Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14305] 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will he be reviewing the sentencing laws to ensure that provision for reparation to victims does not buy lighter sentences; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Section 12 of the Sentencing Act provides that a judge must order reparation to the victim in every case unless there are strong reasons not to do so. In relevant cases this sentence is in addition to and not in place of any other sentence that may be appropriate such as imprisonment. Separate to this under section 10 of the Act voluntary offers of amends can be taken into account by the court in sentencing but only to the extent that the victim accepts the offer and that it is genuine and is capable of fulfilment. There is no current intention to change those provisions. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister received any feedback from the public surrounding the sentence handed down to Qi Sun a repeat-offending Chinese national on a work permit for his part in an illegal casino where bets of over $1000 could be made who was discharged without conviction after paying a paltry $150 donation to the Salvation Army; if so did the feedback indicate that the public were satisfied with this form of chequebook justice? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No to the best of my knowledge I have not received any submissions on that case—leastwise they have not come across my desk if they were received. What I can tell the member is that the judge has a discretion to take into account what he accepts as an offer of amends and he can impose what he believes to be the appropriate level of reparation. In another case—the Cromie case in the member’s own region—$380000 was paid by way of amends but that did not stop the offender getting 2½ years’ imprisonment because that was appropriate given the nature of her offending. 
Tim Barnett 
: What rights are accorded to the victim with regard to whether any amends offered by the offender will be regarded as a mitigating factor by the judge at sentencing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Section 10 states that the court must take into account an offer of amends but only to the extent that it is genuine that it is capable of fulfilment and that it is accepted by the victim as expiating or mitigating the wrong. This then will be one mitigating factor that is judged against other factors including aggravating factors and it does not reduce the need for the court to sentence in relation to the sentencing purposes of the Act which are protection of the public denunciation and deterrence of offending. 
Richard Worth 
: In the light of the widespread public perception that those with money may by making reparation payments secure a lesser sentence why will the Minister 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 
: Some would say that that is a bit rich. It is important—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say that that was a little bit of an overreaction. I heard the Minister make a comment that was out of order and I was about to chide him for it. He will please answer the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a fundamental principle in our system of justice that people are treated the same regardless of their income or status in life and it is important to uphold that. That is why when the Act said that amends could be taken into account it did not state the level of amends and a judge will obviously take into account what is offered in relation to what the person’s means are. The Act also takes into account that there are a variety of other ways in which a person can help to restore the situation he or she has caused for the victim. The member is a lawyer. He should not talk about perceptions; he should talk about realities. As an officer of the court he knows that the court does not believe in chequebook justice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that reparations can be an important part of or an alternative to sentencing where agreed between a victim and an offender and in particular that in general reparations are preferable to the use of fines—as the money actually goes to the victim rather than to the State? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do agree with what the member has said. In the last year alone over $14 million was paid by offenders to victims to help set right the losses suffered by those victims. Anybody in the House who would be opposed to that happening needs his or her head read. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister satisfied that his Sentencing Act has been applied by the judiciary as it was intended; if so was it his intention that foreign criminals be able to claim over $40000 in legal aid from the taxpayer and then have the appellants pay $64000 worth of blood money in exchange for a 3½ year reduction in a sentence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is absolutely factually incorrect in the last statement he made. If he took the time to read the judgment instead of making things up he would see precisely why the judge on appeal decided to reduce that sentence. The question of amends not accepted by one half of the family but ultimately accepted by the other half of the family was only third in line of what the judge said was important in the reduction of the sentence. 
Ron Mark 
: Then what is the Minister’s response to calls from the public indicating a widespread feeling that chequebook justice is alive and well under his Sentencing Act especially following a recent case where an unlicensed foreign driver killed a 4-year-old girl through his dangerous driving and had his sentence halved on appeal due to $40000 worth of blood money being offered to and declined by the victim’s family and the victim’s kindergarten? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Repeating something as a fact and which is factually incorrect does not make it a fact. The member has his facts wrong on a number of fronts. There is nowhere in the judge’s sentencing notes—and I hope the member has read them— 
Ron Mark 
: Come on. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: He has read them? Well he would know better. I bet he has not read them. The judge made it quite explicit that this was not about chequebook justice at all. He deplored the accusation of chequebook justice. The reason the sentence was reduced was to bring it into line with other sentences for like offences. It had nothing to do with what the member claims at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of disclosing what the law is in respect of the rich I seek leave to table a book called  
The Paradise Conspiracy 
 which shows that crooks rather than getting punished got knighthoods. 
Document not tabled.