Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7566] 
11. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will he amend section 86 of the Sentencing Act 2002 that stops judges setting non-parole periods for most cases after the Court of Appeal in a rape sentencing case last week said “We can foresee this subject being a fertile source of difficulty for some time to come both for sentencing judges and on appeal.” or is it Government policy for judges not to be able to set non-parole periods when they believe justice demands it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The effect of the judgment last week was not to stop judges setting minimum non-parole periods as the member claims. The effect of the judgment was to confirm the Court of Appeal’s decision in last year’s  
Brown 
 case that minimum non-parole periods can be imposed in cases of such seriousness that eligibility for release after serving one-third of a sentence would represent “insufficient denunciation punishment and deterrence”. This accurately reflects the intent of section 86. Nevertheless the court has invited Parliament to consider revisiting the wording of section 86 to put this interpretation beyond doubt. I will be considering that invitation. 
Stephen Franks 
: Do I take the Minister to be saying that it is not the effect of this judgment that the ordinary rapist sentenced to 8 years under this judgment will serve 2 years 8 months or that to achieve the actual sentence served for the average rapist over the past few years of 5 years the judges will now have to sentence for 15 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is no such thing and the judgment rejects the concept of an ordinary rapist or a standard term. What it shows is that those who commit the worst offences will now serve the whole of their term. The judge will probably set the minimum two-thirds but the Parole Board will not then release because under today’s legislation it is under no compunction to release at two-thirds as it was under the former legislation. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What did the Court of Appeal say about the use of minimum non-parole periods in the  
Brown 
 case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Court of Appeal reaffirmed its earlier decision in the  
Brown 
 case last year—a case in which a much longer than minimum period of non-parole was set—and said that it was appropriate to set minimum non-parole periods when one-third would represent “insufficient denunciation punishment and deterrence”. The court has now reinforced its own earlier interpretation of that section. 
Richard Worth 
: When will the Minister move to deal with criticism of his much-vaunted sentencing and parole legislation by senior judges who variously described it as being “inept” “a source of difficulty for some time to come” and “something like a Hampton Court maze”; or is the answer “never”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I note in passing that the judge who made the comment about the Hampton Court maze had made that same comment about the previous legislation. It seems to be a favourite phrase. Can I also refer the member to Justice Priestley whom I think he knows personally who said: “The Sentencing Act 2002 is in most areas a huge improvement on the mishmash of law that applied to sentencing prior to 1 July. It greatly assists the courts.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Table the rest of it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member wants the other quote I am happy to give it to him. He said: “The application of the section 8(c) and (d) principles must inevitably pull sentencing levels up.” That is very clear. 
Stephen Franks 
: In effect I repeat the previous question: if the Minister is going to patch up this inept legislation when will that be and will it be more than a simple statement that a judge can fix a non-parole period when the interests of justice denunciation and accountability require it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: First of all I reject the description used by the member. This legislation has resulted in longer sentences for the worst offences and it has resulted in the Parole Board being instructed not to release people if they constitute a risk. Like any major legislation this legislation will be subject to review. We need time to see it settle in before any decision is made. That was the advice given by the member’s former trade union the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association.