December 12, 2024 • 6 mins
The Solicitor General says she wants to be clear the Prosecution Guidelines aren't intended to favour Māori.
Una Jagose has updated the wording of the guidelines.
It follows public backlash to previous advice to prosecutors, suggesting they think carefully about particular decisions when a person is Māori.
Jagose told Heather du Plessis Allan the wording was unclear, and she wants no confusion about the intent.
She says when you're dealing with an individual, it should be based on their circumstances and background, not whether they're part of a particular group.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Solicitor Generals reissued her controversial controversial prosecution guidelines. These
are the ones that urged prosecutors to think carefully about prosecutions,
especially when a person is Marty. Now you'll remember that
back in October she withdrew them after Mike and This
show raised concerns about them and joining us. Now is
the Solicitor General owner to goes Hi Una, Do you
accept that you made a mistake with those guidelines.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yes, I wasn't clear what I meant when I referred
to the facts of Marty's disproportionate representation in the criminal
justice system, and it led to as your instruction just said,
misunderstanding or confusion about what I was saying. And this
point is too important to have left there. So I
heard the criticism and the misunderstanding or of the error
of my expression. A few people wrote in. Quite a
(00:45):
few people wrote in as well to say that they
misunderstood or didn't understand what I meant, and I needed
to redo that. So we've done that, as I said
they would. We've revised the way in which the introduction
is put, and we've made sure that there's no other
part to the guidelines that lacks the clarity that is
so important for people to understand, so that the criminal
(01:08):
justice system approaches people on the individual presentation, their circumstances,
their culpability, how their background brings them to where they
are today. That's the error, and that's incorrected.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
If we got it wrong by assuming that you meant ethnicity,
what did you actually mean?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Well, I meant that I was referring to part of
the context. Part of the context of the review was
to recognize that Mary our disproportionately represented in our criminal
justice statistics. But in the way I had put it
was I mean, I accept that it was confusing. Ask yourself,
what does that mean? That's what people were saying, what
does that mean? And that's what I listened to.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
When people will tell us that or what did it mean?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
UNA, Well, exactly this that that is part of our context,
as I've just said. But what prosecutors must do is
address the individual because that's where the criminal justice system
and the individual come together on their on their circumstances,
on their background. So my mistake was to be unclear
about that and to push those two things to.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
I'm sorry, let me read it to you and you
tell me if we've got this wrong, because your advice
was think carefully about particular decisions. Where a person is Maori,
I think that's pretty the sentence, or a member of
any other group that is disproportionately impacted by the criminal
justice system. Now I read that, and I think that's
(02:33):
pretty clear that what you're saying is if somebody has
popped up in front of the criminal justice system and
they are disproportionately impacted Mari Pacifica, a victim of abuse
when they were young, whatever, then you need to think
carefully about whether you prosecute them or not.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
So the reason that I took them down was for
this very reason that people were uncre am I right?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well? I was wrong about what?
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Am I wrong in interpreting it the way that I have?
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Well, you haven't continued to read out the whole paragraph,
which goes on to say, this isn't to say that
membership of a particular group is relevant, but it is
individual circumstances.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well, read you some more of what you said? Did
you read you some more? The experience of Mary is unique.
No community in this country was deprived of its autonomy,
internal cohesion and economic resilience. In quite the way Mary
communities were.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Is that and where does that come from? I mean,
sorry to.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
That's in your prosecution. It's further down your prosecution, the
original prosecution guideline.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
That's part of the part of a court judgment, designticle.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Did you know?
Speaker 2 (03:43):
So your question to me is I think, why did
you change them? And why I changed That's not your question.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
My question is if you didn't mean that we were
supposed to that prosecutors were supposed to look at any
of these groups of people, including Marty, and go a
little on them because they're Mary or any of these
other groups, then what did you mean? And you were
unable to explain that to me?
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I'm absolutely clear that what you were saying is the
very reason we had to change it, because people thought
I was saying something that I didn't intend to say.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
So what m I guarantend to say, take of clarity.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
I intended to say is that, as the guidelines say,
when you are dealing with an individual in the criminal
justice system, it is their circumstances, their background, their culpability
that is relevant, not whether they are a particular group
or not. Thing Mary per se is not relevant.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Yeah, but you actually mentioned being part of a particular group,
So it seems like it's relevant anyway. Listen, when you
published it, had you not had a warning from the
Attorney General Judith Collins not to publish it.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
No, we had gone through an earlier iteration and she
had expressed some concerns about clarity, which we had. I
had gone back to and attempted to be more clear,
and I missed the mark, as I said in my
eighteenth of October.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
So this one then you put out, this one that
you put out, You thought this was your attempt at
being more clear.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Well, and I was wrong about that because it wasn't clear.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
When she refused to write the foreword for you, which
is very unusual. Did you not think then that you
had a problem.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, as I said on this channel only yesterday, that's
not actually how it went. We didn't invite the Attorney
General to write a forward this time, sorry, in the
earlier version this year, because we thought that better reflected
what the statute says, which is that these are guidelines
for the solicit to general. But in light of what
has happened that in my error and the lack of
clarity and the confusion about what is required. We thought
(05:45):
it was better that the law officers, the Attorney General
and the Solicter General are seen to be aligned on
what the guidelines say to prosecutors, and that's why the
Attorney put the forward on this version.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Okay, listen, you've copped it lately, right, You've copped it
over this which is fair and square at one of
your mistakes, and you've also copped it about the apology
with the state abuse survivors. Are you going to stay
in the job. Yes, okay, Una, thanks very much, really
appreciate it and as it goes, Solicitor General. For more
from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news Talks.
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
(06:21):
on iHeartRadio.
The Solicitor Generals reissued her controversial controversial prosecution guidelines. These
are the ones that urged prosecutors to think carefully about prosecutions,
especially when a person is Marty. Now you'll remember that
back in October she withdrew them after Mike and This
show raised concerns about them and joining us. Now is
the Solicitor General owner to goes Hi Una, Do you
accept that you made a mistake with those guidelines.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yes, I wasn't clear what I meant when I referred
to the facts of Marty's disproportionate representation in the criminal
justice system, and it led to as your instruction just said,
misunderstanding or confusion about what I was saying. And this
point is too important to have left there. So I
heard the criticism and the misunderstanding or of the error
of my expression. A few people wrote in. Quite a
(00:45):
few people wrote in as well to say that they
misunderstood or didn't understand what I meant, and I needed
to redo that. So we've done that, as I said
they would. We've revised the way in which the introduction
is put, and we've made sure that there's no other
part to the guidelines that lacks the clarity that is
so important for people to understand, so that the criminal
(01:08):
justice system approaches people on the individual presentation, their circumstances,
their culpability, how their background brings them to where they
are today. That's the error, and that's incorrected.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
If we got it wrong by assuming that you meant ethnicity,
what did you actually mean?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Well, I meant that I was referring to part of
the context. Part of the context of the review was
to recognize that Mary our disproportionately represented in our criminal
justice statistics. But in the way I had put it
was I mean, I accept that it was confusing. Ask yourself,
what does that mean? That's what people were saying, what
does that mean? And that's what I listened to.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
When people will tell us that or what did it mean?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
UNA, Well, exactly this that that is part of our context,
as I've just said. But what prosecutors must do is
address the individual because that's where the criminal justice system
and the individual come together on their on their circumstances,
on their background. So my mistake was to be unclear
about that and to push those two things to.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
I'm sorry, let me read it to you and you
tell me if we've got this wrong, because your advice
was think carefully about particular decisions. Where a person is Maori,
I think that's pretty the sentence, or a member of
any other group that is disproportionately impacted by the criminal
justice system. Now I read that, and I think that's
(02:33):
pretty clear that what you're saying is if somebody has
popped up in front of the criminal justice system and
they are disproportionately impacted Mari Pacifica, a victim of abuse
when they were young, whatever, then you need to think
carefully about whether you prosecute them or not.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
So the reason that I took them down was for
this very reason that people were uncre am I right?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well? I was wrong about what?
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Am I wrong in interpreting it the way that I have?
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Well, you haven't continued to read out the whole paragraph,
which goes on to say, this isn't to say that
membership of a particular group is relevant, but it is
individual circumstances.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Well, read you some more of what you said? Did
you read you some more? The experience of Mary is unique.
No community in this country was deprived of its autonomy,
internal cohesion and economic resilience. In quite the way Mary
communities were.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Is that and where does that come from? I mean,
sorry to.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
That's in your prosecution. It's further down your prosecution, the
original prosecution guideline.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
That's part of the part of a court judgment, designticle.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Did you know?
Speaker 2 (03:43):
So your question to me is I think, why did
you change them? And why I changed That's not your question.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
My question is if you didn't mean that we were
supposed to that prosecutors were supposed to look at any
of these groups of people, including Marty, and go a
little on them because they're Mary or any of these
other groups, then what did you mean? And you were
unable to explain that to me?
Speaker 2 (04:07):
I'm absolutely clear that what you were saying is the
very reason we had to change it, because people thought
I was saying something that I didn't intend to say.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
So what m I guarantend to say, take of clarity.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
I intended to say is that, as the guidelines say,
when you are dealing with an individual in the criminal
justice system, it is their circumstances, their background, their culpability
that is relevant, not whether they are a particular group
or not. Thing Mary per se is not relevant.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Yeah, but you actually mentioned being part of a particular group,
So it seems like it's relevant anyway. Listen, when you
published it, had you not had a warning from the
Attorney General Judith Collins not to publish it.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
No, we had gone through an earlier iteration and she
had expressed some concerns about clarity, which we had. I
had gone back to and attempted to be more clear,
and I missed the mark, as I said in my
eighteenth of October.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
So this one then you put out, this one that
you put out, You thought this was your attempt at
being more clear.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Well, and I was wrong about that because it wasn't clear.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
When she refused to write the foreword for you, which
is very unusual. Did you not think then that you
had a problem.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Well, as I said on this channel only yesterday, that's
not actually how it went. We didn't invite the Attorney
General to write a forward this time, sorry, in the
earlier version this year, because we thought that better reflected
what the statute says, which is that these are guidelines
for the solicit to general. But in light of what
has happened that in my error and the lack of
clarity and the confusion about what is required. We thought
(05:45):
it was better that the law officers, the Attorney General
and the Solicter General are seen to be aligned on
what the guidelines say to prosecutors, and that's why the
Attorney put the forward on this version.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Okay, listen, you've copped it lately, right, You've copped it
over this which is fair and square at one of
your mistakes, and you've also copped it about the apology
with the state abuse survivors. Are you going to stay
in the job. Yes, okay, Una, thanks very much, really
appreciate it and as it goes, Solicitor General. For more
from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news Talks.
It'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
(06:21):
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.