The New Zealand government has reintroduced the three-strikes sentencing law, raising significant human rights concerns. The legislation first came into effect with the passing of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010. This law sets a framework for mandatory sentencing that escalates penalties for repeat offenders of serious violent and sexual crimes. The law has been criticized for creating unjust outcomes due to its rigid structure.
On Tuesday, the first reading of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill was passed in parliament. Associate Justice Minister Nicoke McKee has promised a “more workable” regime intended to mitigate previous issues of disproportionate sentencing. Key modifications include limitations on sentences above 24 months, increased judicial discretion in cases of manifest injustice, and a 20% sentence discount for early guilty pleas.
The new bill remains controversial, particularly in light of a regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice that highlighted potential inconsistencies with New Zealand’s constitutional documents, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Ministry specifically warned this could further disadvantage the indigenous Māori population and young offenders, who are already disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.
These concerns are not without precedent. In 2020, the New Zealand Supreme Court reviewed a case where the three strikes law was deemed to have violated a defendant’s rights under section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which prohibits disproportionately severe punishment. The case involved a mentally ill and substance-abusing defendant convicted of indecent assault, sentenced to seven years without parole for a minor offense due to the rigid three-strikes framework (New Zealand Supreme Court ruling).
The bill is now set to move to the select committee, where its provisions and potential amendments will be further examined. For more detailed information on this development, refer to the original article on JURIST.