escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows above for full page descriptions

Justice Law Reforms

Here we present suggestions from within and from outside Sensible Sentencing for public consideration and input;
Steps of Homicide Sentencing
The "Cab Rank" Rule
A "Sliding Scale" of Legal Aid

Steps of Homicide Sentencing

Juries to have input into steps of sentencing decisions

Whole of Natural Life without parole Step 5

Premeditated, intentional, heinous, multiple home invasion murder

Custodial with minimum plus graduating parole conditions Step 4

Intentional Killing

Where a life is taken in a fit of anger whether drugs/alcohol is a factor is irrelevant. Relevant factors: Intention, lack of remorse, pattern of offending, subsequent offending. Multiple intentional killings automatically go to top step. 15 year minimum with strict parole.

Custodial with maximum parole subject to response to rehabilitation Step 3

Preventable Death

A drug or alcohol influenced death (such as DIC) not intentional but preventable. This step is to encorage offenders to accept consequences, based on genuine remorse and reperation to Victims' families. Trust funds set up, automatic recall on parole if conditions breached. Automatic step up for second offence.

Non-Custodial Step 2

Accidental Death 1st conviction

This conviction could be caused through reckless driving or where a hunter accidentally shoots his mate. Never likely to offend again - remorse is shown and/or some form of reperation is offered as an expression of grief. 1st offence - 2nd offence automatic step 3

Non-Custodial   Step 1

Self Defence Killing

Where a life is taken in self defence such as during a Home Invasion or where it can be proved that the offender had no option. where a life is taken under the utmost duress.

The "Cab Rank" Rule

No we haven't suddenly widened our focus to include the taxi industry.... this is the informal term for Rule 1.02 of the New Zealand Law Society "Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors". Under this rule, a criminal defence lawyer cannot refuse a case on the grounds that they find the case or the client abhorrent. Should they do so, they will find themselves divested of their practising certificate, without which they are unable to perform their job. They are permitted to turn a case down on a few specific grounds, for example that they lack expertise in the field concerned, but are not permitted to do so on moral grounds.

The implications of this are appalling when one considers them. A criminal defence lawyer is obliged to defend a client they know full well to be guilty. They are obliged to act against their own conscience and take a case even if to do so will seriously compromise their integrity. As a result, criminal defence lawyers troubled by their consciences have either found themselves unable to continue in their profession, or have resorted to workarounds in order to avoid representing clients who are either utterly evil or irrefutably guilty or both.

This state of affairs is not only unsatisfactory and impractical in todays' social climate, but more importantly it is amoral. It encourages those with active consciences to either abandon criminal defence law, or find workarounds for this rule. It also causes the public to lose respect for, and faith in, profession at large, the justice system, and ultimately the rule of Law. The position of criminal defence lawyer is an extremely important one, in that it prevents the innocent from being wrongly convicted, and demonstrates to society at large that those who are convicted have had a fair trial, thereby instilling public faith in the rule of Law.

But as a result of defending clients who are utterly reprehensible, and clearly guilty to boot, the legal profession has come in for a great deal of public criticism (particularly noticeable in online forums such as the Trademe Message Boards. A public that is disillusioned and disgusted with its legal system is one that will eventually resort to vigilantism. Better to modify or delete one Law Society Rule than to see the legal system fall into such disrepute that people take the law into their own hands.

A "Sliding Scale" of Legal Aid

As it stands, the problem with the current legal aid system is its total lack of targeting or control of legal aid funding, i.e. it has completely unlimited availability. Someone can continue to be eligible for legal aid regardless of how many convictions they accumulate and regardless of the seriousness of those convictions. A recent example is Black Power member William Holtz, who had amassed 50 convictions prior to killing Shiu Prasad. There have been offenders with even more. . . .

This has led a few people to decry legal aid altogether, however this may result in "chequebook justice" where the wealthy can get off easier as they can afford the legal costs. It is important to give the innocent a fair chance. What is needed is a compromise that will ensure that the innocent get a proper defence regardless of circumstances, while somewhat regulating the flow of legal aid to repeat serious violent offenders.

What we propose is a system where all first offenders - and second offenders as well - get 100% legal aid. After two convictions, this declines to 90% upon the third case (charges that are successfully defended do not count towards the total). After the third conviction, legal aid eligibility declines to 80%. After four convictions, 70%, after five 60%, and so on, until after eleven convictions...show's over, no further taxpayer funding.

Legal aid eligibility would be means tested, much as it is now. However the income level for eligibility should be determined in a graduated or stepped fashion rather by having a simple cut-off point. Someone defending a relatively minor charge may choose to forgo legal aid funding for that particular case if they so desire, and it would then not count towards the total even if there was a successful conviction.

A timeout provision should also be included, where after five years without further convictions, the legal aid eligibilty would ratchet up a level, and so on again after each five year period.