The Howard League for Penal Reform (Canterbury)
www.howardleague.co.nz

Newsletter Number 44 – March 2007

Turning the Ship?

The Criminal Justice Reform Bill now before the Select Committee stems from recommendations made in the Law Commission Report outlined in earlier Newsletters (See August & December 2006, and Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform, Law Commission, Report 94, Aug. 2006). The Bill appears intent on undoing the consequences of over a decades worth of populist criminal justice law – in particular the unsustainable 23% growth in our prison population over the past 6 years (although, and of concern, that intent is not written into the Bill – in our view it should be). Given this purpose the League supports the intent of the Bill. Our reservations concern some of the unintended consequences which may arise.

The Sentencing Council is clearly a radical departure from the conventions of judicial independence. Comprised of five Judges and five others, the Council arguably compromises judicial independence in two ways. First, it blurs the traditional separation of powers between the Judiciary, Executive and Parliament. Second, the product of its deliberations - sentencing guidelines - will inevitably curtail judicial discretion.

As well, a future government could act to influence the Sentencing Council either by its appointment process or by applying direct pressure on the Council to alter its guidelines in keeping with the political climate. Sentencing Councils can influence the use of imprisonment in either direction. This is not to argue against such a body but rather to highlight the crucial requirement of independence if the Council is to develop and maintain public confidence.

Further, on the theme of unintended consequences, we have some reservations about the additional three new community-based sentences and the increasingly high levels of surveillance and control over offenders. In the past, such new sentences have acted to fast-track people into prison as the emphasis on compliance has become increasingly demanding and rigid. The now abandoned suspended sentence had precisely this effect.

Another key objection we have concerns the change to parole eligibility. Before too long, those sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment will serve two-thirds (indeed 80%) of their determinate sentences. For good reason, we remain in support of the one-third parole eligibility contained in the Parole Act 2002. While this clearly increased the workload of the Parole Board and raised the expectations of prisoners and led to some inconsistent decisions, these are not necessarily bad outcomes. Inevitably, different Parole Board panels will make differing decisions in response to the myriad of offending histories before them. These can be legally challenged. Future Parole Guidelines will help re-focus Parole Board deliberations on risk factors rather than on considerations of adequate punishment.

More importantly, the one-third parole hearings gave the Parole Board an early and considerable ability to assess and test readiness for release or to begin monitoring progress through the sentence. In this, the Board unquestionably acted as a pivotal spur to both Corrections and prisoners. It set down expectations that programmes and interventions addressing offending needed to be provided and undertaken before prisoners could be considered for parole. That the Department has consistently failed to provide such interventions prior to the two-thirds point of a sentence (the so-called 66% rule) has been a significant obstacle to timely parole.

The solution does not rest with removing early parole eligibility. Rather it rests on a commitment to adequately resource programmes/interventions and work parole in the prisons so that the risk of reoffending is addressed in a timely and more effective manner. Notably, the Parole Board has been and remains highly cautious when considering parole. In 2004 it declined 59% of eligible parole applications. By 2005/2006 this figure had risen to 72.5%. Eligibility for parole has never meant early release. Despite media hype, only a very small proportion of all released prisoners are reconvicted for very serious offences
(P.Spier, Min. of Justice, May 2002).

Prisoner Health Survey

Late last year, the Ministry of Health published a report on the first national survey of sentenced prisoners’ health (Results from the Prisoner Health Survey 2005, Public Health Intelligence, Occasional Bulletin No.37, Ministry of Health, December, 2006). The objectives of the survey were to improve understanding of the extent of the health needs among NZ prisoners and inform future health service planning, policy, processes and programmes. Face-to-face interviews were conducted over May to December 2005 with a response rate of 93% in a sample of 423 prisoners: 317 males and 106 females of whom 199 were Maori.

The report contains an excellent review of previous research on the health status of prisoners. That research demonstrates a consistent picture of alcohol and drug abuse, other mental illnesses such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and problem gambling which occur at levels ‘likely to be’ in excess of those seen in the general population. In many cases, prisoners have more than one of these problems. Additionally, high numbers of prisoners report a history of head injury, and they have a higher risk of suicide. Some results of the 2005 survey indicate:

 Over half of all prisoners reported having been diagnosed with a chronic disease (54.8%).
 The most commonly reported chronic disease was asthma (21.6%).
 The prevalence of chronic disease increased with age, and three quarters of prisoners aged 46 years and older reported having been diagnosed with a chronic disease (75%).
 Two-thirds of prisoners were smokers
 Over half of all prisoners were overweight or obese (55.8%)
 One in ten prisoners had used a needle to inject, pierce a body part or tattoo themselves while in prison
 Two out of five prisoners reported becoming less physically active since entering prison (44%)
 Prior to entering prison, seven out of ten prisoners had a GP (67%)
 One in five prisoners had seen a medical specialist in the last 12 months while in prison (18%)
 Nearly half of all prisoners reported experiencing tooth or mouth discomfort when eating or drinking in the last four weeks (45.9%)
 Two-thirds of prisoners had experienced a head injury at some point in their life (63.7%)
 1 in 4 reported a psychological or psychiatric condition (23.6%)

Annual General Meeting

Our ninth AGM will be held at 7.30pm on Monday 14th May at the Community Law Centre, Madras Street. We are currently finalising the speaker and will confirm details in our AGM flyer. This year we will miss Margaret Webb sitting in the front row alongside Ces. Margaret died on the 18th February and will be missed by the many troubled people she befriended and cared about.
Another change must be reckoned with. Marion Hanham, our very able Treasurer for the past four years is retiring at the AGM and we are now looking for a replacement. Marion has moved us steadily into the 21st century with clear, readily usable systems in place to track and monitor our small funds. Marion reports that the position is not onerous and requires a two-three hour visit to the office fortnightly to pay accounts, PAYE and do the banking. Fundraising is not part of the job! Use of the computer is optional. If you think this is a way you could help us please call us now on ph. 3429 795.

‘Blood Money”

The League is hardly surprised that the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005 has proved an abject failure. Formerly strong advocates for this law now see it as ‘a failure, a total fizzle’ because victims see payouts claimed against compensation payments to abused or misused prisoners as ‘blood money’. (Press A1, 23.2.07). Only one victim has made a claim since the law passed. We ask why the sunset clause in the Act, effective from June 2007, is to be extended 3 years. The whole Act should be axed.

Wolfgang Rosenberg

The League was saddened to learn that Wolfgang Rosenberg had died on Friday 16th February. He was 92 years old. Wolf was a legend in Christchurch and indeed across the country. The huge turnout at his funeral bore witness to this status. In early 1998, at a age when most of us should be retreating to peaceful pastimes, Wolf volunteered as Treasurer for the re-launched Howard League Canterbury. He needed no introduction. Aside from his views and writing on economic policy and encounters with Muldoon, Wolf had a close interest and involvement in justice issues. In the 1950s, he campaigned against the death penalty and initiated the Civil Liberties movement. On retirement in 1979, he began defending the disadvantaged in the Christchurch District Court. We were particularly touched and honoured to be identified as the recipient of donations at Wolf’s funeral.

--

If you know of others who would like to receive the Howard League Newsletters and Fact Sheets by electronic means, please email us - howardleague[at]caverock.net.nz

ENDS

© Scoop Media