Judiciary's l Disregarding of Three Strikes

Mockery of the Law

It is universally acknowledged, with few exceptions, that one of the core objectives of penology or punishment for crime is protection of the public.  If repeatedly violent criminals are locked up for longer, the public are safer, less likely to be struck down by knife or gun.

Despite New Zealand having a Three Strikes law, an increasing number of justices it seems believe they have a right to override the black and white sentencing requirements of the law.  The mandatory, longer sentences are deemed "manifestly unjust".  But in whose eyes?  In the eyes of the judge.  For some reason there appears to be plenty of judges in New Zealand who want to second guess the law. 

Let's be clear.  We are all for treating prisoners with decency and respect.  We believe strongly in every project or service which helps prisoners develop self-criticism and personal integrity.  We strongly believe in every rehabilitation project, whether in the prisons or outside, that works.  But we also believe that repetitive violent criminal behaviour must result in consequences--and the core consequence must be to apply the mandatory, longer sentences for repeated criminality.  Facing these heavier consequences is an intrinsic part of giving prisoners the opportunity to become self-critical.
 
Here is a classic example of judicial doublespeak: firstly, the judge goes through an offenders history, the gravity of the crimes committed, the repetitive nature of the offending, and a review of what the law requires with respect to sentencing.  Then, the judge rolls all that back, effectively ignoring it, and imposes a much lighter sentence.

Sentence
[34] Mr Sanders, please stand.
[35] On the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, I
sentence you to the maximum term of 14 years’ imprisonment. I impose a minimum
period of imprisonment of seven years.
[36] On the charge of assault with intent to injure, I sentence you to 12 months’
imprisonment.
[37] The sentences are to be served concurrently with each other, and with the
sentence you presently are serving.
[38] Mr Sanders, you may stand down. 

The Three Strikes law removes any possibility of parole; the full length of the sentence (14 years] must be served.  But the judge decided that this was "manifestly unjust" and so stipulated the possibility of parole after seven years.

Moreover, the sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentences he is already serving. 

David Farrar at Kiwiblog reviews the recent criminal history of the defendant, Mr Sanders:

NZ’s three strikes law is once again undermined by a third striker escaping a penalty of maximum sentence with no parole. Let’s look at the case of Bailey Sanders.

1st strike – knife attack on two members of public in 2014. Got 32 months.
2nd strike – assault on another inmate in 2016. Got five years
3rd strike – wounding with intent a prisoner plus assaulting a guard in 2018.
He got the maximum sentence of 14 years (which is good). But he is 23 years old and already has 46 previous convictions. Does anyone think he will change?

So he got a non parole period of seven years, plus the sentence to be concurrent with current ones.  I guess the only upside is that as he seems determined to keep offending within prison, he probably never will actually get parole. The challenge will be how to keep other prisoners safe from him.

Our judges are playing fast and loose with the law.  With them "manifest injustice" has become so liberally applied the Three Strikes Law has become a laughing stock.  It appears to be a case of the judiciary assuming prerogatives and authority over the law, rather than faithfully applying it.