officers an aggravating factor for sentencing.
3. Random drug and alcohol testing of those on bail or home detention, where this is a condition of their sentence or bail.
4. Only hold annual parole hearings for those offenders who are addressing their offending and/or completed parts of their offender plan. In other words, no hearing if it is obvious they will not get parole.
5. Introduce civil detention orders for the very small (5 – 12 a year) number of high-risk offenders who are clinically assessed as being near certain to re-offend when released. Such orders can be sought by the Parole Board from the High Court.

I suspect the civil detention orders are intended for cases like the Beast of Blenheim.

A former girlfriend of the man known as the Beast of Blenheim said she is devastated he will be released next year, and he should never be allowed out of prison.

Stewart Wilson was convicted in 1996 on a raft of sex offences involving 16 females over a 23 year period and is due for release next September.

Asked if he would comply with a condition that he not have any contact with a child under the age of 16, Wilson was reported to have said “I don’t give a stuff about it”.

There are not many offenders, like Wilson. But when he makes it clear he will not comply with any release conditions, and it is almost inevitable he will rape again, there is nothing the current law can do, except wait for him to offend, and then after there is a new victim, do something.

Stuff reports:

National has announced it will double the penalties for breaching protection orders and fund security improvements for the homes of family violence victims, Prime Minister and National Party Leader John Key  announced on the campaign trail today.

The policy is here.

In 2010, 976 people were convicted of breaching a protection order and, of these, 185 received a prison sentence.
National will double the maximum penalty for a single breach of a protection order to two years in prison or a fine of $10,000.

Any subsequent breaches, regardless of the period in which they occur, will be punishable by up to three years imprisonment, rather than by the current maximum of two years in prison for two or more breaches in the space of three years.

I suspect few things are more terrifying than having someone who is the subject of a protection order breach it, and turn up on your doorstep etc. Far far too many people are killed or seriously wounded in domestic violence attacks. Hopefully this policy will prevent some offenders from so blithely ignoring a protection order – or if they do, then lock them up for longer.

The Dom Post reports:

A Rotorua man who subdued a young girl with fly spray and then raped her has been jailed for 10 years.

Robin Whitiora Chadwick appeared in the High Court at Rotorua this morning on a single charge of sexual violation by rape.

Chadwick, a part time security guard, had forced the 13 year old girl to inhale two cans of fly spray before raping her at a house near Lake Tarawera in 2009. …

Chadwick continued to deny his guilt and showed no remorse towards the victim, the court heard.

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick had a previously been jailed for the rape of two younger girls in Taranaki in 1994.

In this case the girl’s young age, her vulnerability, the use of the fly spray to stupefy the girl, and the isolated location of the offending were aggravating factors in sentencing Chadwick to 10 years imprisonment, with a minimum non parole period of five years, he said.

If three strikes had been in previously, at a minimum his 1994 rape convictions would be a first strike, which means he would not be eligible for parole for this rape. This would put him away for ten years, instead of a minimum five years only. Personally I think having raped three children is enough leniency, and he shouldn’t be getting out to rape anymore.

Bit his offending is even worse than that. The Rotorua Daily Post reveals:

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick, 57, had 24 previous convictions

Now if any of those were strike offences also, then he would be getting 20 years with no parole for this rape.

Now bear in mind that Labour are committed to repealing the three strikes law,which means scum like Chadwick can carry on getting parole time after time after time. A change of Government will have real consequences.

Derek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:

The Police Association says a gun on every constable’s hip could have prevented high-profile shootings of officers, including the death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier in 2009.

Yes it may have, but I don’t think the prevalence of these sorts of incidents are at a high enough level (thankfully) that the benefits of arming all Police outweigh the negatives. Having arms in each police car is a sensible compromise in my opinion.

But what else does the Police Association want:

Mandatory vehicle impounding, licence suspension and possible imprisonment every time a driver flees police.

Absolutely.

Reserving the best radio spectrum for police to ensure the best data transmission, including the possibility of live CCTV feeds and mobile fingerprint terminals.

Depends. What is the quality difference between the best and second best? What impact on others would such a policy have? Worth looking into though.

Imposing non-contact conditions on remanded prisoners so they cannot intimidate potential witnesses.

No-brainer.

Empowering police to intervene early before disorder can escalate into violence.

Hmmn, I’d be a bit careful here. We don’t want pre-crimes.

The Herald reports:

A Labour government would be likely to ditch the three-strikes law for repeat offenders, a controversial policy the party vehemently opposes and says is not working.

The three-strikes regime was passed into law last year, making it mandatory for judges to impose harsher sentences on repeat criminals convicted of one of 40 violent or sexual offences.

An offender receives a normal sentence and a warning for strike one, a sentence without parole for strike two, and the maximum sentence for that offence, without parole, for strike three.

Well that should make it easier for people. Labour is campaigning to have repeat rapists and bashers spend less time in jail.

Since three strikes was passed, I’ve been noting the number of criminals appearing in court who have a long record of violent or sexual crimes, and reflecting how if three strikes had been in place previously then they would not have been able to commit their latest homicide, rape or bashing.

I suspect this is the last election at which Labour will pledge to abolish three strikes. They can do so, because the public has yet to see it fully implemented. But in a couple of years probably a Judge will send some thug with a massively long list of crimes away for the maximum sentence without parole, and it will be more popular than toast. Once that has happened no political party will dare pledge to abolish it.

So as long as Labour do not get to form Government in 2011, I think three strikes will be safe for good. This is their last chance to repeal it.

Clio Francis at Stuff reports:

For the first time since the Depression, the prison population has shown a sustained drop – and is on track to tumble further.

In the past decade the prison population grew by 45.6 per cent – but the latest annual Justice Sector Forecast predicts that in the next 10 years it will fall by 6.2 per cent.

The decrease is being attributed to a falling crime rate and to new police tactics that have seen fewer people brought before the courts.

Corrections Department spokesman Brendan Anstiss said: “There are ups and down in the forecast each year and each month, but in modern history this is the first sustained drop.

So long as serious and repeat offenders are jailed, to keep the community safe, I’m all for having fewer people in prison.

Corrections Minister Judith Collins said the falling crime and prison population rates were a “dramatic drop”.

“The people who should be in prison are in prison, but we don’t want low-level offenders in prison if there is a better way of dealing with them. It’s a very expensive option and we know that the younger they are when they end up in prison the more likely they are to stay there for a very long time.

It will be great if the three strikes law actually leads to less people in prison, because of a deterrence effect.

The Dom Post reports:

The man accused of murdering Feilding farmer Scott Guy will stand trial in June next year.

Ewen Kerry Macdonald – Guy’s brother-in-law – appeared before Justice Alan MacKenzie in the High Court at Palmerston North this morning.

His murder trial will be held on June 5 in Palmerston North and is expected to take six weeks.

As I read this, I reflected how good it is that the Guy family are spared having to go through what is effectively two entire trials, now that deposition hearings are the exception not the rule.

The trial is going to be incredibly hard on the Guy family. I’m pleased for them that the law change (initiated by Labour IIRC) means they only have to go through it once – especially as it was inevitable that a depositions hearing would end up in committing to trial anyway.

Edward Gay at the NZ Herald reports:

Christian Clifton was on bail for cooking 10 batches of methamphetamine when police raided a shipping container and found the P cook at it again.

The 48 year-old was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 10 years at the Auckland District Court today after pleading guilty to 10 charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and other drugs charges.

It is understood that it is the first time that a person has been sentenced to life in prison at the District Courts in New Zealand.

And possibly the first time for drug offences. I checked that this was possible and not a typo and indeed S6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act does allow this. So why did he get life?

It appears he was on parole for previous drug supply crimes, offended while on parole. He got bail, and then offended again while on both parole and bail. I guess at that stage the court realised that if he was not behind bars, he would be offending.

I think it is a good thing that a court has used a maximum sentence. They are there for a reason.

According to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, two others have had life sentences for drug trafficking.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reported:

The Government will overrule a decision by New Zealand’s highest court on the Urewera terror raids – using legislation to be rushed through under urgency next week.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled the warrants that police relied on to gain access to Tuhoe land did not cover planting secret cameras.

It meant evidence was improperly obtained and led to charges against 13 of 18 people arrested in the 2007 raids being thrown out.

The judgment recommended Parliament change the law and criticised it for not addressing the problem earlier.

Which I guess is what they are now doing.

First of all can I recommend you read Andrew Geddis for a factual, non-hysterical, explanation of the situation.

I said on radio that this is a classic case of the Government being damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they do nothing, then the ability of the Police to detect and prevent crime is seriously impacted. And as I understand it this is not about the Police being able to film whomever they want. They would still need a warrant issued by a Judge or court.

I think few would dispute that the Police should be able to film suspected criminals, if they are able to get a warrant to do so. And as this issue has been before Parliament for a couple of years, I don’t have a problem with a law change before the election, but I do agree with some of what Labour has said:

Labour says:

Labour wants a select committee to scrutinise retrospective legislation to allow secret filming on private property by police.

Leader Phil Goff said his party would only agree to support the law if the Government can make a case for urgency.

National wanted to push the bill through all its stages next week but they needed Labour to agree. Select committee hearings could delay that at least a week.

Parliament has just two sitting weeks left before November’s election.

”The bottom line is it must go through a select committee process,” Goff said. ”It needs to have expert opinion, we need to have the Law Commission, we need to have the Law Society, the other players in this game, able to comment.”

He added: ”We haven’t seen the law yet, we haven’t seen the bill, and I’m not going to support anything I haven’t seen.”

This doesn’t strike me as unreasonable, and achievable. You could do first reading on Tuesday 27 Sep and refer to Law & Order Select Committee (or Justice & Electoral) for hearings on Wednesday and the Select Committee reports back before the following Tuesday 4 October at which stage you do second reading, committee of the whole stage and third reading under urgency.

The other issue is should the law change be retrospective. The Government would argue (and I tend to agree) that the intent of Parliament has always been that the Police should be able to film crime suspects if they get a warrant, and they are just making it explicit. However there is a strong counter-argument that the Police have known the legal authority to do video surveillance was less than clear, and the Police should have stopped getting warrants for video surveillance. However I think that argument relies somewhat on hindsight – it was not inevitable how the Supreme Court would rule – and it was a narrow 3:2 decision.

So this law change is not about giving the Police the ability to film whomever they want. It is about whether warrants they obtain from Judges should be restricted to audio surveillance only, or whether we can join the 20th century (let alone the 21st) and do video surveillance also.

But the details of the law change should be made public as soon as possible, and while it will be tight, I think every effort should be made to allow for expedited select committee hearings.

Derek Cheng in the NZ Herald reports:

The Government’s stalled reforms of the justice sector have been given an unusual lifeline with a proposal to take the controversial issue of the right to silence out of Parliament’s hands and leave it to a group of legal experts.

The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill is likely to have its second reading this week, having spent a month on the order paper while Justice Minister Simon Power sought the numbers to pass it.

The bill is a shake-up of the criminal justice system and includes the removal of an accused’s right to remain silent and not have that held against them.

As it stands, the bill would require the defence to disclose to the prosecution before a trial all issues in dispute. Failure to do so would enable a judge or jury to infer that the accused is more likely to be guilty.

At present, a defendant can say nothing, leaving the case to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The Labour, Green and Maori parties are strongly against the bill in its present form, but the Herald understands Mr Power has won the support of United Future leader Peter Dunne and Act MPs Hilary Calvert, Heather Roy and Sir Roger Douglas by removing the disclosure regime from the bill (Act MPs are not “whipped” to vote as a caucus).

The ability of a judge or jury to infer a greater likelihood of guilt from non-compliance would also be removed.

A new clause would allow the Rules Committee, a panel of legal experts chaired by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, to decide if a disclosure regime should be enforced, and if so, how.

I understand there is considerable tension in ACT over this bill.  If Calvert, Roy and Douglas vote for the the bill, they will be effectively crossing the floor against their party as the ACT Board has voted to oppose the bill, and it is also opposed by Leader Don Brash, former Leader Rodney Hide and Parliamentary Leader John Boscawen.

It raises one of the criticisms of MMP, where you have List MPs voting against the wishes of their party.

Now I have to say that by referring the disclosure regime to the Rules Committee, it almost guarantees it will not proceed as Dame Sian submitted on behalf of the high court, appeal court and supreme court judges against the disclosure regime. Interestingly the District Court Judges (who actually hear most of the trials) were in favour of a disclosure regime.

But even though it is unlikely to proceed, there are valid constitutional issues about whether something as fundamental as the right to silence should be decided by the High Court Rules Committee, rather than by Parliament itself. You normally delegate technical non-controversial issues to outside bodies – not issues affecting the Bill of Rights!

The other issue is about these changes being negotiated outside the select committee process, rather than through the select committee. Substantive changes at the committee of the whole stage are best avoided if possible.

NZPA reports:

A South Auckland school boy who did not like the way he was tackled in a schoolyard game of touch rugby allegedly stabbed his 10-year-old school mate.

The boy was stabbed with a weapon, believed to be a small kitchen knife, behind a classroom at decile 1 school Jean Batten Primary in Mangere last Wednesday, the New Zealand Herald reported.

Police said both boys were aged 10 – but it was understood the victim was in Year 6 and his alleged attacker in Year 4.

I can’t believe this happens in New Zealand. How does a 10 year old even have a knife at school, let alone think an appropriate reaction to a tackle is to stab a fellow 10 year old with a knife?

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

The father of Dunedin murder victim Sophie Elliott says families should be able to say what they want in victim impact statements, and welcomes Government moves in that direction.

Justice Minister Simon Power yesterday introduced the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to Parliament.

It makes a range of changes, among them clearer guidelines around victim impact statements.

“As there are currently no guidelines governing victim impact statements case law has evolved around what cannot be said, including an outline of the offence and opinions or comment on the offender,” Power said.

“This has lead to the unacceptable situation where a victim is effectively censored so they don’t offend the offender.”

Gil Elliott’s statement on the impact of his daughter’s death had entire sections crossed out at the judge’s request, before it was read in court.

Elliott said it was censorship and another example of the justice system treating victims poorly.

Sophie Elliott, 22, was stabbed to death in her bedroom by former boyfriend Clayton Weatherston in January 2008. Weatherston was sentenced to life in prison in 2009, with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years.

Her father today welcomed moves to improve the statement process.

“I think it’s a very good idea,” he told Radio New Zealand.

It is a good idea, and an overdue one. However it is only in the last year or so as victims and their families have spoken out, have many of us realised that their statements are routinely censored.

A new website which I will check out often – the Justice Hot Tub.

Contributors are Gil Elliott, Garth McVicar, Stephen Franks and Greg King. Greg is one of NZ’s top criminal defence lawyers, so his presence means there should be a healthy diversity of opinion in debating issues around our criminal justice system.

Kay Blundell at the Dom Post reports:

Supporters of a 26-year-old man charged with murdering his 23-year-old partner raised heavily tattooed arms and gave him the thumbs up when he left the dock in Levin District Court yesterday.

The young mother of two children, believed to be aged three and six, was shot in Ngaio St, Otaki Beach, about 4pm on Sunday. She was flown to Wellington Hospital but died yesterday morning.

The man charged with murder and illegal possession of a firearm stood defiantly in the dock yesterday and was remanded in custody to reappear later this month. He and the victim were given name suppression.

I wonder what the correlation is between being having supporters turn up in court and cheer you as a hero, and being guility of murder. I suspect it is close to 100%.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Victims will soon have much more freedom in what they say in impact statements to court, under reforms announced today.

At the moment the victims of violence and other serious offences must ask permission from the judge to read out a statement, before sentencing, saying how a crime has affected them.

They are also banned from mentioning a range of details and a number of victims have been left upset after a judge has censored their words.

Gil Elliott, the father of murder victim Sophie, and Rachel Kitson, mother of slain Christchurch woman Vanessa Pickering, were left distraught when their statements were edited.

It has been outraegous that the criminals get to say whatever they like in court, often blackening the names of their victims, yet the families of the victims get their words censored.

Who cares if the parents of a murder victim, call the killer a scum suckling lowlife, and they hope he burns in hell. So long as they don’t actually advocate ilegal acts they should be allowed to say what they genuinely feel. Forcing them to read out a statement which they did not author, re-victimises them.

This is not a huge change in terms of the courts, but a very important one for victims and their families.

The front page of Stuff has a headline “Shooting victim laid to rest” and the story starts off “Police shooting victim laid to rest”.

He is not a victim. He was not shot as an accident. He was shot because he chose to aim a shotgun at armed police officers, after earlier threatening unarmed police officers with it.

It’s like calling the terrorists who hijacked the 9/11 flights, victims.

Calling him a victim is an insult to those who are real victims of crime, and killed.

The crime stats came out today. I always ignore the headline figures about the total crime rate because it is a near meaningless figure – one murder is treated the same as one minor drug offence. Also certain categories of crime will go up and down (drug offences) depending on how much policing is done.

Hence I have always focused on violent crimes. Partly because they are the most serious – and what concern people the most. But partly because they are the most likely to be reported.

So what has happened to the four major categories of violent crimes:

• Homicides down 23.6% from 127 to 97
• Serious Assaults resulting in injuries down 5.7% from 11941 to 11260
• Serious Assaults not resulting in injuries down 6.2% from 10324 to 9679
• Common Assaults up 2.0% from 23070 to 23526

This is only the second time since 1999, the number of violent crimes has decreased.

Graeme Edgeler has an excellent blog post on the Criminal Procedure Bill, highlighting some of the comments from the Judiciary on it. Chief Justice Elias has oppossed parts of it very strongly, on behalf of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Justices.

One of the key issues is the proposed requirement for the Defence to signify in advance what actual issues are in dispute. This is of course standard in non-criminal trials. Some say it removes the right to silence.

What I find of interest, and has been reported by Derek Cheng also, is that the District Court Judges (who actually do the vast bulk of criminal trials) are not oppossed to the requirement to signify in advance what issues are in dispute. They do criticise the provisions about drawing adverse inferences from what may be a failure of counsel, but on the main issue is reported as saying:

But Judge Johnson told the committee he supported cost-orders for non-compliance, and the regime that would require the defence to disclose matters in dispute.

“It makes sense for the efficiency of the trial, and it’s not unjust,” he said.

This is in contrast to the view of Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, who criticised the pre-trial regime as contrary to the defendants’ right not to volunteer information that may help the case against them.

It is unusual enough to have Judges commenting on laws, but very unusual to have different levels of the judiciary putting in oppossing submissions.

Simon Power has announced:

The Government’s $50 offender levy has reached its first-year target of $2 million nearly five months earlier than expected, Justice Minister Simon Power said today.

Since July last year, all convicted offenders have been required to pay a $50 levy at the time of sentencing, regardless of the crime they commit. The levy is collected after reparation and before fines, and is in addition to any sentence or court order.

Excellent.

“The Ministry of Justice estimated that $2 million would be collected in the first year, based on the assumption that 42 per cent of offenders would pay up,” Mr Power said.

“In fact, 55 per cent have paid so far.

“That means we met our first-year target on 5 February, as opposed to 1 July, and that’s fantastic news for victims of crime because it means we can put more into services for them.

The payment rate is around one third higher than projected.

Mr Power said reaching the levy target almost five months early shows how misguided the Labour Party leadership was when it slammed the idea.

“When we announced in 2008 our intention to introduce the levy, now-Deputy Leader Annette King said she was ‘astounded’ by the plan, describing it as a ‘bizarre piece of gimmickry’ and ‘a laughable hoax’.

“And when we introduced the levy last year, Labour leader Phil Goff accused us of overestimating the amount we would collect.

For some bizarre reason Labour have opposed this levy which forces convicted criminals to contribute to the costs of victims. And to be absolutely clear Goff said the Government over-estimated the amount it would collect and in fact they under-estimated it.

So you have to wonder, do Labour now support the levy? Sadly, no. Clayton Cosgrove spins:

Labour’s Law and Order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove says Labour’s prediction is being borne out that National’s $50 levy on every offender will cost more to administer than it will raise to help victims.

“The levy is quite simply a gimmick,” Clayton Cosgrove said. “Since it came into effect in July last year it has raised about $2 million, and it will cost $2.4 million to set up and administer over the first year.

Clayton fails Maths 101. He is comparing one off set-up costs and the full year operational costs with the income of the first seven months.

Setting up the mechanism for the levy cost $1.3m. That is one off.

The collection cost for 2010/11 is $1.1m. And it has collected $2m in just 7 months. If that continues then it will collect $3.4m over the year. So the income will meet the operating cost by around a 3:1 margin. Even if you depreciate the set-up costs over three years, then that is income of $3.4m against expenditure of $1.5m – providing $2/year to help victims.

I’m amazed Labour is still opposing the offenders levy, when the evidence is clearly there that the amount it is gathering in is sufficient to make it worthwhile. Politically very stupid on their part, as it means National can now point to all of the below, which is funded by the levy, and tell people Labour are against them:

• Four paid homicide support co-ordinators to work with Victim Support’s volunteer network.
• An increase in the discretionary grant for families of homicide victims, from $1,500 to $5,000.
• A court service for victims of sexual violence which will give them access to a trained adviser who understands the dynamics of sexual violence cases and victims’ needs.
• A grant of $500 towards the expenses incurred as a result of sexual violence, such as replacing items of clothing collected for forensic evidence.
• Increases in travel, accommodation and childcare assistance for victims attending court proceedings (from $1,000 to $3,000), and Parole Board hearings (from $500 to $1,500).
• A High Court attendance grant of $124 per person per day for up to five adult members of a homicide victim’s family.
• A funeral grant of up to $4,458.77 to families of homicide victims, on top of the $5,541.23 available through ACC (up to $10,000 in total).

This will be a great question at electorate meet the candidate meetings. Why does Labour oppose convicted crimnals paying a $50 levy to help fund victim support services?

NZPA report:

Labour leader Phil Goff joked that the army should shoot looters stealing goods after the Christchurch earthquake in a radio interview.

On radio station BFM on February 28, Mr Goff talked about meeting a man in Linwood whose sister was killed in the quake, whose house had been badly damaged but then it was ransacked by looters.

“I saw the army out in the street and I thought court martial, firing squads you just can’t believe how low a small minority of people can get,” he told the radio station.

Right wing blogger David Farrar highlighted the comment on twitter.

“Interesting that Phil Goff on radio said that army should shoot looters. Wonder how his caucus feel about his law and order policy?” he wrote.

Mr Goff said it was clear he was joking.

“I was making the point that first of all I had absolute contempt for anybody who would exploit other people’s misery at a time like this but I was making a joke … It was obviously not intended to be taken seriously by anyone other than the most dim-witted National Party blogger.”

Unusual for Phil to get personal, so it must have hit a nerve.

Of course no one thinks Phil Goff was actually advocating that new Zealand bring back the death penalty, and that we abandon trials in favour of court-martials.

What is the real issue, that NZPA avoided, was contrasting what Phil Goff said with what his own MPs have said about Judith Collins far more mild comments.

Grant Robertson blogged:

 I also truly hope Judith Collins regrets her statement made in the wake of looting incidents. She was playing to the crowd of course, and I don’t think was refering directly to Arie, but it was not the calm words of leader in our community.

Now Judith’s statement was that the action of looters was “akin to ‘people who rob the dead’” and that “”I hope they go to jail for a long time – with a cellmate.”

Now while you can certainly argue the “with a cellmate” comment was un-necessary, it pales into comparison with saying they should be shot.

Now personally I think both Judith and Phil have just reacted as human beings to particularly vile behaviour.

But when Labour MPs then start to have a go at the comments, well it is entirely appropriate to point out that Labour’s own leader has made comments far beyond what Judith did. In fact could you imagine the hysteria if it was the Police Minister instead of the Leader of the Opposition who had talked about shooting looters. I imagine Labour MPs would have rushed out a plethora of statements comdemning her.

So the question that remains for me is that Grant Robertson has said that Collins’ statements were not “the calm words of [a] leader in our community. So I can only conclude that Grant also thinks that Goff’s words were not the “calm words of a leader in our community”.

Incidentially Phil Goff went on to say (you can listen below) that the looters should be shackeled to shovels and made to do hard labour for 18 hours a day. He also says he stands by those comments. Now I’ve got no problems with that view point, and I suspect the Sensible Sentencting Trust will back Phil up 100% on his views. But I do wonder about whether his caucus and the wider Labour activists are all that supportive of his “Sheriff Joe” type dialogue.

Phil Goff wants to shoot looters by whaleoil