Chauvel Charles: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10214] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It has been apparent from the contributions from Opposition members who were not present at the select committee that they are under a misapprehension about what the judges think. I want to describe what the judges said to the committee. 
The Chief Justice wrote to the committee on 24 April 2007. She recorded—[ 
Interruption 
] If members want to know what the judges said they will listen. If they do not want to know they will keep squawking. They recorded the outcome of the deliberations of senior judges members of the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal and the High Court at a conference on 24 and 25 March 2007. 
A substantial majority of those judges—30 out of 41—said that they would support a Sentencing Council provided that— 
Simon Power 
: The judges’ evidence was heard in private. It’s not tidy. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: There can be no objection to repeating their evidence after the evidence has been given and the report has been made. The member must know that. The conditions upon which the judges said they would support a Sentencing Council were that it not be amenable to directions from the executive; that the Government make it clear that it was responsible for managing penal resources not the judges; that there be some discretion for departing from the guidelines where the interests of the case required it; that a judge should chair the Sentencing Council and have a power of veto; and that a majority of senior judges should comprise the council. The Chief Justice also recorded that 11 of the 41 senior judges—a minority—were opposed to the concept. So 11 out of 41 were opposed to it and 30 out of 41 supported it. 
The Government accepted the majority of the changes requested by the Chief Justice in particular that there be no directions from the executive; that it be made clear that the Government should manage penal resources; that there should be some discretion in individual cases to depart from the guidelines; that a judge should chair the committee; and that there should be a judicial majority on the committee. 
On the basis of those changes to the bill Acting Chief Justice Blanchard President Young of the Court of Appeal and Chief High Court Judge Justice Randerson came before the committee in the absence of the Chief Justice overseas. They were accompanied by Chief District Court Judge Johnson on 10 May. On the basis of the changes that had been proposed they supported the introduction of the proposal. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry to set out the facts for members but it will not do for them to misrepresent what the judges said. That was their evidence before the select committee. Let us be clear about that and let us have it on the record. 
Indeed Chief District Court Judge Johnson went further. Members opposite may not know but the District Courts are responsible for 90 percent of all sentencing. That judge told us that when he was first appointed he and a colleague at Waitakere Court used to go into chambers at the end of the day and look at a thing they called “Norm” which was a book of guidelines on sentences that they had compiled for cases where the Court of Appeal had never had the chance—as with most offences that come before the District Courts—to provide such guidelines. They tried to do justice in the individual case based on those sentencing norms that they themselves had derived and made up. 
That if anything in my view shows the need for a Sentencing Council. It is absolutely disgraceful that people should be subject to different levels of sentencing in different parts of the country simply because District Court judges do not have guidelines to allow them to deliver justice on a uniform basis. They will have that uniform basis in these guidelines and it is very important that they have them. It is tragic that a party in this House would want to deprive judges of the tool they have asked for in their evidence. 
I note that the  
Waikato Times 
 on 26 August 2006 reported that if a person steals a car in Hamilton that person is more likely to go to prison than if he or she commits that same crime in other regions. What can be fair about that? What can be a problem with uniform justice delivered across the nation in a manner that the judges themselves have welcomed? 
I seek leave to table the letter of the Chief Justice to the Chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee dated 24 April 2007 setting out the matters to which I have referred. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.