Source: Radio New Zealand
National’s justice spokesperson and current Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the policy would result in tougher sentences. RNZ / Mark Papalii
A National Party policy to prevent judges discounting sexual offenders’ sentences due to good character is a solution for a non-existent problem, a defence lawyer says.
But a victims’ advocate said it would be a huge relief for survivors who currently have to listen to “completely irrelevant” testimony about their perpetrator being a good person.
National revealed yesterday that if elected, it would scrap good character assessments for sexual offending sentences, so judges can no longer consider it when handing down a punishment.
“The result will be tougher sentences,” said justice spokesperson – and current Justice Minister – Paul Goldsmith.
“It’s just not fair to the victim to sit there in a courtroom and see their offender get a lighter sentence because of the words of a former coach or a boss. That’s not right,” Prime Minister Christopher Luxon added on Morning Report on Monday.
“We’re on the side of victims. We’re not on the side of offenders. And I’ll be really simple – no sex offender is a person of good character, period. I think all New Zealanders would agree with that.”
But Defence Lawyers’ Association co-founder Elizabeth Hall disagreed. She said judges considered a wide range of factors when they determined a sentence.
“Judges must take them into account, but that does not mean that a judge must afford a discount,” she said.
“Particularly in sexual offending cases, judges often don’t apply a good character discount, so I’m not sure that it’s going to make much difference at all in terms of either the type of sentencing or the length of sentence that will be imposed.”
The ability for judges to consider good character was important so people who had lived “blameless lives” and then made one mistake could be recognised for the contribution they had made to society, if the judge felt that was appropriate, she said.
Criminal lawyers were used to the justice system being “fodder for politicians to debate” in an election year, said Hall.
“It’s really pretending that there’s a problem and then offering what looks like might be a solution, that actually isn’t.”
But the government’s chief victims’ advisor Ruth Money said soon after National’s announcement she began receiving messages from sexual violence survivors “overwhelmed with joy”.
The current system was offensive for victims, she said.
“You’ve been sexually violated by someone, they’ve either been found guilty or they’ve plead guilty, and yet you have to hear at sentencing – quite irrelevant at times – letters and submissions about what a wonderful person they may be, which is not at all linked to the offending, let alone the fact that they have sexually violated you.”
Money had advised the government to scrap good character discounts for sexual offending, but said that should not apply across all crimes.
“You could accidentally drive, for example, and kill someone [but] you can’t accidentally sexually violate someone, so it is very different,” she said.
“That’s why the judge ultimately has the decision in their hands around sentencing for other crimes, because there may be that small number of cases where a good character reference is relevant, but it certainly isn’t for sexual violence.”
Money hoped the proposal would have bipartisan support.
Luxon was asked if the idea could be applied to other types of offending.
“We’re going to start with all sexual offending. I think there are legitimate instances where good character is appropriate if you think about a young person who makes a stupid decision with poor judgment,” he replied.
“But look, we’d be open to extending it and looking at it for other criminal offences as well.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand