Crime and Punishment

Faux Pity and Cheap Grace

In New Zealand we seem to be afflicted with a gaggle of justices who are failing in their duty.  They appear to be imposing upon the law their liberal prejudices, rather than being faithful servants of the law.

The latest example is a judge who refused to impose the required sentence upon a recidivist criminal because, according to the abacus of the judge, it would have been manifestly "unfair".

An Auckland robber has been sentenced, under the controversial three-strikes law, to prison for more than twice as long as the sentencing judge would have given him if the three-strikes law had not been in place.  But, the judge did not impose the 14-year maximum sentence with no possibility of parole because it would be manifestly unjust. [NZ Herald]

"Manifestly unjust" in whose eyes?  In the eyes of the judge, of course.  The Three Strikes law allows for judicial discretion in those (rare) cases where the imposition of the maximum sentence for a crime, without parole would be "manifestly unjust".  But far too many judges seem to be confusing "manifestly unjust"  with their personal prejudices and bias.

George Christopher Pomee, 24, was sentenced today by Justice Mathew Downs in the High Court at Auckland for kidnapping and two charges of aggravated robbery.  It was his third strike. . . .  Pomee, who has links to the Head Hunters gang, received his first strike and one year and 11 months' imprisonment after two robberies in November 2013, including that of a 67-year-old woman who was withdrawing money from an ATM.

His second strike and 16 months' imprisonment was for an aggravated robbery in April 2015 when - armed with a piece of wood - took a 16-year-old's bank card and phone and demanded the pin code for each before emptying his bank account.  Then after his release in August last year, Pomee and his associates robbed two men in their car.  They stole a packet of cigarettes, $55 in cash and a mobile phone.

Just six days later, Pomee and his two co-offenders offended again in parked next to their victim, this time a tourist.  The group kidnapped him and drove him to an ATM about 10 minutes away where they demanded cash and his watch.  While there, one of Pomee's associates punched the man three to four times in the face, and again demanded his watch and ring.

After handing the jewellery over the victim was driven further about and Pomee demanded he give him the pin to his phone.  "You showed him a magazine containing .22 calibre ammunition," Justice Downs said.  "You said: 'You see this? I'm going to kill you'."  The car was stopped and Pomee and a co-offender repeatedly punched the victim in the head.  A call to police resulted in officers arriving and seeing Pomee leaving the car.

One imagines that the judge was racked with guilt and pity when he sentenced Pomee.  Guilt, because if society had have treated Pomee better, he would never have turned to a life of habitual violent crime.  Pity, because he did not feel right about strict punishment for a recidivist offender.  The bloke before him needed someone to treat him kindly.  And by means of such judicial kindness the offender would likely be grateful and would not offend again. 

Justice Downs, however, said if it were not for the three-strikes regime he would have sentenced Pomee to six years and three months' imprisonment.  "I would also have imposed a minimum period of at least 50 per cent," he said.  "Against this background, I am satisfied parole ineligibility for the duration of the mandatory sentence of 14 years' imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.  [Emphasis, ours.]

But, have no fear.  The judge reckoned that the reduced sentence was sufficient to ensure that the community was protected.

But Justice Downs was satisfied a period of more than the minimum one-third of a sentence was necessary to denounce Pomee's offending and to protect the community.

So the judge was "satisfied" that the community would be protected, albeit by reducing the length of sentence required under the Three Strikes law.   One wonders whether the judge would have been so easily satisfied if he were made personally liable to serve the remaining sentence (had the Three Strikes law been applied) were  Pomee to offend again after early release.

As it stands, the judge's "satisfaction" seems cheap.  His compassion for the victims of this miscreant appears faux.  His duty to defend the innocent in the community draws little more than a token nod.