Ministry casts doubt on Bridges’ stand

Evidence touted by National Party leader Simon Bridges as proof the “three strikes” law works is not actually the proof it is claimed to be, according to the Ministry of Justice.

The evidence appears to show a drop in the number of people appearing before courts for “second strike” offences — but it fails to take into account five years’ worth of change in criminal justice.

Justice Minister Andrew Little is going to Cabinet today with a plan to get rid of the law, saying “tough on crime” policies are not working.

The claim found support from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman in a recent report which said “tough on crime” policies leading to longer time in prison created inmates who posed a greater risk to the society into which they were eventually released.

Bridges cited information released under the Official Information Act as evidence of the value of the law.

The Ministry of Justice data showed there had been a drop in the number of people convicted on “second strike” offences after the 2010 law was introduced. From 2005-2010, 103 people were convicted but only 68 from 2010 to 2015.

Bridges said: “The OIA material . . . shows that apples with apples, in comparison with the same sort of offences and trajectories in the past, it is reducing people graduating on with those second and third strikes.

“They get the warning, they heed the lesson that they hear and they are very reluctant to move on to the next strike.”

Caveats on ‘proof’

Ministry of Justice insights manager Anton Youngman said “important caveats” had been included in OIA responses which showed the statistics were not evidence of “three strikes” working. “Essentially we were pointing out to requesters some of the important caveats that needed to be considered when interpreting the data, and the difficulty in comparing the period before the Act came into force, with the period after because of the many changes that occurred.”

He said there were changes to policing and prosecution practices, and a “significant reduction“in the number of cases before the courts.

“In other words, there is no way to pinpoint behavioural changes . . . to the law change alone and attempting to do a like-for-like comparison when there are so many differences is very challenging.”

The statistics show about seven people each year were picking up “second strike” warnings and being forced, under the law, to serve the full term of the sentence they received without being eligible for parole.

Under the law, a “third strike” offence — being convicted a third time on one of the 38 crimes on the list — resulted in a maximum possible sentence without parole.

It was this part of the law which resulted in two convictions of indecent assault — one for an inmate pinching a prison officer’s bottom and one for a man with sexual convictions kissing strangers — being sent to prison for seven years.

‘Ad hoc’ crimes with public appeal

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the law was an “ad hoc” collection of crimes that sent a message that had “some success with the voting public”.

Geddis said the law was inconsistent with the principles of justice as practised in our courts.

“The major disconnect is that the three strikes regime requires judges to impose predetermined sentences on people irrespective of their actions or overall culpability.”