Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Alexander Marc: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14177] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make just three brief points. One of the overriding concerns that I guess has been talked about at some length is the attack on the parole provisions. Nothing puts that more sharply in mind than a case of a gentleman by the name of Brian Alan Bolt. He is 48 years of age. The judge said it was clear that he offended regularly and offended as soon as he was released from custody. While on parole he committed his 636th offence. If there could ever be an indictment of the parole provisions I guess he must surely be it. 
Clause 22 states that the court may defer the start date of a sentence of imprisonment and justify it under exceptional circumstances. One has to ask why on earth we are giving the right to do that for an offender while no right of a similar nature has been given to the victim. Nobody has considered the victim’s interest in this deferral. In fact there is no provision for the victim to even make an impact statement with regard to the deferral provisions. It seems shocking that we are still going down the track of giving the weight of credence to an offender rather than a victim. It runs counter to the heart of the victims’ rights legislation that was passed not that long ago which tries to rebalance the justice system in favour of the victim. This legislation does not represent that at all. It does not mirror those concerns. 
Clause 21 deals with the fact that the court must consider granting an offender leave to apply for home detention in certain cases. Subsection (3) in clause 21 states: “The court may grant the offender leave to apply to the New Zealand Parole Board under section 33 of the Parole Act 2002 for home detention only if the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate to grant leave taking into account—(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence; and (b) the circumstances and background of the offender; and (c) any relevant matters in the victim impact statement in the case.” It seems to me that the nature and seriousness of the offence can actually be decided upon by the victim impact statement allowing the victim to have his or her say about just what the nature and the seriousness of the offence is. If anybody understands the seriousness of any offence it must surely be the victims. They are the ones who have to suffer for it. They are the ones who have to feel the full brunt of the offence. So surely the power ought to lie with victims to be able to ascertain the impact and the seriousness of the offence. I do not believe that clause 21 highlights that as adequately as it perhaps might. 
The last point I want to talk about is clause 18 “Cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment”. It seems very difficult to understand exactly what this clause actually says. I am not a lawyer but I did consult a lawyer not that long ago and I asked what it means. He himself was not quite sure of it. It seems to suggest that again we are going down the track of offering people discounts for the offences that they commit based on concurrent sentencing rather than cumulative sentencing. If a person is out on parole despite the fact that he or she comes under the sentencing provisions and has another offence to answer to the possible sentence that could apply in that case should not be waived. On what grounds can the offence be diminished simply by reason of a person being on parole and not having to address the offence or the sentencing that might ensue because of another offence given them? 
I have in my name a Supplementary Order Paper that I consider to be a technical adjustment of what clause 18 is doing to at least allow the judges to take into consideration the fact that a cumulative sentence might actually hit the aims of justice a little better than the provisions that seem to be garbled and muddled as they are presently written. I look forward to the support of the Committee.