File image. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The coalition government is toughening up its new 'three strikes' law, saying it has received that the original version did not go far enough.
More than 760 individuals or groups submitted to the justice select committee on the original version, which would have applied to offenders who were sentenced to more than two years imprisonment and allowed others to start fresh, with warnings given under previous three strikes legislation - repealed by the Labour government in 2022 - not taken into account.
Cabinet has now agreed to lower the threshold for a first strike to sentences of 12 months imprisonment.
The modified bill will also activate the warnings from the previous three strikes regime where those people meet the new thresholds in this latest legislation.
Speaking to Morning Report on Tuesday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said this was based on feedback received during consultation on the bill. He referenced select committee submissions, as well as emails received by Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee's office.
A RNZ analysis showed nearly 450 of the 763 select committee submissions were based on a template from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
"Only 30 percent of former Third Strikers would even qualify as Third Strikers under the government's proposed law. This is a blunt evisceration of the Three Strikes regime, not an intelligent refinement," the template read.
"By setting a minimum sentence of 24 months imprisonment to qualify as a strike offence (at all three stages of the regime), this will encourage judges to 'game' the system and sentence even softer - to avoid having to make a serious violent or sexual criminal a 'striker'."
Trust spokesperson Louise Parsons said they put the template out to make it easier for concerned citizens to engage with the bill.
"To do a submission is actually quite daunting, so if we can make that easier for people, why wouldn't we?
"If someone feels strongly about what we've explained to them ... and they've gone to the trouble of actually submitting, it means they believe in what we're saying."
Labour Party justice spokesperson Duncan Webb did not have any issue with template submissions. But they should be given appropriate weight, he said.
"When you get 50 or 60 submissions that are identical, you don't give them as much weight as a carefully thought out one."
Several lawyers, academics, professional bodies and advocacy groups contributed substantive submissions on the bill.
None of them supported making it tougher.
Only one 'expert' submitter, who identified themselves as lawyer, supported re-introducing a three strikes regime at all.
The key concerns put forward by experts included a lack of evidence that three strikes regimes work to reduce offending, the disproportionate impact on Māori and Pasifika and flow-on effects for the justice system.
"Both academic research and data from the previous New Zealand regime call into question the likely effectiveness of the proposed three-strikes regime in meeting its intended objective of deterring serious crime," the New Zealand Law Society wrote.
"Fixed sentencing is a primitive response with little empirical support for reducing crime. The proposals instead focus on the labels of crimes rather than the underlying behaviour that constitutes the specific offending," said the Criminal Bar Association's submission.
"The regime has a ripple effect through the criminal justice system which will have unintended consequences. For example, defendants will take matters to trial, as they will consider there is 'nothing to lose' and no credit allowed for taking responsibility early."
"This has an obvious negative impact on victims, as well as undue delay and strain on an already over-burdened justice system and the obvious financial cost."
Jumping the gun
Webb said it was inappropriate for Cabinet to modify the bill based on public feedback while the select committee process was ongoing.
Public submissions closed in June, but the committee's official report is not due until 5 December.
"It's not appropriate for screws to be burned on the whole regime on the basis of secret emails to the Minister's office, when the select committee hasn't done its job yet.
"The minister is telling the select committee that she doesn't care what the submissions are ... it's quite an extraordinary, unparliamentary and unprofessional thing to do."
