A Legal and Ethical Analysis of Preventive Detention in New Zealand
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Better and Better and Better? A Legal and Ethical Analysis of Preventive Detention in New Zealand November 2014 Associate Professor Colin Gavaghan Dr Jeanne Snelling Professor John McMillan The first words in this title, “Better and Better and Better”, are borrowed from a discussion between Alice and the Queen of Hearts in the Lewis Carroll novel, Through the Looking Glass. The conversation concerned the concept of “living backwards,” and the possibility of punishing people for crimes that had not yet, and may never, occur. In the Queen’s words, punishment for wrong-doing makes people better, but if the crime in question never occurs, that is “better still; better, and better, and better!” Through the Looking Glass, in The Complete Illustrated Works of Lewis Carroll (Chancellor Press, 1982) 171. This report may be cited as: C Gavaghan, J Snelling and J McMillan Better and Better and Better? A Legal and Ethical Analysis of Preventive Detention in New Zealand (Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation, University of Otago, 7 November 2014). 1 Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the New Zealand Law Foundation in sponsoring this project. We would also like to thank the various participants in the October 2013 workshop which led to the Select Committee submission, and identified issues and questions for the Report. In particular, we would like to thank Professor Bernadette McSherry, Dr Armon Tamatea and Kris Gledhill for sharing their time and expertise. Thanks are also due to our current and former students Phoebe Harrop and Amir Bastani for their contributions to this project. 2 Preface This report is the outcome of an independent, multidisciplinary review of the Government’s decision to introduce post-sentence detention into New Zealand via its proposed Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill (PPO Bill). The proposed regime is contentious because it permits, subject to specified criteria, the ongoing and indefinite detention of an offender after that individual has already completed the sentence originally imposed by the sentencing court. The research project, which was made possible by funding from the New Zealand Law Foundation, consisted of three phases. The initial phase involved a meeting in October 2013, which brought together academics and practitioners from the fields of law, ethics, psychology and psychiatry. Presentations were given on varying aspects arising from the proposed regime. These included presentations by Professor Bernadette McSherry, an expert on post-sentence preventive detention regimes in Australia, as well as Dr Armon Tamatea, formerly a Senior Advisor for Psychological Research, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Services, New Zealand Department of Corrections, and currently a senior lecturer in clinical psychology at the University of Waikato. An outcome of this meeting was a joint submission made to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the PPO Bill, which was supported by all of those who attended the October meeting. Associate Professor Colin Gavaghan, Professor John McMillan (Principal Investigators) and Dr Armon Tamatea provided oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the PPO Bill in November. The final phase of the research involved drafting a more detailed report. As well as addressing the questions raised at the Workshop about the proposed PPO regime, it was decided that this would provide a broader overview of the trend towards ‘preventive justice’ in New Zealand, and an evaluation of the issues and concerns which this raises. This is that report. 3 Preface ................................................................................................................................... 3 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 II. A Trend Toward “Preventive” Justice in NZ ......................................................... 9 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 B. History of Preventive Detention ....................................................................................... 9 C. Increasing Sentences and non-Parole Periods .......................................................... 12 Human Rights Jurisprudence: Vinter v United Kingdom ..................................................... 15 D. Indeterminate Sentences: Sentencing Act 2002 ....................................................... 18 The Scope of Preventive Detention ............................................................................................... 18 Statutory considerations for the imposition of Preventive Detention ........................... 19 E. The “Three Strikes” Regime: Sentencing Act 2002 .................................................. 20 F. Extended Supervision Orders: Parole Act 2002 ........................................................ 25 Risk-threshold for the imposition of an Extended Supervision Order .......................... 26 Standard Conditions of an ESO ........................................................................................................ 28 Special Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 29 The Potentially Extensive Scope of ESO’s ................................................................................... 30 III. Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill ................................................. 33 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 33 B. The PPO Bill: threshold test for an PPO ....................................................................... 35 C. Civil or criminal … and why it matters ......................................................................... 39 D. Clause 13(2) and the psychopathic individual ......................................................... 42 The Ethics of Psychopathy and Treating the Psychopathic Individual .......................... 49 Legal Rights to Rehabilitation, Treatment .................................................................................. 52 E. Procedural Safeguards for Individuals Subject to a PPO ....................................... 53 Effect on Prisoners ................................................................................................................................ 55 Youth Justice ............................................................................................................................................ 55 IV. Determining “Risk” .................................................................................................. 57 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 57 B. Distinguishing the Purpose of Actuarial Tools: NZ’s (RoC∗RoI). ........................ 58 C. Expert testimony ................................................................................................................. 60 The Risk of Inappropriate Judicial Deference ........................................................................... 61 The Risk of Poor Execution and Interpretation ....................................................................... 62 D. PPOs and the Burden of Proof ........................................................................................ 64 V. Principles in conflict .............................................................................................. 66 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 66 B. The State’s Protective Function ..................................................................................... 66 C. Principle-based concerns regarding preventive justice ........................................ 71 The desert justification ....................................................................................................................... 72 Hurricanes, microbes and wild beasts: treating offenders as people rather than things .......................................................................................................................................................... 79 Disease jurisprudence and civil detention ................................................................................. 80 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 88 4 I. Introduction The current political focus on Law and Order, in particular the imposition of harsher penalties for serious crimes, is not a new governmental concern in New Zealand, nor is it a partisan issue 1 Measures by both Labour and National-led coalition governments over the last decade and a half have sought to address perceived deficiencies in the Criminal Justice system, particularly with respect to the role ascribed to victims in legal processes and to the length of custodial sentences imposed for serious crimes.2 This can, in part, be traced to events preceding the 2002 sentencing and parole reforms, which included a Law and Order petition that was successful in forcing a citizens initiated referendum in 1999.3 The referendum asked:4 should there be a reform of our justice