In his guest post Mr Parker stated that at the last election ACT took a large donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

This appears to be a false statement. All donations over $10,000 are required to be disclosed to the Electoral Commission, and none was.This is an audited statutory return.

The ACT Party Treasuer and Secretary both say no donation of any amount was ever received, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust has said it never made any donation. In the absence of any proof from Mr Parker, I conclude the statement is wrong and have added a statement to that effect at the bottom of the post.

It is a feather in any group’s cap when not only the Prime Minister but the Justice Minister and the Police Minister queue up to address it.

A stamp of importance is conferred and the credibility of its viewpoint is enhanced.

So it was yesterday when John Key, Simon Power and Judith Collins spoke to a Sensible Sentencing Trust conference on victims’ rights in Parliament’s Banquet Hall.

All emphasised, quite reasonably, that the trust represents an important voice. But they also gave every impression of wishing to heed its policies.

Never mind that many of these are too extreme and too outmoded to find their way into any coherent justice reform package.

So what is this important voice the SST represents? Are they a group of lobbyists? Are they a group of academics? Are they a group of public sector funded staffers? Are they a group of politicians?

They are none of those. The vast majority are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children of murder victims.

What many people, including editorial writers, don’t get is there are two sides to the Trust.

Most people see the trust as purely Garth McVicar and his hard-line advocacy on law and order issues. I don’t agree with everything Garth advocates, but I do think NZ is better off for his advocacy – he has provided a voice for victims of crime, who are largely treated as as distractions by the justice system.

But why do so many families of serious crime support the Trust and participate, including new victims such as the Elliotts? Is it simply because they get so angry about what has happened, that they look them up on the web, and send off an application?

What many do not realise is that Garth, and others from the SST, are often there supporting the families of murder victims within days. And if you speak to some of those families, and ask them who was the biggest comfort to them in their darkest hours, their answer will often be the SST. It will not be the legion of taxpayer funded agencies, but the voluntary self funded SST.

The taxpayer funded agencies send in professional counsellors etc. The SST sends in the only people who can truly understand what the family of a murder victim is going through – other families of murder victims. And that support is so invaluable, that is why they in turn get involved with the SST, and make themselves available to future families of victims.

So I am glad that the Prime Minister, Justice Minister and Police Minister all addressed the SST Conference. regardless of what you think of their political advocacy, they deserve those attendances on the basis of the incredible support work they do with victims alone.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has been warned it is going too far by calling on its members to break the law and defy court orders that censor victim impact statements.

Trust chairman Garth McVicar yesterday said members would say whatever they wanted in court until the law was changed.

His comments follow the news that Gil Elliott, father of murder victim Sophie, was forced to read a censored version of the statement he had prepared.

But the Law Society said the trust was using the wrong strategy if it wanted change.

Mr McVicar said the trust would run the “civil disobedience campaign” until Justice Minister Simon Power changed the law to give victims greater freedom with their statements.

The Herald yesterday revealed that sections of Mr Elliott’s statement had been crossed out at the judge’s request the night before Clayton Weatherston was to be sentenced.

Mr Elliott said it meant he did not get to “have a crack” at Weatherston, who stabbed his daughter 216 times.

There are two issues here – both the “censoring” of victim impact statements, and the way it is done.

From all accounts the process is very insensitive to victims families. They spends day and weeks working on their statements and then the day before court get sent the officially approved version. That is crappy.

The content issue is more difficult. First off I have to say they Courts should be more liberal as to what they allow. The trial is over. The sentencing is being dine by a Judge who will know what to take into account, and what not to. So let the victims and their families actually have the chance to say what they think. Especially when they have had to endure the trial.

Now that is not an argument for no rules at all. I don’t think we want victims or their families able to get up and say I hope you get killed in jail etc.

Mr McVicar said the campaign had been planned for some time and several members yet to present their statements in court had committed to reading them in full.

He said the campaign would go on, even though Mr Power had assured him yesterday that changes to statement rules would be announced by Christmas.

Personally I would wait to see what the changes are – Christmas is barely a month away.

Law Society president-elect Jonathan Temm said the issue was not going to be solved by contempt of court.

“You cannot bring the court into disrespect simply because it is bound by the law of the land.”

Mr Temm agreed that while improvements could be made to the process, the campaign was the wrong way to do it.

He questioned whether the Sensible Sentencing Trust would be satisfied even if the law was changed.

“Victims may be able to spend an hour on their feet, railing against the crime, have everybody listen to their anguish and pain and grief, and flog some individual.

“But no amount of victim latitude at sentencing is going to bring back the loved ones or heal the crushed bones.”

With all respect to Mr Temm, victims and their families know that. But there can be something very therapeutic in being able to look the killer in the eye and tell them they are scum of the earth.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

What the law does now:

* Victims can speak of the impact of any physical injury or emotional harm suffered through the offence.
* They can also describe any loss of, or damage to, property and any other effects of the offence.
* They cannot criticise the offender or the justice system.

What the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants:

* Victims to be able to give their opinion on the sentence length, and argue for it to be increased to reflect any lack of remorse or misrepresentation of the victim during the trial.
* Victims to be able to ask a court to order specific reparation or compensation.
* Victims to be allowed to draw attention to any disgraceful conduct and attitude during the trail by the offender or their family or supporters.

I don’t see anything objectionable in those changes. The Judge will decide on the basis of case law the sentence, but why not allow the family of the victim, or the victim, to at least have their voice heard on desired sentencing. The prosecution doesn’t speak for them always. Of course the Court will be bound be precedent, but what is the harm by giving them a say?

A new online database offers the public free access to sentencing histories of New Zealand’s worst criminals.

So far it has 90 names on three lists: Those serving non-parole periods of more than 18 years, preventive detention sentences for sex offenders of 11 years or more, and young people aged more than 17 given long, fixed sentences.

The database includes double murderer Graeme Burton, his crimes, victims, criminal and gang affiliations, parole and release dates, links to news stories on him, and copies of Parole Board decisions.

Creator Ross Crosby said he set up the database for the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which he joined five years ago as an 18-year-old disillusioned with New Zealand’s justice system.

The former Wellington High School pupil, now living in Adelaide, helped maintain the trust’s databases on violent and sexual offenders, and was now building up the new database to track the sentencing histories of our worst offenders across a range of crimes.

The Trust’s database has been online for some years. I check it out often. What is new, is the listing of the worst offenders by length of sentence.

Labour list MP Russell Fairbrother announced the formation of the group, but would not reveal who was involved.

“I’m not authorised to give names.”

That is priceless. It is a secret trust, heading by a Labour MP. Who might be the secret members. Here are my guesses:

1. David Bain
2. Scott Watson
3. William Bell

The group consisted of people who believed that only the worst of the worst criminals should be sent to jail.

The rest were victims of a competitive society focused on private gain at the expense of public good, and they should be supported in the community with taxpayer funds that would otherwise go into keeping them locked up.

Oh if only more Labour MPs would say what they really think. Please can someone ask Phil Goff if he agrees that criminals are in fact not criminals but the real victims, and a “competitive society” is in fact the evil criminal responsible for their actions.

“Inherent in competition are a small number of winners and a larger number of losers. All the evidence tells us it’s from the losers in this competitive model that we fill our prisons,” Mr Fairbrother said.

“We’ve seen the income gap increase as the market economy takes hold, and, with the increase of disadvantage, the prison population grows.”

Now the prison population has grown under Labour, so is Fairbrother saying this is the fault of Dr Cullen’s economic policies?

I really hope National ask some questions to King and Goff when the House resumes on whether they agree with the secret lobby group formed by one of their colleagues.

And anyone want to start a book futures market on the result in Napier at the general election. Can Chris Tremain get a 10,000+ majority in what used to be one of the safest seats for Labour?

An interesting positioning in which you have the Sensible Sentencing Trust attacking National for opposing the scrapping of most deposition hearings, while National is being defended by lawyers from the Criminal Bar Association.

There was a good debate on the blog yesterday regarding the pros and cons of deposition hearings – including some useful contributions from lawyers at the coal face.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust is rallying its 3500 Tauranga members and the community to pound the footpaths in opposition to the law that restricts the campaign spending of electoral parties and supporters.

Those opposed to the Electoral Finance Act say it is unworkable and must be repealed and that neither MPs nor political parties seem able to understand it or work within it.

Saturday’s march will end at Baycourt where former Labour MP and minister Hon Ralph Maxwell will speak. Others could also take the opportunity to have their say.

Ralph Maxwell is (or was as of a few months ago) an executive member in Tauranga for NZ First. The local NZ First committee voted 13-1 to oppose the law.

For those in Tauranga the march assembles at 10.45 am at the corner of 1st Avenue and Devenport Road, then proceeds to Baycourt.

John Boscawen is planning more marches in provincial centres after this one.