These appeals have ability to make history
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