Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010
The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that denies parole to certain repeat offenders and to offenders guilty of the worse murders, and imposes maximum terms of imprisonment on persistent repeat offenders who continue to commit serious violent offences. The law is known informally in New Zealand public, media and government circles as the "three-strikes law". The bill passed its third reading on 25 May 2010. It was supported by the conservative National and libertarian ACT parties but was opposed by the Labour, Green, and  Māori parties. It became law when it received royal assent on 31 May 2010. Legislative features. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 creates a three-stage system of increasing consequences for repeat serious violent offenders. The Act covers 40 qualifying offences comprising all major violent and sexual offences with a maximum penalty of seven years or greater imprisonment, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, sexual violation, abduction, kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. Since the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 prohibits retroactive application of laws to disadvantage an offender, the law only  applies to offences committed on or after 1 June 2010. A first warning is issued after an offender who is aged 18 or over is convicted of a qualifying offence. Once the offender has received a "first-strike" warning, it stays on their criminal record permanently unless their conviction is overturned. The warning must be given verbally by the Judge and followed up in writing for it to be valid. If the offender is subsequently convicted of another qualifying offence, they receive a final warning. If they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, they will serve that sentence in  full without the possibility of parole. The first and final warnings will stay on the offender's record. On conviction of a third qualifying offence, the court must impose the maximum penalty for the offence on the defendant. The legislation stipulates that if the offence the court must also order that the sentence be served without parole, unless the qualifying offence is manslaughter or court considers that it would be manifestly unjust. In cases of manslaughter, a minimum non-parole period of 20 years applies instead, unless the court considers that it would be manifestly unjust, in which case the  standard 10-year non-period for life imprisonment applies. If the second or third qualifying offence is murder, then the court must impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, unless it deems it manifestly unjust to do so. In the case a previous qualifying offence is overturned, the courts must set aside all other qualifying offences' sentences and warnings, and re-sentence and re-warn as if the overturned offence never occurred. Sentencing judges for second and third qualifying offences must state in their sentencing judgment the sentence they would have given but for the Act to  assist in case of re-sentencing. History. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act was first introduced into the New Zealand House of Representatives on 18 February 2009. Per New Zealand Parliamentary process, the proposed law went through three readings. It passed its first reading on 18 May 2009. The select committee reported back to the House on 26 March 2010, recommending the bill to proceed with modifications. The largest modification was changing the third strike penalty from life imprisonment with 25 years non-parole to the maximum sentence without parole, after the Attorney-General found the original penalty breached the  cruel and unusual punishment provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Right Acts. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill passed its second reading on 4 May 2010. On 25 May 2010, the Act passed its third and final reading; becoming law on 31 May 2010. While the ruling National and ACT parties supported the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act, the government's support partner the Māori Party joined the opposition Labour and Green parties in opposing the law's passage. Since its passage, the so-called "three-strikes law" has been controversial in New Zealand society. Critics have criticized the  Sentencing and Parole Reform Act for its alleged punitive approach to justice and for disproportionately affected the Māori community. By contrast, it has been supported by conservative advocacy groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Family First New Zealand. In August 2016, the Court of Appeal in "R v Harrison & Ors" established the scope of the "manifestly unjust" provision in section 86E. The Crown appealed two cases involving murder as the second qualifying offence where the sentencing judges exercised the manifestly unjust provision and refused to give the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The first qualifying offence  in each case was indecent assault and wounding with intent to injure, both which carry a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment and therefore at the bottom of the scale of serious violent offence. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that in order to not breach the cruel and unusual punishment provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, manifest injustice had to have a broad scope. This ruling has effectively made section 86E of the Act unenforceable, at least if murder is a second qualifying offence following a non-homicide first qualifying offence. Repeal attempts. Following the formation  of the Labour coalition government after the 2017 general election, Labour's Justice Minister Andrew Little announced that it would be scrapping the three-strikes law. Little argued that the law was doing little to facilitate rehabilitation of violent offenders and was contributing to New Zealand's growing prison population. Little's announcement was criticized by ACT Party leader David Seymour. On 30 May 2018, Justice Minister Little announced that the Labour coalition government would be taking steps to repeal the "three-strikes law" in early June. In response, the Sensible Sentencing Trust's founder Garth McVicar commissioned a poll  of 965 adults which claimed that 68 percent of New Zealanders approved of the law and 20 percent did not; including 63 percent of Labour supporters and 48 percent of Green supporters. On 11 June 2018, Andrew Little announced that the Government would be abandoning its efforts to repeal the "three-strikes law" due to opposition from its coalition partner, the populist conservative New Zealand First. In mid–November 2021, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi announced that the Labour-majority government would be introducing the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill to repeal the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act. Faafoi described the  three-strikes law as "archaic, unfair, and ineffective" and claimed it had led to "absurd and perverse" outcomes. While the proposed repeal legislation was supported by the Labour and Green parties, the opposition National and ACT parties defended the "three strikes law." National's justice spokesperson Simon Bridges and ACT's justice spokeswoman Nicole McKee claimed that repealing the "three strikes law" would "re-victimise" victims and encourage gangs and violent crime offenders.