Judges would be prohibited from taking character references into account during sentencing
Lawyers have raised concerns over fair sentencing if judges were prohibited from taking into account good character references when sentencing sex offenders, reported the NZ Herald.
The legislative change presented by the National party would permit references to be disclosed to the court, but judges would be disallowed from considering them. Defence lawyer Samira Taghavi described the plan as “dangerous” and “knee-jerk populism” in a statement published by the Herald.
She pointed out that character references helped courts to determine true culpability, the likelihood of reoffending and rehabilitation prospects.
“For repeat sex offenders, I doubt you would find anyone writing meaningful character references in the first place. Their prior convictions make ‘good character’ claims implausible - judges already give such evidence little or no weight in those cases”, Taghavi said in a statement published by the Herald. “The environment for anyone charged with a sexual offence is already highly prejudiced”.
Marie Dyhrberg KC added that good character references would not serve as an excuse for criminal behaviour.
“Victims can understandably experience glowing references as minimizing the harm done to them. So politically and emotionally, the proposal is easy to understand. But legally, sentencing systems generally work best when judges retain the ability to weigh all relevant circumstances. A blanket prohibition assumes that ‘good character’ is never relevant in sexual offending cases, which is a much stronger claim”, she said in a statement published by the Herald.
Dyhrberg explained that judges were cautious in their approach to character references in serious sex offence cases, particularly in cases involving abuse of trust, planning, grooming, or repeated offending.
However, prime minister Christopher Luxon said no sex offender possessed good character.
“I don’t care if you’re a good athlete and I don’t care if your manager liked that you turned up on time at work. That victim in the courtroom is your character, your conviction is your character and no sympathetic statement to the contrary should play a role on their sentencing”, he said in a statement published by the Herald.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said offenders’ interests were often considered over those of sexual violence victims.
“As the law is written today, judges are required to take into account testimony from individuals willing to speak to an offender’s character – former coaches, employers and family members willing to state on the record that any offending is the exception, not the rule”, he said in a statement published by the Herald. “The consequences for the victim remain, regardless of the former reputation of the perpetrator”.
Goldsmith said that should the National party be re-elected in November, it would enforce heavier sentences and prevent good character from being applied as a mitigating factor in offenders’ sentencing. He explained that this built on the party’s initiative to cut sentencing discounts to 40%, empowering sexual violence victims to grant or deny permanent name suppression to offenders, and making stalking a jailable offence.
“We have been wanting this to happen for a very, very long time, so we’re stoked that the Ministry of Justice and Luxon, they’re actually putting their hand up and saying no. We absolutely agree with what the sector is saying and people don’t deserve good character references when they have committed a heinous crime”, sexual violence survivor and advocate Louise Nicholas said in a statement published by the Herald.
