Guilty as charged or perceived? - Editorial

An Auckland High Court verdict against a man who caused the death of an elderly Indian stirred up anger among several members of the Indian community.

We ran the story (October 1 edition) of 28-year-old Bio O’Brien being sentenced to three years in jail for the death of Jasmatbhai Patel (78) in a road rage accident on April 7, with readers’ comments.

We had suggested that the verdict may mean that the offender could be set free within a year, after he completes a third of his sentence. He has already served six months in prison. Many had questioned the rationale behind ‘the light sentence.’

This is yet another case of social frustration caused by a justice system that time and again does not take into account the gravity of public opinion, and not just the gravity of crime. Some have argued that the actions of O’Brien should not be confused or compared with crimes and punishment meted out in other cases.

But it is significant to ask whether the National Government, which said it would be tough on crime and tough on causes of crime as a part of its election manifesto, has moved towards the fulfilment of that promise. Public confidence in the justice system will take a further dip if punishment does not match crime, and if the offenders do not properly serve such punishment.

Such problems are not peculiar to us in this country. They appear to be endemic in much of the First World. In Britain for instance, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett, who was intent on fundamental police reform, caused a furore when he threatened to intervene in the policing of London if street crime and robbery were not  brought rapidly under control.

The warning went down badly with the hard-pressed, under-staffed Metropolitan Police. Then Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens hit back, blaming the politicians  for their failure to reform criminal law. He described Britain’s criminal-justice system  as “appalling” and said that, over the past 20 years, numerous official reports  highlighting the loopholes in the way it worked had been pigeonholed.

Sir John, whose temper was said to be even shorter than that of Mr Blunkett, warned  that if the reform proposals, put forward by Lord Justice Auld suffered the same fate as their predecessors then “We allow a situation where, as others have forecast, anarchy cannot be far away.”

Protagonists for a law change in New Zealand believe that the justice system needs a thorough overhaul, plugging the existing loopholes, which allow the guilty to walk out of courts almost as if through a revolving door.

Justice can be delayed but not denied.

It is only when punishment fits crime and when offenders are constrained to serve the full term of their sentence that the public would be satisfied that the justice system is fair and retributive.

Judge Judith Potter, who triggered a heated public debate following her verdict in the O’Brien case, may have unintentionally triggered a debate among those in charge in the Government the need to revisit the judicial process and sentencing system.

That should bring about the desired results.