1. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does he stand by a Ministry of Justice document from October 2005, which states that targeting electronic bail towards those defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody “conflicts with the fact that such defendants are more likely to have characteristics or criminal histories that would make them unsuitable for release on bail with electronic monitoring.”; if not, why not?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
I stand by the advice that was tendered to Ministers in 2005: “Some defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody could be released on bail with electronic monitoring.”
Can he confirm that the same document states that electronic bail was established “with the primary aim of reducing inmate numbers”, and is saving 46 prison beds really worth the risk to the public when violent offenders make up the largest group of those on electronic bail, including those accused of aggravated robbery, grievous assault, rape; and that a staggering 87 percent on electronic bail have already been convicted for offending whilst previously on bail?
As the member knows, because I told him in writing in January, the document he is referring to was not one I was even aware of the existence of. It was not—
—under the Official Information Act. It is a draft document, internal to the ministry. What I am telling the member is that the advice the Ministers received when raising questions about this, is as per the answer I gave the member in the principal answer. I can say to the member that of the 274 who have applied, and the 126 the court has heard, only three have been charged with any new offences.
Why should the public have any confidence in the Minister’s policy of letting violent offenders out on electronic bail just to save a few prison beds, when police have opposed their bail in 85 percent of cases, including a member of the JDK gang, who had previously offended while on bail, is currently on the run, and is someone police have warned on national television is “extremely dangerous”?
As the member indicates in his question, he quite correctly understands that the operational responsibility for electronic bail resides with the police. But I can say to the member that in terms of the actual advice Ministers received from the ministry, the ministry also emphasised that the reasons to progress to electronic bail were that it had positive implications around improving rehabilitation options and enhancing public safety by enabling stricter supervision for offenders.
The member is misleading people who are listening, because, of course, some of those who are getting electronic bail provision previously would have had non-electronic bail provision. In this case it enhances the security of those getting the sentence.
Does the Minister agree with the advice of an official who was asked to estimate the number of offenders remanded in custody who might be eligible for electronic bail, and replied by email: “Basically it seems very few remands are made without good reason. Sometimes police will apply for remand under one charge while they look for evidence under another charge, so the remand can also be something of a risk-mitigation tool with known serious reoffenders.”; if not, why not?
As the nature of the member’s question indicates, there are a series of issues. The first is to provide a tool, the second is for the police to determine their recommendation, and, thirdly, of course—and most important—is for the court to decide what provision it makes use of on its judgment of all the facts at the time.
Ron MarkWhat is the public to do when, first, it has a National Government that introduces home detention, containing back-end home detention, and that allows violent offenders placed on home detention to offend again; and, second, it sees a Labour-led Government allowing violent offenders—who have previously offended whilst on bail—to be given electronic bail, from where they offend again, other than to vote for a sensibly led Government, that being a New Zealand First - led Government, which will not accept the sorts of airhead recommendations that both he and National give?
As the member is aware, the House is considering at this time a range of sentencing options to enhance the choices for judges to use. But I can say to the member that contrary to the implication of the latter part of his question, of those who have currently been involved in an electronic bail sentence only three have been charged and, in fact, only one convicted, of a new offence. The member’s question was legitimate in terms of whether we are evaluating the work that is being done. That is perhaps most important, and I can tell him that, yes, we are. There is an evaluation. An independent contractor has been engaged by police to provide that data. There will be a report to Ministers in November, and we will have a substantive evaluation of what has actually happened, whether this is working, and whether it requires any change.
Can the Minister confirm that when his predecessor the Hon Phil Goff was asked to come up with ways of reducing the prison population, he told Cabinet in March 2005: “I do not propose that electronic monitoring as a condition of bail be reconsidered at this time.”, yet that same month he was rolled by Cabinet into doing more work on it; and is that because the Government was more concerned about prison numbers than it was about the type of offender who is currently on electronically monitored bail?
I can confirm that in December 2005, when I was the Minister, the advice provided to Cabinet was as per the answers to the questions I gave to the member earlier. I can say to the member that that advice was tendered as part of a suite of advice dealing with a range of options that gives the Government and, ultimately, the courts better sentencing options to achieve both community safety and the best results in terms of the criminal justice system. That is the point of the exercise.
Has he received any reports from the Minister of Police about whether the police actually support electronic bail, when they not only have to assess the eligibility of remandees for electronic bail but also have to monitor them while they are on electronic bail, despite the fact that they almost always oppose electronic bail in the first instance?
No, I have not received any reports from the Minister of Police stating that the police oppose their involvement in the electronic bail process. But as I indicated to the member, the police have conducted, and are conducting, an evaluation. They have independent research being done. That will provide a basis of reporting to joint Ministers later in the year.
Is this scheme about keeping prison numbers down or about protecting the public from people who have previously, or who have allegedly, had violent criminal charges laid against them?
If the member means by “this scheme” electronic bail, then it is but one of a number of ingredients in a range of sentencing options provided to the courts through legislation that is going through this House in order to achieve the most effective use of the criminal justice system.
Can he now then give this House an absolute assurance that his Government will be issuing instructions that no offender who has had a previous history of offending whilst on bail will now be eligible for electronic bail, end of story; can he give the House that assurance right now?
I can give the member an assurance that the Government has made it very clear that the use of this sentence needs to be applied alongside a first principle of public and community safety. In the end, it is up to the judges, in possession of all the facts at the time, to make a choice as to the appropriate use of sentencing.