Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10901] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill according to the purpose clause is to deny parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders. I think that there is a problem with that language because it includes manslaughter as well. We have created an interesting juxtaposition in this legislation. The Minister will know that there are people who are found guilty of manslaughter who could not possibly be defined as guilty of the worst murders. I will mention a case that I became familiar with when we had the debate on provocation. I would like the Committee to reflect on the fact that this purpose clause refers to— 
Paul Quinn 
: Lot of reflecting Lianne. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I think it is worth doing. I am trying to be helpful and ensure that the Committee looks at all of these issues. A couple entered into what was a suicide pact essentially—an elderly couple both not very well. Unfortunately in this suicide pact—the whole situation was unfortunate—the husband was successful in assisting his wife to complete suicide but he was not successful in his own suicide. He was charged with murder he pleaded guilty and he was sentenced under our new law which does not require life imprisonment as a mandatory sentence. It has to be imposed unless there are good reasons not to but essentially it is no longer a mandatory sentence. One of the issues that came up in the course of that case was that the result essentially was that he was granted home detention. One could not possibly describe him as having been in this category of an offender guilty of the worst murders when he had pleaded guilty to murder on the basis of not having a trial. He was not very well himself. I think there was recognition from the Crown that it would not prosecute for the life sentence that could have been given in that particular case. If there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment for murder at the time then that judge would have found it very difficult. I personally think that the husband probably would have pleaded not guilty if there had not been the alternative to life imprisonment. 
The trouble is that the language of this says that this is what it is for but it means that it will capture a whole lot of people who are not in this category. So somebody for example who has had a “youthful” time who has gone down the wrong track and committed two very serious offences when he was quite young and who then has had a period of redemption—finding himself making up with those he has offended against and restoring himself on to a good path later in life—if he was that gentleman he would face the maximum term of imprisonment because he would be regarded as a persistent repeat offender even though he had committed only two serious offences at a time when he was young not really fully grown and not able to make the right decisions at that time in his life. 
The purpose clause is trying to encapsulate what the Government is trying to achieve but it fails to identify that there are always exceptions to these rules and I do not know whether the exceptions are actually identified within the purpose as well. As I understand the bill—and I am not as familiar with this bill as I am with others because I did not sit on the select committee—there are provisions that enable the application of parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worst murders because there is an alternative provision in there for those cases where there is an alternative if the judge determines that it would be a breach.