Franks Stephen: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14181] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I realise that I should move on to something other than the things that have already been debated and I will do that. 
The schedules which I believe are part of this debate are of interest. I see that Form 4 in schedule 2 was approved unanimously by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I did not realise that it obliges a judge who wants to set a non-parole period to sign in effect a form of confession or check sheet. If members refer to schedule 2 they will see that a judge who wants to set a non-parole period has to state expressly that he or she considers that the minimum term of imprisonment “is necessary to satisfy all or any of the following purposes: holding the offender accountable …: denouncing the conduct in which the offender was involved: deterring the offender … from committing the same or a similar offence: protecting the community … .” Those are four sensible purposes of sentencing all drawn from the beginning of the Sentencing Act. 
But when I look at the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act I find that those purposes are only a few of the ones listed. The form does not for example allow the judge to decide that a one-third release would be offensive to the victim or to the community because it would fail to satisfy for example the purpose in section 7 of providing for the interests of the victim of the offence. If the victim is terrified and really needs to be reassured that the offender will not be out in 3 or 4 years or perhaps 5 years if a court ever ordered the maximum sentence then the court cannot find that that is sufficient reason to impose a non-parole period of 9 years or whatever because the court cannot order a non-parole period of longer than two-thirds of the sentence. 
So why do this form and the section of the Parole Act to which it relates exclude providing for the interests of the victim of the offence? Why does the form also omit the purpose of promoting a sense of responsibility? How can an offender feel that the community is taking the offence seriously when the offender hears a court order a sentence of let us say 12 years for a serious offence and knows that he or she will be out in 4 years? And it will be 4 years for a number of very serious offenders. Take for example an offender who is liable to be deported at the end of the sentence: any offender who is liable to be deported at the end of the sentence must know that he or she will serve one-third—the minimum—because the Parole Board must be absolutely certain that such an offender can be no risk to the safety of the community at the end of his or her sentence! It is absolutely rational that every foreign thug who commits an offence in New Zealand and is therefore liable to deportation must know that when the court solemnly pronounces a sentence of 9 years or 12 years at the most he or she will serve 3 or 4. How can that promote in the offender “a sense of responsibility for and an acknowledgment of” the harm of the offence? 
Yet the Minister of Justice has come here with his patch-up bill and has provided in Form 4 in schedule 2 that the only way in which a judge can give a longer non-parole period is by finding one of the four permitted purposes but not any of the others. The judge cannot say that because the offender showed no remorse he or she will set a longer non-parole period because that is not one of the purposes set out in Form 4 or in this part of the Act. Use of a weapon particular cruelty and premeditation are all aggravating factors and one would have thought it was perfectly proper for a judge to take them into account and to say that therefore it would be offensive to the community to release the offender at one-third of the sentence but the judge is not permitted to take those factors into account as far as I can see.