Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6209] 
10.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he intend to review the Sentencing Act 2002 in light of the halving of the sentence of Ding Yan Zhao; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. The Sentencing Act maintains longstanding requirements for the courts in determining a sentence to ensure consistency with sentences in comparable cases which was a factor in Justice Randerson’s decision. It also requires the judge to weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the offender’s actions and to take account of the views of victims. The expression of remorse has always been regarded as a relevant mitigating factor. When that remorse leads to the making of amends to a victim the victim’s response must be taken into account. That is set out clearly in section 10 of the Act and requires no further clarification. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister certain that the victims in the Zhao case defined by section 4(1) of the Sentencing Act as “every member of the immediate family … ” in the case of a deceased person were party to any offer or agreement to make amends as referred to in section 10 of the Act; and as it appears that the father and mother of the deceased child were not consulted in that way surely that is a ground on which to encourage the Solicitor-General to lodge an appeal in this case—an encouragement that I hope would have the overwhelming support of this House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: First with regard to the latter point it is not appropriate for me to involve myself as Minister of Justice in matters before the court. I do however have a concern as to whether the court was aware that the payment of money to a kindergarten did meet the requirements of section 10 and whether that was regarded by the victims as a mitigating factor. It is not clear at all to me whether the court was aware of that but only the judge can answer that question. 
Tim Barnett 
: Does the Sentencing Act require the court to take into account an offer by the offender to make amends to the victim? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes section 10 of the Sentencing Act does that. It is very much the same provision as was in section 12 of the previous Act the Criminal Justice Act. Making amends—and remorse—is one of the factors that the judge must take into account. Equally that section requires the court to consider the genuineness of the offer and also whether the victim accepts that offer as making amends—that is mitigating the wrong. That the judge must take the making of amends into account means that he or she must bear that in mind in determining the appropriate sentence. It does not necessarily mean that the judge has to use it as a factor in reducing the sentence. 
Richard Worth 
: In the light of a widespread public perception that those with money may by making reparation payments secure a lesser sentence why will he not review the Sentencing Act so that rich and poor people are punished equally and the rich do not secure an advantage? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is of course absolutely fundamental that the financial means of the offender do not influence the sentence given but I would not want as I have seen the impression to be left in the House that the court was other than in agreement with that sentiment. As the judge in the High Court when talking about the District Court judge correctly pointed out in paragraph 19 of the sentencing notes: “Offenders and their families should not have any grounds to believe that they may be able effectively to buy themselves out of prison by making an offer of reparation or amends under section 10. ... However I entirely agree with the sentencing judge that the courts will not tolerate some form of chequebook justice.” Both the District Court judge and the High Court judge emphatically stood behind the principle that the ability to pay money ought not to influence the outcome of the case. 
Marc Alexander 
: What action if any can the Minister take to ensure that the victim’s view on reparation and whether that makes amends to the victim is conveyed to the courts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have discussed that matter with the Ministry of Justice. The ministry has been in direct contact with the police prosecutions division. As a result of that discussion the police will remind all police prosecutors that in cases where the defence is making a submission that amends have been made or offered the prosecutor must firstly find out whether the amends have actually been made and secondly find out the victim’s response to that offer and whether he or she sees that as mitigating the wrong done to him or her. It is most important that the court through the Crown or the police is made aware of the victim’s views in that regard—and accurately. 
Dail Jones 
: Was the Minister correctly reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today on page A3 in referring to what he said on  
Holmes 
 last night when it stated: “Phil Goff said it was unacceptable and contrary to the Victims Rights Act for victims not be informed.”; what steps will he take to make sure that this type of dreadful situation will not recur? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was absolutely correctly interpreted in that article. It is unacceptable—it is intolerable—that the victim was not advised of the hearing date for the appeal case. That is a statutory obligation of the agencies. I have made inquiries of my colleague the Minister for Courts. The courts state that a junior staff member failed to do that notwithstanding the fact that that person was reminded by a supervisor. Disciplinary action will be decided upon by the department. Most important the department will put in place from this point on a check to ensure that that advice is given to a victim before a matter goes to court.