www.howardleague.co.nz

FACT SHEET 44
OBJECTIVES AND COSTS OF SENTENCING AND PAROLE REFORMS

* Without government action to arrest the 23% increase in the prison population over the past six years, this population is forecast to exceed capacity by 2010. The Criminal Justice Reform Bill 2006 introduces four areas of change in an attempt to address this situation. The current problems, the preferred solutions, the public policy objectives and the likely costs of each change are outlined below. (See also HLPR Newsletter 44 for comment).

* First, the current sentencing and parole regimes (the Courts and the NZ Parole Board) are considered to be ‘highly discretionary’. A twelve-member Sentencing Council is to be established to develop new sentencing and parole guidelines.

* Public policy objectives for the Sentencing Council are to

- increase consistency in sentencing:
- broaden the base of responsibility for determining sentencing policy,
so that the judiciary, Parliament, and the general public may all contribute:
- promote more truth in sentencing: - enhance public confidence:
- improve prison population forecasting and sentence planning by
reducing unpredictability in the time that prisoners serve:
- improve the Government’s ability to manage its penal resources

* Second, the non-parole period for determinate sentences of 12 months or more is raised from one-third to two-thirds of the sentence. Parole is not available for lesser sentences. These changes will be introduced by Order in Council to coincide with the commencement of the sentencing guidelines. The Law Commission reports that the impact of these combined measures will not be felt until 2009.

* Third, are changes to Home Detention. Over the past six years, 20% of the increased prison population comprised people serving sentences of less than two years. Reduced use of Home Detention since late 2004 (due to legislative restrictions and Parole Board action) has contributed to this growth. Once in prison, eligible prisoners must currently apply to the Parole Board for Home Detention.

* Rates of reconviction and re-imprisonment for those granted home detention are one-quarter to one-third of the rates for offenders who are sentenced to up to 12 months in prison. The sentence of Home Detention also has high compliance rates: the annual rate of recall by the Parole Board of those on Home Detention has been steady at only 1 to 1.5% since 2003.

* The Bill recasts Home Detention as a sentence in its own right as ‘imprisonment on home detention’ for a maximum term of 12 months - positioned between imprisonment and the new hierarchy of community-based sentences. It can be combined with fines or community work.
Here the key public policy objective is to:

- reduce the projected growth in the prison population by providing alternatives to prison for offenders who would otherwise receive a short sentence of imprisonment.

* Fourth, two new community-based sentences are introduced: Intensive Supervision (allows additional special conditions relating to programmes) and Community Detention (electronic curfew). These add to a new hierarchy of sentence severity and are designed to increase the credibility and range of community-based sentences. Provisions allow for more engagement, monitoring or supervision of offenders by Probation Officers, including more emphasis on offenders acquiring basic life skills. Three-monthly Judicial monitoring of progress and compliance may also be imposed as a condition of Home Detention or Intensive Supervision sentences.

It is estimated that the combined effect of Home Detention and Community Detention will avoid the need for about 450 additional prison beds by 30 June 2008. While Intensive Supervision and the proposed enhancements to existing community-based sentences will not have an immediate impact on prison beds, they are considered essential to minimise the net-widening effect of home detention and to maximise the use of community-based sentences as an alternative to imprisonment. Reduced use of imprisonment has clear social and financial benefits to society.

COSTS

* Sentencing Council: The Law Commission has been granted additional funding for 2 years for the set-up and ongoing costs of an establishment unit attached to the Commission. This unit will progress sentencing guideline work with capital funding of $65,000 in 2006/07, and operating funding of $1,020,000 in 2006/07 and $1,238,700 in 2007/08 (excludes GST). Ongoing operating costs of the Sentencing Council are calculated to be $1.1 million annually.

* Home Detention: The current annual cost of home detention is $21,640 compared to $59,170 for a minimum-security prisoner. The anticipated capital and operating costs of continuing to imprison those currently eligible for Home Detention are $153 million and $47 million respectively. Under the newly configured Home Detention, equivalent cost estimates are $14,994m for 2006/07; $23,234m for 2007/08; and $13.6m annually thereafter. Four new Probation Centres will be established. For the 5-10% likely additional home detainees, ‘criminogenic’ programmes ‘may be required’ at a cost of $ 0.5 to $0.86 million.

* Intensive Supervision and Community Detention: At least 70 new Probation Officers will be required to manage the increased numbers of offenders on community-based sentences. The cost estimates are $15.3m capital costs in 2007/08 and $12.4 reducing to $11.3m annual operating costs by 2010/11. One-off IT changes in 2006/07 will cost a further $2.6 million.

(Source: Explanatory note, Criminal Justice Reform Bill pp.35-51: Regulatory Impact Statement from 7 November 2006 POL paper (POL (06 346); Regulatory Impact Statement from July 2006 Cabinet decision (CAB Min (06) 273A); Regulatory Impact Statement from October 2006 POL decision (POL Min (06) 21.6).

ENDS

© Scoop Media