Our courts aren’t like Tinkerbell
In Peter Pan it works like this: Every time a child says ‘‘I don’t believe in fairies’’ a fairy somewhere falls down dead. But in New Zealand courts it doesn’t work like that.
Every time a voice says ‘‘I don’t recognise your laws’’ then what needs to fall, and heavily, is a gavel.
Something is altogether screwy with the case of the young Napier man Marquis Ewart, who was sentenced by Ma¯ ori Restorative Justice – an outfit that Judge Bridget McIntosh of the Napier District Court says flatly was ‘‘certainly not sanctioned’’ to do so.
New Zealand’s justice system can be labyrinthine and the potential for multi-layered confusions and miscommunication between organisations must always be held in mind.
But when a representative of Ma¯ ori Restorative Justice, Michelle Reti-Kaukau, was approached for comment, she lobbed this nailbomb: Defendants she dealt with were sentenced in the organisation’s own court – Te Kooti Aroha – and it was fine if the judge did not recognise her organisation, ‘‘because we don’t recognise your laws either’’.
What the actual hell? On the basis of that reported comment alone, this organisation must face pointed scrutiny and potentially weighty consequences if it is found to have meddled in the exercise of a legitimate New Zealand court’s authority.
It appears no criticism could be directed at Ewart for doing anything other than what he was told. After admitting some unlawful entry charges, he had been down to attend a meeting arranged by a different organisation, Hawke’s Bay Restorative Justice, which does have status in the eyes of the court, operating under contract to the Ministry of Justice.
But his lawyer, Peter Austin, told Judge McIntosh that Ewart had then been approached by Ma¯ ori Restorative Justice to attend a meeting under its aegis, ‘‘sentenced’’ to three months’ supervision, instructed to attend an anger management course, and advised he needn’t go back to the court.
What’s more – small point – Austin said the organisation had made no reference to the victims.
Call us bluff traditionalists, but when it comes to restorative justice, victims are not optional extras.
It would also seem a trust operated by Reti-Kaukau prepares cultural reports on behalf of offenders, funded through Legal Aid Services. But that’s not itself the same thing and whether even this role a good idea in light of apparent law-recognition issues is itself a matter for inquiry.
What’s more, restorative justice as a concept deserves better than to be debased by poor to outrageous practice.
In essence it has more to do with healing than punishment, and on that basis alone it has its ardent critics. However, it does play a useful role in some cases, when applied properly.
It also has its limitations. There have been cases where victims and offenders have agreed among themselves what an appropriate outcome might be – for instance, in one case it was agreed a driver who had been drinking and caused a car crash that killed his passenger should do some work around her family’s farm.
The judge wouldn’t wear that and the man was jailed. Fair enough, because in such cases one of the imperatives is to send a deterrent message.
Speaking of which, some sort of seriously deterrent message may be necessary in the case of Ma¯ ori Restorative Justice.
Restorative justice as a concept deserves better than to be debased by poor to outrageous practice.