These appeals have ability to make history:Dillin Pakai, Shane Harrison and Justin Turner

7th June 2016

The following appeals have the potential to make history in New Zealand as they involve the interpretation and implementation of Life without Parole legislation as provided for under the 2010 Sentencing and Parole Reforms [Three Strikes Legislation]

• Wednesday 8 June – Pakai & Harrison – conviction appeal, and Mr Pakai’s sentence appeal by a panel of 3 Judges
•
• Thursday 9 and Friday 10 June – Harrison and Turner – Solicitor-General sentence appeals by a panel of 5 Judges
•
In the above cases the Crown applied for a Life without parole sentence to be handed down [rightly so in our opinion] but the Judges concerned decided to apply the‘manifestly unjust’ clause of the legislation. The appeal hearings are to decide if the Judiciary are in fact applying the correct interpretation of ‘manifestly unjust’.
Sensible Sentencing believes public safety must always be the paramount consideration of any sentencing decisions, that is what 3S was introduced for, but the Judiciary are in our opinion applying their own interpretation.

Background to 3S law
The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act – better known as the “three strikes” (3S) legislation – came into force on 1 June 2010. The 40 so called “strike” offences are alloffences of serious violence, punishable by seven years or more in prison. The offences are listed in s.86A of the Sentencing Act 2002
The regime works like this:
1st strike conviction: Judge given sentence, with parole (as was the case before 3S). Warning must be given by the Judge of the consequences of continued “strike” offending.
2nd Strike conviction: Judge given sentence, to be served without parole, unless that would be “manifestly unjust”. Final warning given.
3rd Strike conviction: Maximum penalty prescribed in the Crimes Act for the offence the offender is convicted of, to be served without parole, unless it would be “manifestly unjust”

ends

© Scoop Media