Kerre Woodham: Is it any wonder the Govt's interfering with the judiciary?

I've steered clear of much of the sentencing changes proposed by the Government because it's a topic that we do canvas often. The Government campaigned on toughening up on crime and on criminals, and so far they seem to be delivering, so you know, leave them to it. But Paul Goldsmith's proposal that the government could introduce more minimum or mandatory sentences for crimes, meaning less power for the judges and more for the government, couldn't come at a better time as far as I'm concerned.  

Currently, when penalties are established for different offences, lawmakers normally set out a “maximum” sentence. For example, the Government's newly announced coward punch offence has maximum sentences of either 8 or 15 years imprisonment, depending on the situation. Judges then have discretion to take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances. So that's the maximum that can be set. A judge can't go right, that was just outrageous, that's 20 years for you - not allowed to do that, there's a mandatory term.  

Late last month the government changes came into effect, capping sentence discounts that judges can apply. So in most cases now the most they can apply is 40%. If a judge thinks that would be massively unjust, they can exceed this discount cap but that will be the exception, not the rule. Now the Government's looking to introduce more minimum sentences so the judges can't start at a laughably low detention rate or give a remarkably soft sentence. There will be a minimum to which that can apply.  

So for those who think that's an attack on the judiciary, Labour, or for those like Tamatha Paul, who think this is an attack on the poor, how do you defend these sentences? The 17-year-old knife wielding rapist who had robbed two men at knife point before raping a young woman at Albert Park in Auckland who was coming home after celebrating her 21st birthday. He raped her, threatened to kill her boyfriend. Her life has never been the same since.  

The defence wanted home detention for a vicious rape at knife point. The judge said oh no, but am going to give you a 77% discount, for his youth, his guilty plea, no priors, and his attempt at rehabilitation. In the sentencing notes, the judge also seemed to take into account that he was criminally stupid. He was an idiot. Like, as in the old-fashioned version of idiot, barely able to string three words together in any language. So she gave him a 77% discount from her starting point. He ended up with two years, two months, and a week for a knife attack and rape and threatening to kill. And oh, sorry, forgot about robbing at knife point the two men earlier. On appeal, Peter Kosetatino's sentence was three years and 11 months. Again, no, no, no, a rape at knife point for a young woman whose life will never be the same? No. 

Drunk driver Jake Hamlin who killed an innocent young woman? 12 months home detention. He's halfway through home and laughing. Quite literally.  

The couple who murdered 4-year-old Ashton Cresswell – they were jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the two of them there, the mother and her partner. Both of them stayed schtum. That's all you have to do when you're a baby murderer, you just shut up. That feral tart protected her partner at the expense of her little boy. The police’s hands are tied. They were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else could have done it. It was one of them. Police couldn't prove either one of them because both of them were protecting each other, so they pled guilty to reduce charges of neglect. And so for murdering that little boy and then staying schtum, his mother, in name only, got three years. And the partner got four years for basically torturing a child. So many children are being tortured right now, tortured and killed, and for that you get 3 years and four years.  

Is it any wonder why the Government is interfering with the judiciary? Those are three good examples among thousands, thousands, and thousands of why the government has to interfere with the judiciary.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood of Morning's podcast from News Talks,
he'd be Now.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
I've steered clear of much of the sentencing changes proposed
by the government because it's a topic that we do
canvas often. Many of us agree with the changes, and
you know, carry on seems to be the message the
government campaigned on toughening up on crime and on criminals,

(00:32):
and so far they seem to be delivering, so you know,
lead them to it. But Paul Goldsmith's proposal that the
government could introduce more minimum or mandatory sentences for crimes,
meaning less powerful the judges and more for the government,
couldn't come at a better time as far as I'm concerned. Currently,

(00:52):
when penalties are established for different offenses, lawmakers normally set
out a maximum sentence. For example, the government's newly announced
coward punch offense has maximum sentences of either eight years
or fifteen months imprisonment, depending on the situation. Judges then
have discretion to take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances,

(01:18):
so that's the maximum that can be set. A judge
can't go right, that was just outrageous. That's twenty years
for you not allowed to do that, there's a mandatory term.
Late last month, the government changes came into effect, capping
sentence discounts that judges can apply. So in most cases

(01:40):
now the most they can apply is forty percent. If
a judge thinks that would be manifestly unjust, they can
exceed this discount cap, but that will be the exception,
not the rule. So that's come in. So now the
government's looking to introduce more minimum sentences, so that judges
can't start at a laughably low detention rate or at

(02:05):
a remark give remarkably soft sentence. There will be a
minimum to which that can apply. So for those who
think that's an attack on the judiciary, labor, or for
those like Tammotha Paul who think this is an attack
on the poor, how do you defend these sentences? The

(02:27):
seventeen year old knife wielding rapist who had robbed two
men at knife point before raping a young woman at
Albert Park in Auckland, who was coming home after celebrating
her twenty first birthday. He raped her, threatened to kill
her boyfriend. Her life has never been the same since
that rape in an Auckland park. The defense wanted home

(02:54):
detention for a vicious rape at knife point. The judgment
hall no, but where I am going to give you
a seventy seven percent discounts seventy seven percent discount for
his youth, his guilty plea, no prize, Well, for God's sake,
you'd have to start offending at kindergarten given his age,

(03:16):
so no prize and his attempt at rehabilitation, and the
sentencing notes. The judge also seemed to take into account
that he was almost well, he was criminally stupid. He
was an idiot, like as in the old fashioned versive idiot,
barely able to string three words together in any language.

(03:38):
So she gave him a seventy seven percent discount from
his starting point. He ended up with two years, two
months and a week for a knife attack and rape
and threatening to kill and sorry I forgot about robbing
at knife point. The two men earlier on appeal, Peter
Corse Tatino's sentence was three years and eleven months. Again

(04:03):
no no, no, a rape at knife point for a
young woman whose life will never be the same.

Speaker 1 (04:09):
No.

Speaker 2 (04:11):
Drunk driver Jake Hamlin, who killed an innocent young woman
twelve months home detention is halfway through home and laughing
quite literally. The couple who murdered four year old Ashton Creswell,
they were jointly charged with manslaughter. There were only the
two of them there, the mother and her partner. Both

(04:37):
of them staged them. That's all you have to do.
When you're a baby murderer, you you just shut up.
That feral tart protected her partner at the expense of
her little boy. So they were the police's hands are tied.

(05:02):
So they were jointly charged with manslaughter because nobody else
could have done it. It was one of them. Police
couldn't prove either one of them because both of them
were protecting each other. So they pled guilty to reduce
charges of neglect. And so for murdering that little boy
and then staging storm his mother and name only got

(05:26):
three years and the partner got four years for basically
torturing a child. So many children are being tortured right now,
tortured and killed, and for that you get three years
and four years. Is it any wonder why the government

(05:48):
is interfering with the judiciary. Those are three good examples
among thousands, thousands and thousands of why the government has
to interfere with the Judiciary.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen to News
Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio