A man who snatched a 3-year-old girl from a Rotorua daycare centre with the intention to rape her will be released from jail in just over six weeks after serving one year in jail.
His release comes under strict conditions including six months of standard release conditions, and he must adhere to other special conditions set out in his probation report.
This case has raised questioins around sentencing discounts going too far, and Criminal Lawyer Steve Cullen told Tim Beveridge that it's a difficult task to balance sentencing discounts with maintaining a streamlined judicial system.
He also added that any moves from the government to limit the discretion of Judges is not helpful for the system.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from News talks'd
be it's welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Don't forget. We're going to take your calls after an
next interview, and that will be honest. We'll take your
calls on what's coming up, but also your reaction to
the conversation I had with David sim Or just previously.
This week, there was a disturbing case out of Rotorua
which ignited debate around sentencing. And there was basically was
a young man who had attempted to abduct as preschooler
(00:31):
with the intent of sexually assaulting her. He has received
a sentence that he'll see him back on the streets
far sooner than many might have expected, and it prompted
some questions around sentencing discounts, whether the system's delivering real consequences.
But it's important to note this case that the cases
we're still reading about often sentenced under the previous legal framework,
(00:52):
and so as you know, since then, the government has
moved to cap sentencing discounts and limits how much judges
can reduce sentences for mitigating factors. So where does it
leave us. Would cases like this that I've just mentioned,
would they be treated differently today and how would that
look anyway? To help us unpacked unpack all of that,
I'm joined by criminal lawyer Steve Culor, who joins me.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Now, good afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
So just to be clear that case that we read
about of the he was sentenced under the old sentencing
framework right before the new caps on discounts came. And
that's correct, doesn't it?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Well, that's what I understand the situation to be.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yes, now that the government has capped sensiting discounts, what
a case as the one that I've just referred to.
I haven't mentioned the guy's name because I just didn't
feel like but I imagine you've read about it. I
think it was John Takuru.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
How do you know I know about the case?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Yeah? Is that a good example of why the government's
changes might might have been a good idea? How do
you feel about the sentencing discounts and how they might affect?
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Sentencings are very difficult and complex task. You've got a
defendant in that case who had mental health issues not
assisted by drug consumption, and the morning not assisted by
extraordinarily difficult upbringing. None of that excuses or exonerates what
he did, and he had the crown and the defense
starting The judge commented at what were perceived to be
(02:18):
not necessarily the highest starting point available, which was four years.
I don't know whether in future that would be the
same position advanced by either party, whether a judge review that,
So we will wind up in the realm of speculation.
All I can say is whether the outcome would be
the same if, for example, the man was sentenced to
(02:38):
another year or two years. Don't forget that after the
passage of two years they only serve one third. Anyway,
if they're sentenced to more than two years jail, they're
eligible for parole after one third. Doesn't mean they're mandatorily
released on one third, but they certainly become eligible for it.
So you can have somebody who's sentenced to what seems
(02:59):
on the face of a de term of six years,
but if there's no minimum period of imprisonment, then they're
eligible for a upon two years. And if you have
medical personnel involved who say, well, this person there's all
sorts of difficulties and we'd be better treated in somewhere
outside of a prison environment, then the pro board would
take that into account. So it's a difficulty. These type
of people always present huge difficulties to the criminal courts.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
So where are we at under the new discounting regime
and how does that? Is that still the case now?
You could get someone sentenced to six years and is
it the same now things changed?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
That's the same parole rule, right, People are eligible to
be released after one third of their sentence unless a
minimum period of imprisonment is imposed or they're serving some
other sentence that is cumulative on this run, which means
they have to stay in.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
How do you feel about that side of things as
a lawyer? Do you think that we've got it right
or do you think that you know, people end up
being out faster than the public would anticipate.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
There are times when one gets that feeling, and then
there are other times where we realized that there's no
particular benefit in just simply locking people up. We need
a far more rehabilitative system, or in some cases humbilitative
system to bring people into the fold of society, such
as happens in some European jurisdictions. At one stage, we
(04:22):
were nearing the top of people in custody in the
Western world. Incarcerated people per percentage of population, and it
wasn't helping. The crime wasn't particularly diminishing. It's a difficult
and complex area. There are times absolutely when many of
us look and think in other jurisdictions, these people be
(04:43):
removed from society and we wouldn't have to deal with
them again. Because some people do seem irredeemable, not interested
in rehabilitation, and committed to a life of depravity. But
they're few and far between, thank goodness. And by and large,
a lot of the people that are fear in the
courts have had their own difficulties, and the courts bend
over backwards to try and avoid putting peop from prison
(05:05):
and to try and heal and rehabilitate. It's really a
last resort for people who are committed to a pretty
significant criminality.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Wasn't there something that came out recently about if you
are going to send some of the prison you better
to keep them in longer so they can get their
rehabilitation and there or did I miss something there?
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, if we had appropriate rehabilitative programs. We're only a
modest country with a small budget. We need to spend
a huge amount of money. But I hear you on
that if we could keep them in and rehabilitate them
and treat them and train them, it's phenomenal.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
So from what I'm gathering, I should declare I did
a lad agree about thirty years ago. So let's not
count that forgotten. Everything on out pretty much just just
to put on the record. So the changes of the
government's made around discounts and sentencing, that's one side of things.
But the parole thing can still end up releasing people
(06:01):
far earlier than people might anticipate. Is that So is
that an area that needs Is that right? So the
nothing's changed with regard to the approaches to parole. It's
simply what we've done is we've got a political headline
and what judges can and can't discount on.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Yes, but I must emphasize parole is in a rubber stamp.
People aren't just automatically released after one third nine And
we regularly see in the media cases and have been
some quite significant ones recently, when people come before the
prole board who say, well, you've been there, you're almost
at the end of your sentence, but you're still not
suitable for a release, and we're not comfortable releasing you.
So I'm sorry, it's back in and try and get
(06:37):
more assistance before we come back to us.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, are you concerned as a lawyer at the cold face?
And I know, look, and we can see headlines as
a talkback hose, we see things that can outrage us.
But you know, as somebody who works in the system
all the time, are you a little nervous around the
politics that get played gets played with criminal law and
sentencing and that there's this sort of inherent distrust of
(07:02):
the judiciary.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
So I'm concerned that people haven't distrusted of the judiciary
because I'm familiar with them, of course, after forty odd
years in the field, and they're all phenomenally hard working people,
absolutely committed to society, doing their best to do justice
by all of the citizens that come before them, and
they do grapple and struggle with what they have to
deal with on a daily basis, and they do it
(07:27):
amazingly well. I'm always impressed by the quality of the
judges we have, and I'm always aghast when I see
things in the media. They're particularly on social media, where
people start making conspiracy claims or just abysmal claims against
the judges who are simply people who've come through the
profession being recognized as people worthy, have taken up the role,
(07:48):
and then they undergo more training and more commitment and
have a pretty difficult life.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
I don't want to put words in your mouth there,
but what I heard was you're impressed by judges and
aghast at and I wanted to say politicians. But is
that the next step? I mean, are you aghast at
the politicking of crime?
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Not always sometimes I'm most definitely, and when it's politicized,
But also there are social media groups who seem to
build up support by beating the drum of attacking the
judiciary without actually ever coming in and seeing the reality
of what it is that people are doing and how
benevolently they're often doing it.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
How do you feel about then you discount regime with.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
The limit anything that hamper is a judge's discretion presents
a bit of a difficulty to us. On the other hand,
guidelines that balance up nationwide policies properly reflect the desire
of the government, which is supposed to reflect the desire
of the populace. So if that's what the people want
and Parliament puts it in place and it's reflected nationwide.
(08:51):
Then of course we're all supposed to be happy with
that if we're not happy with what the population want.
Because there was the loudest empty tin making the most noise,
and that influence the government to do things that perhaps
more of us didn't want them they realized, then we
all have to deal with it.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
So where are we at? Do you think so we've
had some changes made that there's been effect on judicial
discretion versus public confidence and sentencing. Do you actually think
the government might have read the room right on this
one or what do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Well? People, it's a standard political policy to promise to
tighten up on crime without actually addressing a lot of
the issues that are generating it and causative of it.
We've got a huge meth amthetamine epidemic. We've got difficulties
of people living in pretty a lot of poverty and
aject circumstance, particularly up in the Far North. I think
(09:42):
it's Metham Petamin capital of New Zealand. The wastewater treatment
shows that drug use is skyrocketing in New Zealands, and
that means you've got both cause and effect for people
committing prime to go and obtain their drugs, and then
people committing crime because they're high on drugs that we
need to really have a popular policy to address drug usage,
(10:02):
alcohol usage. Educating.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Yeah, that's all outside the crimes. The criminal system really,
isn't it. I mean it plays, it's.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Wrong, absolutely, and it's cultural too, if you did. I
love looking at things on social media much as anyone else,
and I'm always impressed when you see. For example, if
you have thirty thousand Japanese in the country, you'd be
lucky if two of them committed a crime, because culturally
they just don't do it. Other societies do. I won't
bother naming those, and there are many of them all
around the world.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
How do we change? Oh gosh, that sounds like you're
just about to hit the hustings with that one.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Well, it's education, isn't it. It's education, cultural shift, getting
them in the young. Talk to any teacher as you're
growing up and teach. Oh I've just lost you there
between trive and eight. I'm here, Sorry, you.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Just dropped out for a second.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Hey, okay man.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
In terms of yes, I can can you hear me
all right there, Steve?
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Yeah, yes, yes, just last.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Question what if you could politic and make some decisions
on this as a politician. Is there an obvious change
that we're missing that you'd like to see made in
the judicial system or is it about money or are
there some obvious changes you'd like to see.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Well, I'd be injecting a lot more money into rehabilitation,
but I'd also be injecting a huge amount of money
into education to try and unite people and let them
appreciate that we're all living on this time in the little
island at the bottom of the world, and we're supposed
to be co happening and getting on and trying to
bring a sense of unity to the people and a
sense of social responsibility so that you minimize the crime
(11:36):
in the first place. It had taken a couple of generations,
but it would take an enormous investment.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Yeah, hey, Steve, I really appreciate your time this afternoon.
I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot.
That was I'd vote to here.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
I've been tempted over the.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Yeah, there we go. That is Steve Colony is a
criminal lawyer.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news talks.
It'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend collective podcast from News talks'd
be it's welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Don't forget. We're going to take your calls after an
next interview, and that will be honest. We'll take your
calls on what's coming up, but also your reaction to
the conversation I had with David sim Or just previously.
This week, there was a disturbing case out of Rotorua
which ignited debate around sentencing. And there was basically was
a young man who had attempted to abduct as preschooler
(00:31):
with the intent of sexually assaulting her. He has received
a sentence that he'll see him back on the streets
far sooner than many might have expected, and it prompted
some questions around sentencing discounts, whether the system's delivering real consequences.
But it's important to note this case that the cases
we're still reading about often sentenced under the previous legal framework,
(00:52):
and so as you know, since then, the government has
moved to cap sentencing discounts and limits how much judges
can reduce sentences for mitigating factors. So where does it
leave us. Would cases like this that I've just mentioned,
would they be treated differently today and how would that
look anyway? To help us unpacked unpack all of that,
I'm joined by criminal lawyer Steve Culor, who joins me.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Now, good afternoon, Good afternoon, Tim.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
So just to be clear that case that we read
about of the he was sentenced under the old sentencing
framework right before the new caps on discounts came. And
that's correct, doesn't it?
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Well, that's what I understand the situation to be.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yes, now that the government has capped sensiting discounts, what
a case as the one that I've just referred to.
I haven't mentioned the guy's name because I just didn't
feel like but I imagine you've read about it. I
think it was John Takuru.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
How do you know I know about the case?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Yeah? Is that a good example of why the government's
changes might might have been a good idea? How do
you feel about the sentencing discounts and how they might affect?
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Sentencings are very difficult and complex task. You've got a
defendant in that case who had mental health issues not
assisted by drug consumption, and the morning not assisted by
extraordinarily difficult upbringing. None of that excuses or exonerates what
he did, and he had the crown and the defense
starting The judge commented at what were perceived to be
(02:18):
not necessarily the highest starting point available, which was four years.
I don't know whether in future that would be the
same position advanced by either party, whether a judge review that,
So we will wind up in the realm of speculation.
All I can say is whether the outcome would be
the same if, for example, the man was sentenced to
(02:38):
another year or two years. Don't forget that after the
passage of two years they only serve one third. Anyway,
if they're sentenced to more than two years jail, they're
eligible for parole after one third. Doesn't mean they're mandatorily
released on one third, but they certainly become eligible for it.
So you can have somebody who's sentenced to what seems
(02:59):
on the face of a de term of six years,
but if there's no minimum period of imprisonment, then they're
eligible for a upon two years. And if you have
medical personnel involved who say, well, this person there's all
sorts of difficulties and we'd be better treated in somewhere
outside of a prison environment, then the pro board would
take that into account. So it's a difficulty. These type
of people always present huge difficulties to the criminal courts.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
So where are we at under the new discounting regime
and how does that? Is that still the case now?
You could get someone sentenced to six years and is
it the same now things changed?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
That's the same parole rule, right, People are eligible to
be released after one third of their sentence unless a
minimum period of imprisonment is imposed or they're serving some
other sentence that is cumulative on this run, which means
they have to stay in.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
How do you feel about that side of things as
a lawyer? Do you think that we've got it right
or do you think that you know, people end up
being out faster than the public would anticipate.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
There are times when one gets that feeling, and then
there are other times where we realized that there's no
particular benefit in just simply locking people up. We need
a far more rehabilitative system, or in some cases humbilitative
system to bring people into the fold of society, such
as happens in some European jurisdictions. At one stage, we
(04:22):
were nearing the top of people in custody in the
Western world. Incarcerated people per percentage of population, and it
wasn't helping. The crime wasn't particularly diminishing. It's a difficult
and complex area. There are times absolutely when many of
us look and think in other jurisdictions, these people be
(04:43):
removed from society and we wouldn't have to deal with
them again. Because some people do seem irredeemable, not interested
in rehabilitation, and committed to a life of depravity. But
they're few and far between, thank goodness. And by and large,
a lot of the people that are fear in the
courts have had their own difficulties, and the courts bend
over backwards to try and avoid putting peop from prison
(05:05):
and to try and heal and rehabilitate. It's really a
last resort for people who are committed to a pretty
significant criminality.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Wasn't there something that came out recently about if you
are going to send some of the prison you better
to keep them in longer so they can get their
rehabilitation and there or did I miss something there?
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, if we had appropriate rehabilitative programs. We're only a
modest country with a small budget. We need to spend
a huge amount of money. But I hear you on
that if we could keep them in and rehabilitate them
and treat them and train them, it's phenomenal.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
So from what I'm gathering, I should declare I did
a lad agree about thirty years ago. So let's not
count that forgotten. Everything on out pretty much just just
to put on the record. So the changes of the
government's made around discounts and sentencing, that's one side of things.
But the parole thing can still end up releasing people
(06:01):
far earlier than people might anticipate. Is that So is
that an area that needs Is that right? So the
nothing's changed with regard to the approaches to parole. It's
simply what we've done is we've got a political headline
and what judges can and can't discount on.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Yes, but I must emphasize parole is in a rubber stamp.
People aren't just automatically released after one third nine And
we regularly see in the media cases and have been
some quite significant ones recently, when people come before the
prole board who say, well, you've been there, you're almost
at the end of your sentence, but you're still not
suitable for a release, and we're not comfortable releasing you.
So I'm sorry, it's back in and try and get
(06:37):
more assistance before we come back to us.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, are you concerned as a lawyer at the cold face?
And I know, look, and we can see headlines as
a talkback hose, we see things that can outrage us.
But you know, as somebody who works in the system
all the time, are you a little nervous around the
politics that get played gets played with criminal law and
sentencing and that there's this sort of inherent distrust of
(07:02):
the judiciary.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
So I'm concerned that people haven't distrusted of the judiciary
because I'm familiar with them, of course, after forty odd
years in the field, and they're all phenomenally hard working people,
absolutely committed to society, doing their best to do justice
by all of the citizens that come before them, and
they do grapple and struggle with what they have to
deal with on a daily basis, and they do it
(07:27):
amazingly well. I'm always impressed by the quality of the
judges we have, and I'm always aghast when I see
things in the media. They're particularly on social media, where
people start making conspiracy claims or just abysmal claims against
the judges who are simply people who've come through the
profession being recognized as people worthy, have taken up the role,
(07:48):
and then they undergo more training and more commitment and
have a pretty difficult life.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
I don't want to put words in your mouth there,
but what I heard was you're impressed by judges and
aghast at and I wanted to say politicians. But is
that the next step? I mean, are you aghast at
the politicking of crime?
Speaker 3 (08:04):
Not always sometimes I'm most definitely, and when it's politicized,
But also there are social media groups who seem to
build up support by beating the drum of attacking the
judiciary without actually ever coming in and seeing the reality
of what it is that people are doing and how
benevolently they're often doing it.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
How do you feel about then you discount regime with.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
The limit anything that hamper is a judge's discretion presents
a bit of a difficulty to us. On the other hand,
guidelines that balance up nationwide policies properly reflect the desire
of the government, which is supposed to reflect the desire
of the populace. So if that's what the people want
and Parliament puts it in place and it's reflected nationwide.
(08:51):
Then of course we're all supposed to be happy with
that if we're not happy with what the population want.
Because there was the loudest empty tin making the most noise,
and that influence the government to do things that perhaps
more of us didn't want them they realized, then we
all have to deal with it.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
So where are we at? Do you think so we've
had some changes made that there's been effect on judicial
discretion versus public confidence and sentencing. Do you actually think
the government might have read the room right on this
one or what do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (09:20):
Well? People, it's a standard political policy to promise to
tighten up on crime without actually addressing a lot of
the issues that are generating it and causative of it.
We've got a huge meth amthetamine epidemic. We've got difficulties
of people living in pretty a lot of poverty and
aject circumstance, particularly up in the Far North. I think
(09:42):
it's Metham Petamin capital of New Zealand. The wastewater treatment
shows that drug use is skyrocketing in New Zealands, and
that means you've got both cause and effect for people
committing prime to go and obtain their drugs, and then
people committing crime because they're high on drugs that we
need to really have a popular policy to address drug usage,
(10:02):
alcohol usage. Educating.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Yeah, that's all outside the crimes. The criminal system really,
isn't it. I mean it plays, it's.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Wrong, absolutely, and it's cultural too, if you did. I
love looking at things on social media much as anyone else,
and I'm always impressed when you see. For example, if
you have thirty thousand Japanese in the country, you'd be
lucky if two of them committed a crime, because culturally
they just don't do it. Other societies do. I won't
bother naming those, and there are many of them all
around the world.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
How do we change? Oh gosh, that sounds like you're
just about to hit the hustings with that one.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Well, it's education, isn't it. It's education, cultural shift, getting
them in the young. Talk to any teacher as you're
growing up and teach. Oh I've just lost you there
between trive and eight. I'm here, Sorry, you.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Just dropped out for a second.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Hey, okay man.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
In terms of yes, I can can you hear me
all right there, Steve?
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Yeah, yes, yes, just last.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Question what if you could politic and make some decisions
on this as a politician. Is there an obvious change
that we're missing that you'd like to see made in
the judicial system or is it about money or are
there some obvious changes you'd like to see.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Well, I'd be injecting a lot more money into rehabilitation,
but I'd also be injecting a huge amount of money
into education to try and unite people and let them
appreciate that we're all living on this time in the little
island at the bottom of the world, and we're supposed
to be co happening and getting on and trying to
bring a sense of unity to the people and a
sense of social responsibility so that you minimize the crime
(11:36):
in the first place. It had taken a couple of generations,
but it would take an enormous investment.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Yeah, hey, Steve, I really appreciate your time this afternoon.
I look forward to seeing your name on the ballot.
That was I'd vote to here.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
I've been tempted over the.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Yeah, there we go. That is Steve Colony is a
criminal lawyer.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news talks.
It'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!