Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 Bronwyn Morrison Nataliya Soboleva Jin Chong April 2008

Published April 2008 Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand www.justice.govt.nz ISSN 1177-9799 (Online) Crown Copyright 2 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Foreword The annual Conviction and Sentencing report is now well established as a primary source of information about the criminal justice sector. It contains a comprehensive range of statistics on New Zealand criminal court proceedings and sentencing, and is recognised as part of the Tier 1 statistics in Statistics New Zealand s official statistics programme. The Ministry of Justice is committed to supplying high quality policy advice on a range of criminal justice issues, and this report provides a robust empirical basis for such advice. Policy development also benefits from consultation and collaboration with individuals or groups who have an interest in the issue under investigation. In order for the public to be fully equipped to discuss policy proposals, it is essential that they are well informed. This report represents one means by which the Ministry disseminates information to the public about trends and developments in the criminal justice system. Previously youth justice statistics have been published as a chapter in the Conviction and Sentencing report series. However, since 2007 youth justice statistics have been published in a stand-alone report. The first youth justice statistical report, Youth Justice Statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2006 was published in July 2007. The report examined trends in Police apprehensions, prosecutions, convictions and sentencing of young people aged 14 to 16 years, and is available for download from the Ministry of Justice web site at www.justice.govt.nz. Some of the statistics presented in this report are also available online through the Table Builder function on the Statistics New Zealand web site (www.stats.govt.nz). These statistics are updated annually. Belinda Clark Secretary for Justice Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 3

4 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Bronwyn Morrison, Nataliya Soboleva and Jin Chong for producing this report. Thanks also to Jason Gleason, Ong Su-Wuen, Stephen Christie, Roy Wyatt, and Angela Lee of the Ministry of Justice for their input into this publication. The draft version was reviewed by Chris Hurd and Wiebe Zwaga. Your advice, comments, and suggestions were greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Judith Spier, who formatted the report to the Ministry s standards, and Sarah Maclean for proof-reading the final report. Finally, I would like to thank Philip Spier and Barb Lash, former Senior Advisers in the Ministry of Justice, for their work on previous editions of this report. David Turner Director Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit Ministry of Justice Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 5

6 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Contents Foreword 3 Acknowledgements 5 Tables 9 Figures 13 Executive Summary 15 1 Introduction 21 1.1 Background 21 1.2 Source of the data 22 1.3 Recording of appeals 22 1.4 Identification of cases 23 1.5 Quality of the data 24 1.6 Comparability with previous reports 25 1.7 Structure of the report 26 2 Prosecutions and convictions for all offences 29 2.1 Introduction 29 2.2 Outcome of prosecutions 30 2.3 Convictions for offences in each major offence category 33 2.4 Average seriousness of all offences 36 2.5 Convictions for violent offences 38 2.6 Convictions for other offences against the person 40 2.7 Convictions for property offences 41 2.8 Convictions for drug offences 42 2.9 Convictions for offences against the administration of justice 44 2.10 Convictions for offences against good order 45 2.11 Convictions for traffic offences 46 2.12 Convictions for miscellaneous offences 48 2.13 Courts where convictions were finalised in 2006 50 2.14 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders convicted 52 2.15 Victims of sex offences in 2006 55 2.16 Summary of key findings 57 3 Sentencing for all offences 59 3.1 Introduction 59 3.2 Sentencing legislation 61 3.3 Sentencing for all cases 64 3.4 Sentencing for violent offences 68 3.5 Sentencing for other offences against the person 74 3.6 Sentencing for property offences 77 3.7 Sentencing for drug offences 81 3.8 Sentencing for offences against the administration of justice 86 3.9 Sentencing for offences against good order 91 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 7

3.10 Sentencing for traffic offences 94 3.11 Sentencing for miscellaneous offences 97 3.12 Sentences imposed in each court in 2006 for all offences 100 3.13 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders 103 3.14 Summary of key findings 105 4 Custodial sentences and remands 107 4.1 Introduction 107 4.2 Types of offences resulting in custodial sentences 109 4.3 Custodial sentence lengths imposed 111 4.4 Non-parole periods imposed for indeterminate sentences 112 4.5 Prisoner numbers 113 4.6 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders sent to prison in 2006 115 4.7 Custodial remands 117 4.8 Summary of key findings 119 5 Community-based sentences 121 5.1 Introduction 121 5.2 Work-related community sentences 123 5.3 Supervision 125 5.4 Summary of key findings 128 6 Monetary penalties 129 6.1 Introduction 129 6.2 Use of fines 131 6.3 Use of reparation for all offences 134 6.4 Use of reparation for property offences 137 6.5 Summary of key findings 139 7 Summary of main findings 141 7.1 Prosecutions and convictions for all offences 142 7.2 Sentencing trends in general 146 7.3 Custodial sentences and remands 150 7.4 Community-based sentences 151 7.5 Monetary penalties 152 References 155 Appendix A 157 8 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Tables Table 1.1 Differences in 2004 cases and convictions: LES (old) vs. CMS (new) 24 Table 2.1 Outcome of all charges prosecuted, 1997 to 2006 30 Table 2.2 Outcome of all charges prosecuted, by type of offence, 2006 32 Table 2.3 Total number of charges resulting in conviction, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 33 Table 2.4 Percentage of all convictions involving each type of offence, 1997 to 2006 33 Table 2.5 Number of convictions with each level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of all convictions, 1997 to 2006 37 Table 2.6 Average seriousness of convictions, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 37 Table 2.7 Number of convictions for violent offences, 1997 to 2006 39 Table 2.8 Number of convictions for other offences against the person, 1997 to 2006 40 Table 2.9 Number of convictions for property offences, 1997 to 2006 41 Table 2.10 Number of convictions for drug offences, 1997 to 2006 42 Table 2.11 Number of convictions for offences against the administration of justice, 1997 to 2006 45 Table 2.12 Number of convictions for offences against good order, 1997 to 2006 46 Table 2.13 Number of convictions for traffic offences, 1997 to 2006 47 Table 2.14 Number of convictions for miscellaneous offences, 1997 to 2006 49 Table 2.15 Courts where convictions were finalised, by type of offence, 2006 51 Table 2.16 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and gender of offender, 2006 53 Table 2.17 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and age of offender, 2006 54 Table 2.18 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and ethnicity of offender, 2006 55 Table 2.19 Number of convictions for various sex offences, by age and gender of the victim, 2006 56 Table 3.1 Total number of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 64 Table 3.2 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 65 Table 3.3 Average seriousness of cases resulting in each type of sentence, and average seriousness of all cases resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006 67 Table 3.4 Number of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 68 Table 3.5 Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 68 Table 3.6 Number of convicted cases involving violent offences with each level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of violent offences, 1997 to 2006 70 Table 3.7 Number of convicted cases involving violent offences by offence type, 1997 to 2006 71 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 9

Table 3.8 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by violent offence type, 1997 to 2006 72 Table 3.9 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of violent offence, 1997 to 2006 73 Table 3.10 Number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 74 Table 3.11 Percentage of convicted cases involving other offences against the person resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 75 Table 3.12 Number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person by offence type, 1997 to 2006 75 Table 3.13 Percentage of convicted cases involving other offences against the person resulting in a custodial sentence, by offence type, 1997 to 2006 76 Table 3.14 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of other offence against the person, 1997 to 2006 76 Table 3.15 Number of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 77 Table 3.16 Percentage of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 77 Table 3.17 Number of convicted cases involving property offences with each level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of property offences, 1997 to 2006 78 Table 3.18 Number of convicted cases involving each property offence, 1997 to 2006 79 Table 3.19 Percentage of convicted cases involving property offence resulting in a custodial sentence by offence type, 1997 to 2006 80 Table 3.20 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of property offence, 1997 to 2006 81 Table 3.21 Number of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 82 Table 3.22 Percentage of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 82 Table 3.23 Number of convicted cases involving drug offences with each level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of drug offences, 1997 to 2006 83 Table 3.24 Number of convicted cases involving each drug offence, 1997 to 2006 84 Table 3.25 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of drug offence, 1997 to 2006 84 Table 3.26 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of drug offence, 1997 to 2006 85 Table 3.27 Number of convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 87 Table 3.28 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 87 Table 3.29 Number of convicted cases involving each offence against the administration of justice, 1997 to 2006 88 Table 3.30 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in a custodial sentence, by offence type, 1997 to 2006 88 10 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Table 3.31 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of offence against the administration of justice, 1997 to 2006 90 Table 3.32 Number of convicted cases involving offences against good order resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 91 Table 3.33 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against good order resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 92 Table 3.34 Number of convicted cases involving each offence against good order, 1997 to 2006 92 Table 3.35 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of offence against good order, 1997 to 2006 93 Table 3.36 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of offence against good order, 1997 to 2006 93 Table 3.37 Number of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 94 Table 3.38 Percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 94 Table 3.39 Number of convicted cases involving each traffic offence by offence type, 1997 to 2006 95 Table 3.40 Percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in a custodial sentence by offence type, 1997 to 2006 96 Table 3.41 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of traffic offence, 1997 to 2006 96 Table 3.42 Number of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 98 Table 3.43 Percentage of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 98 Table 3.44 Number of convicted cases involving each miscellaneous offence, 1997 to 2006 99 Table 3.45 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of miscellaneous offence, 1997 to 2006 99 Table 3.46 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of miscellaneous offence, 1997 to 2006 100 Table 3.47 Most serious sentence imposed for all convicted cases finalised in each court location, 2006 101 Table 3.48 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and gender of the offender, 2006 103 Table 3.49 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and age of the offender, 2006 104 Table 3.50 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 2006 104 Table 4.1 Total number of cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 110 Table 4.2 Percentage of cases resulting in a custodial sentence involving each type of offence, 1997 to 2006 110 Table 4.3 Total number of custodial sentences imposed of various lengths, and average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), 1997 to 2006 111 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 11

Table 4.4 Lengths of non-parole periods imposed for life imprisonment sentences, 1997 to 2006 112 Table 4.5 Lengths of non-parole periods imposed for preventive detention sentences, 1997 to 2006 113 Table 4.6 Annual average number of prisoners, 1997 to 2006 114 Table 4.7 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders in all cases resulting in a custodial sentence, 2006 116 Table 4.8 All cases involving a remand in custody, by type of offence and outcome of case, 2006 117 Table 4.9 Total number of cases involving a period of remand in custody of various lengths, and average custodial remand period per case (in days), 2004 to 2006 118 Table 4.10 Total number of cases of duration of more than one day involving a period of remand in custody of various percentage of entire case spent in custodial remand, 2004 to 2006 119 Table 5.1 Total number of cases resulting in work-related community sentences as the most serious sentence, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 123 Table 5.2 Percentage of cases resulting in work-related community sentences as the most serious sentence, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 123 Table 5.3 Number of work-related community sentences imposed of various lengths, and average length of work-related community sentences (in hours), 1997 to 2006 125 Table 5.4 Total number of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 126 Table 5.5 Percentage of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 126 Table 5.6 Number of supervision sentences imposed of various lengths, and average length of supervision sentences (in months), 1997 to 2006 127 Table 5.7 Total number of cases resulting in a supervision sentence in conjunction with periodic detention or community work, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 127 Table 6.1 Total number of convicted charges resulting in a fine, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 131 Table 6.2 Percentage of all convicted charges resulting in a fine, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 132 Table 6.3 Amounts of fines imposed, 1997 to 2006 132 Table 6.4 Other sentences imposed with fines, 1997 to 2006 133 Table 6.5 Percentage of fines imposed with other sentences, 1997 to 2006 133 Table 6.6 Total number of convicted charges resulting in reparation, by type of offence, 1997 to 2006 134 Table 6.7 Percentage of convicted charges of each type of offence resulting in reparation, 1997 to 2006 135 Table 6.8 Amounts imposed for all offences resulting in reparation, 1997 to 2006 136 Table 6.9 Other sentences imposed with reparation, 1997 to 2006 137 Table 6.10 Percentage of reparation sentences imposed with other sentences, 1997 to 2006 137 12 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table A1 Table A2 Table A3 Table A4 Table A5 Number of convicted property charges resulting in a sentence of reparation, by type of property offence, 1997 to 2006 138 Percentage of convicted property charges resulting in a sentence of reparation, by type of property offence, 1997 to 2006 138 Percentage of convictions for property offences resulting in reparation in each court area, 1997 to 2006 139 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and ethnicity of offender, 2005 157 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 2005 157 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders in all cases resulting in a custodial sentence, 2005 158 All cases involving a remand in custody, by type of offence and outcome of case, 2004 159 All cases involving a remand in custody, by type of offence and outcome of case, 2005 159 Figures Figure 1.1 Flow of charges and cases through the criminal justice system 21 Figure 2.1 Percentage of prosecutions resulting in each type of outcome, 1997 to 2006 31 Figure 2.2 Percentage of all convictions involving each type of offence, 1997 to 2006 35 Figure 3.1 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 66 Figure 3.2 Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006 69 Figure 3.3 Percentage of violent offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and average seriousness of violent offences resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006 70 Figure 3.4 Percentage of property offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and average seriousness of property offences resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006 79 Figure 3.5 Percentage of drug offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and average seriousness of drug offences resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006 83 Figure 4.1 Annual average number of sentenced prisoners, by gender, 1997 to 2006 114 Figure 4.2 Annual average number of remand prisoners, 1997 to 2006 115 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 13

14 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Executive Summary This report examines trends in prosecutions, convictions and sentencing over the decade from 1997 to 2006. The data on which this report is based were released as Tier 1 Statistics on Statistics New Zealand s web site in December 2007. This release was accompanied by the publication of a summary report titled Statistical Bulletin: An Overview of Conviction and Sentencing Statistics in New Zealand 1997 to 2006, which is available for download from the Ministry of Justice web site (www.justice.govt.nz). The current report provides a more detailed breakdown of the data released in December 2007, and incorporates additional information about the sentenced and remand prisoner populations. It also includes an analysis of longitudinal trends in seriousness scores for certain offence categories. The information presented in this report relates to charges and cases. A charge refers to each separate criminal prosecution processed by the courts. A case counts charges against the same individual, and can involve one or multiple charges. The charge taken to represent the case is the one that resulted in the most serious sentence. Overall Trends Over the decade from 1997 to 2006 the following key trends were observed in relation to criminal prosecutions, convictions and other outcomes, and sentences: The total number of charges prosecuted in New Zealand courts generally increased from 2002 onwards. The number remained relatively constant between 2004 and 2005, before increasing by 7% in 2006. Most charges involved either property or traffic offences. A conviction was the most common prosecution outcome throughout the decade, however the proportion of charges resulting in a conviction declined slightly over the period (from 69% to 65%). The number of charges resulting in a conviction increased from 2002 onwards, rising by 18% between 2002 and 2006. The number of charges resulting in a conviction generally increased for most offence categories over the decade; convictions for miscellaneous offences exhibited the largest increased at 96%, followed by offences against justice and offences against good order, which respectively increased by 61% and 51%. However, convictions for charges involving property and drug offences declined by 12% and 13% respectively. Monetary penalties were the most common sentence imposed over the decade. Approximately half of all convicted cases each year resulted in monetary penalties as the most serious sentence. Fines were most frequently imposed for charges involving traffic offences, a trend which has increased slightly over the decade. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 15

Reparation was most likely to be imposed for charges involving property offences. However, the proportion of all charges resulting in reparation that involved property offences declined over the decade, as reparation sentences have been more frequently imposed for other types of offence (particularly traffic and violent offences). After monetary penalties, work-related community sentences were the next most common type of sentence imposed during the decade. Cases involving traffic and property offences represented the largest proportion of cases resulting in this type of sentence. Although cases involving violence were less likely to result in work-related community sentences, between 2004 and 2006, an increasing number of violent cases were resolved in this manner. The number of convicted cases resulting in custodial sentences remained relatively constant between 1997 and 2002, before increasing by 7% in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the number of cases resulting in imprisonment remained stable at an average of 10,458. Most custodial sentences were imposed in cases involving property, violent, or traffic offences. Most custodial sentences imposed were under one year in duration, although the average sentence length ranged from 13 to 15 months over the decade. Since 2004, however, the average custodial sentence length has remained stable at an average of 14 months. The following sections describe the key findings and trends in more detail. Prosecutions In 2006, a total of 308,965 charges were prosecuted in New Zealand courts. Most prosecutions involved property or traffic offending, which respectively accounted for 27% and 25% of all charges prosecuted in 2006. Convictions In 2006, a total of 201,517 charges resulted in a conviction. This represented a 7% increase from 2005. Traffic offences Traffic offences accounted for the highest proportion of all convictions between 1997 and 2006. However, convictions for traffic offences represented a slightly decreasing proportion of all convictions over the decade, from 33% in 1997 to 31% in 2006. From a decade low of 54,541 in 2002, the number of traffic convictions rose by 16% to reach 63,360 in 2006, the highest level recorded over the decade. This increase can be largely attributed to a growth in the number of convictions for driving with excess breath or blood alcohol levels. Property offences Charges involving property offences made up the second largest percentage of all convictions after traffic offences. However, charges involving property offences decreased as a proportion of all convictions, from 30% in 1997 to 24% in 2006. In 2006, the number of convictions for property offences increased slightly. This was predominantly due to an 16 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

increase in convictions for wilful damage, in addition to a small increase in the number of convictions for theft. Violent offences During the decade violent offences accounted for an average of 9% of all charges convicted each year. Between 2002 and 2006, the number of convictions for violent offences increased by 18%. This was predominantly due to a rise in the number of convictions for male assaults female and serious assault, which increased by 37%, and 30% respectively between 2002 and 2006. Offences against justice The proportion of convictions for offences against justice increased from 8% in 1997 to 12% in 2006. Between 2002 and 2006, the number of convictions for offences against justice increased by 59%, rising from 14,972 to 23,840. This was predominantly due to an increase in convictions for breaches of work-related community sentences, failure to answer bail, breaching release conditions, and breaching supervision. Drug offences Drug offences accounted for a declining proportion of all convictions over the decade, dropping from 8% in 1998 to 6% in 2006. The number of convictions for drug offences generally decreased during this time, although the number rose slightly in 2006. This was due to a 12% rise in the number of convictions for non-cannabis-related drug offences. Offences against good order Convictions for charges involving offences against good order accounted for a small but increasing proportion of all convictions over the decade, comprising 7% of all convictions in 2006. The number of convictions for offences against good order generally increased over the decade. From 2005 to 2006, the number rose by 12% to reach a decade high of 15,009 in 2006. Changes in the number of convictions for this offence category have largely been driven by changes in the number of convictions for disorderly behaviour. Sentencing Significant changes were made to the sentencing regime in New Zealand by the Sentencing Act 2002, which came into force on 30 June 2002. However, due to the transitional nature of the provisions contained in the Act, and the relatively short time that has elapsed since it came into force, the impact of the new Act is unlikely to be fully evident in the statistics presented in this report. In 2006, a total of 112,774 cases resulted in a conviction. Of these, 47% (53,207) resulted in a monetary penalty, 24% (27,196) in a work-related community sentence, 11% (12,253) in a conviction and discharge, 9% (10,496) in a custodial sentence, 5% (5,345) in a deferment, 2% (2,243) in a supervision sentence, and 2% (2,061) in other sentences. This is similar to the distribution in 2005. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 17

Monetary Penalties: Fines and Reparation Across the decade the number of charges resulting in a fine increased by 10%, rising from 56,276 in 1997 to 62,168 in 2006. Of the charges resulting in a fine in 2006, 52% involved traffic offences and 20% involved miscellaneous offences. The median fine imposed increased from $250 in 1997 to $300 in 1999, and subsequently remained at this level for the rest of the decade. The total amount of fines imposed increased by 35% across the decade, from $23 million in 1997 to $31 million in 2006. The total number of charges resulting in reparation increased by 35% over the decade, rising from 12,880 in 1997 to 17,392 in 2006. Charges involving property offences accounted for the majority of all reparation sentences imposed during the decade. However, although the number of property charges resulting in reparation sentences increased over the decade, property offences comprised a decreasing proportion of all reparation sentences. This was due to the increased use of reparation for charges involving violent and traffic offences, which both tripled over the decade. The median amount of reparation imposed increased over the decade, rising from $218 in 1997 to $300 in 2006. The total amount of reparation imposed almost doubled during this time, increasing from $12 million in 1997 to $23 million in 2006. Community-based sentences The number of convicted cases resulting in work-related community sentences as the most serious sentence increased by 9% between 1997 and 1998, before declining by 15% to reach 25,519 in 2000. It remained at this level until 2006, when the number increased by 9%. This was predominantly due to increases in the number of work-related community sentences imposed for traffic offences, property offences, and offences against justice. The average length of work-related community sentences declined between 2004 and 2006, from 123 hours to 116 hours. The total number of cases resulting in supervision sentences as the most serious sentence generally declined over the decade, decreasing by 62% between 1997 and 2003 (from 5,037 to 1,894). The number increased slightly between 2004 and 2005, before declining to 2,243 in 2006. Throughout the decade, cases involving violent offences accounted for the greatest proportion of supervision sentences. The number of supervision sentences imposed generally decreased for most categories of offence over the decade, with the exception of offences against the administration of justice. Over the decade the average length of supervision sentences imposed was around 10 months. 18 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Custodial sentences Between 1997 and 2002, 8% of convicted cases resulted in a custodial sentence. However, in 2003 9% of all convicted cases received custodial sentences, and between 2004 and 2006, an average of 10% of all convicted cases had custodial sentences imposed each year. Property offences represented the largest proportion of all cases resulting in a custodial sentence each year during the decade, accounting for an average of 30% of custodial sentences imposed each year. The number of property cases resulting in custody increased for most of the decade, but declined slightly between 2004 and 2006. Cases involving violent offences represented the next largest proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence, representing an average of 26% of custodial sentences imposed each year. The number of custodial sentences imposed for cases involving violent offences trended upwards after 2002. Cases involving traffic offences consistently accounted for around one-fifth of all custodial sentences imposed each year during the decade. The average custodial sentence length (including life imprisonment and preventive detention sentences) increased over the decade, rising from 13 and a half months in 1997 to almost 16 months in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the average length was 14 months. However, the majority of custodial sentences imposed were for 12 months or less, and in 2006 70% of custodial sentences were for 12 months or less. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 19

20 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

1 Introduction 1.1 Background This report examines trends in prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing over a ten-year period. It includes all charges and cases finalised in the calendar years from 1997 to 2006, describing decade trends as well as key statistics for 2006. Where possible, it offers preliminary explanations for major changes occurring during the decade. Figure 1.1 illustrates the flow of charges through the criminal justice system. The scope of the data contained in this report encompasses the shaded part of the diagram, from prosecution outcomes through to sentencing. Figure 1.1 Flow of charges and cases through the criminal justice system In this report, conviction trends are examined for: offending overall offences grouped into categories. different types of offences within these categories Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 21

The grouped offence categories reported on are: violent offences other offences against the person property offences drug offences offences against good order offences against the administration of justice traffic offences offences not otherwise classified (i.e. miscellaneous offences). For each of these offence categories, detail is provided on the offences that were most frequent, most serious, or thought to be of interest to the wider public. 1.2 Source of the data Prior to 2004, unless otherwise specified, the figures in this report came from the Case Monitoring Subsystem of the Law Enforcement System (LES) on the former Wanganui Computer System. This subsystem recorded the court processing of charges. During the second half of 2003, a new computer system for storing information about charges was brought online. The new system is known as the Case Management System (CMS). Because information entered on CMS was electronically passed back to LES until LES was decommissioned in 2005, information for the whole of 2003 was available from LES. However, from the beginning of 2004, all courts entered data only on CMS. The figures for 2004 to 2006 presented in this report are therefore the first to be produced from CMS data. CMS differs from LES and the system changes may have affected statistical trends. Some of the areas that are likely to have been the most affected are: the recording of appeals (see Section 1.3) the identification of cases (see Section 1.4). These changes are discussed in detail below. 1.3 Recording of appeals The structure of the LES data meant that it was difficult to identify charges that had been appealed (particularly charges that were under appeal at the end of each year). In CMS charges under appeal, and outcomes and sentences that are the result of an appeal, are more clearly identified. In the LES data, when a charge was under appeal at the end of a year, the same charge could appear in the data extract for the next year, often with a different outcome (i.e. a not convicted outcome) or sentence. Duplicated charges were removed from the statistical database, and it was assumed that all of the duplicates were because of appeals. However, 22 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

it was not possible to be certain that this was the case. Because of the improved recording of appeals on CMS, it should now be possible to identify why duplicates have been produced in the data. Because of the appeals process, some charges that were nominally resolved at the end of a calendar year get transferred to the following year. For this reason, each time a new report in this series is issued, figures for all years are recalculated and, due to appeals, figures for cases resolved in the previous years may change slightly. A minor effect of the better recording of information on charges that have been appealed is that some charges have the final court recorded as the Court of Appeal. Previously no cases or charges had the final court recorded as the Court of Appeal. 1.4 Identification of cases Some of the information presented in this report (especially in Chapters 3, 4 and 5) relates to cases rather than charges. Prior to 2004, cases were not explicitly identified in the database, so a method was developed to determine which charges would most likely belong to the same case. Charges against one person were combined to form a case if they had either the first or final court hearing date in common. However, it is feasible that charges without a first or a final court hearing date in common could potentially still belong to the same case. With the changeover to CMS, it became possible to join charges belonging to the same case in the database. The need to estimate which charges belong to the same case has, at least in theory, thus been eliminated. However, there are some issues with the way that cases are joined in CMS. While the definition of cases used in the figures for 2004 to 2006 is based on the way that cases are joined in CMS, two minor adjustments were made: First, only charges relating to a single individual were combined to form a case. In CMS charges against different people may be joined into the same case. Since case-based statistics require that the charges in a case relate to the same person, charges for different people joined into the same case were not combined to form a case for the purposes of this report. Second, associated charges not linked in CMS were combined to form a case when a person: received two or more custodial sentences on the same day received two or more community-based sentences on the same day. The decision was made to combine such charges to form a single case because it is unlikely that a single individual would receive two or more custodial or community-based sentences on the same day for different cases. The different construction of cases for the 2004 to 2006 figures may have caused changes in the figures and trends. Using 2004 data, Table 1.1 illustrates differences posted by the old method (prior to 2004) and the new method. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 23

Table 1.1 Comparison Cases Convicted cases Differences in 2004 cases and convictions: LES (old) vs. CMS (new) Old (LES) 144,18 0 102,83 3 New (CMS) 159,26 2 109,52 5 Variance +15,082 +6,692 Comments on variance in terms of the proportion of cases +2% not proved 3% convicted cases +3% convicted and discharged 1% community work 1% monetary penalty +2% offence against justice 2% traffic offences While differences were found between LES and CMS in terms of the numbers of both cases and convicted cases in 2004, the average seriousness scores for various sentences produced by each method were almost the same. In summary, the system used to log cases was updated in 2004 (from LES to CMS). This may have caused changes in the figures and trends that are observed prior to 2003 and following 2004. In particular, any changes in the number of cases in 2004 may not represent a true change in offender patterns. Accordingly, caution should be exercised when making inferences based on any change between 2003 and 2004. It should be noted that for these reasons, case statistics appearing in this report are reported across two time periods: 1997 to 2003 and 2004 to 2006 (in both tables and text). 1.5 Quality of the data Neither the data extracted from CMS nor LES can be regarded as absolutely accurate. It would be impossible to guarantee perfect accuracy even in the best of circumstances, because of the enormous number of charges. Incorrect codes are occasionally entered into the computer system, and duplicate records sometimes arise for a variety of reasons (e.g. appeals). Some of the data problems were corrected in the production of this report and, while there may be small errors in some of the figures shown, the data are sufficiently accurate to indicate trends over time in prosecutions, convictions, and sentences. Information is presented in the report on the gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders. This data is usually recorded by the prosecuting authority (mostly the Police) at the time of arrest. Data on the gender and date of birth (used to calculate the age) of offenders is generally accurate. During the arrest process, it is general practice for Police officers to ask offenders to identify their ethnic group for recording purposes. However, this is not always practical, as the offender may be uncooperative. In such circumstances, officers will use their judgement or knowledge about a person to determine that person's ethnicity. Recording ethnicity in this way may potentially categorise people into an ethnic group that they may not personally choose to identify with. Finally, it is important to note that Police record just one ethnic group per individual for each arrest, rather than allowing a person to be classified into more than one ethnic group. Data on the ethnicity of offenders convicted in 2006 was available for 87% of cases. Cases where ethnicity was not recorded often involved minor traffic offences or miscellaneous offences (for which the prosecuting authority is not usually the Police). 24 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Offenders who default in the payment of a fine or reparation sentence can have an alternative sentence of imprisonment or community work substituted by a judge. Before the Sentencing Act 2002 came into force, corrective training, periodic detention, or community service could also be imposed. This sentence substitution is not usually recorded in the data used for this report. However, often when a person has an alternative sentence substituted for default in the payment of a monetary penalty they have other offending being dealt with as part of the same case, and this other offending is included in the data. Nevertheless, the number of community-based sentences specified in this report is likely to be an undercount of the actual number required to be served. Imprisonment is rarely imposed for defaulting in the payment of monetary penalties. Consequently, there is less likelihood of undercounting custodial sentences. Offenders sentenced to a community-based sentence can also, under certain circumstances have their sentence reviewed (for example, if an offender has failed or is unable to comply with any condition or requirement of the sentence). This sometimes results in another sentence being substituted. This type of sentence substitution is not typically captured in the data used for this report. People who received a suspended sentence of imprisonment could have the sentence activated if they were convicted of a further offence within the suspension period prior to the abolition of this type of sentence in mid-2002. While the activation of prison sentences was not usually recorded in the data used for this report, instances where a person was imprisoned for the reconviction offence at the same time a suspended prison sentence was activated were included in the data. If the reconviction offence did not result in imprisonment, but the suspended prison sentence was activated, then the number of prison sentences presented in this report would be an undercount to that extent. Over the ten-year period covered by this report a number of less serious offences (both traffic and non-traffic) became reclassified as infringement offences, meaning that they could be dealt with by way of an infringement notice rather than summary prosecution. Infringement notices do not involve a prosecution in the normal sense of that term, and do not result in a conviction. In some instances, therefore, significant drops in the number of prosecutions, and thus convictions, can be attributed to offences becoming reclassified as infringement offences and no longer prosecuted summarily, rather than any real change in offending patterns. Where applicable, this has been highlighted in the report. 1.6 Comparability with previous reports The effects of the change in the source of the data used to produce this report have already been discussed above. However, there is one further change relating to the calculation of seriousness scores, which means that some figures appearing in this report cannot be compared with those in previous publications. The seriousness of offence scale was updated early in 2005, and all the seriousness scores appearing in this report have been recalculated accordingly to take account of this change. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 25

In summary, since the annual publications were first produced, the following changes have been made to the data reported: the way that charges are formed into cases has changed the formats used to group offences into the main offence categories and the offence subcategories have been modified the Ministry s seriousness of offence scale was updated in 1995, 2000, and 2005. The changes mean that the figures presented in the earlier publications in the series cannot always be compared with those in the current publication. Consequently, when comparing the data presented in this report with earlier reports, it is necessary to read the accompanying commentaries to identify relevant changes related to particular years and/or periods of coverage. 1.7 Structure of the report Chapter 2 presents information on the outcome of prosecutions (criminal charges laid in court) for all offences over the calendar years 1997 to 2006, and describes trends found in this data. The chapter goes on to examine convictions in more depth, and presents information on trends in the number of charges resulting in a conviction for particular types of offence during the last ten years. It also examines changes in offence seriousness over the decade and presents information for 2006 on the gender, age and ethnicity of offenders who were convicted. It presents information on the courts where prosecutions were finalised in 2006. Finally, it gives a breakdown of the age and gender of the victims of sex offences that resulted in the conviction of an offender in 2006. Chapter 3 describes trends in sentencing for all cases resulting in a conviction. It provides information on the number of sentences of each type that were imposed, and the seriousness of offences resulting in each type of sentence. It also gives a breakdown of the sentences imposed for each of the grouped offence categories. In addition, it examines custodial sentences for particular types of offences in more depth, providing information on the proportion of cases that resulted in a custodial outcome and the length of the custodial sentences imposed. It presents data from 2006 on the gender, age and ethnicity of offenders receiving each type of sentence. Finally, it describes the sentences imposed in each court during 2006. Chapter 4 examines the use of custodial sentences and remands. This chapter summarises some of the results presented in Chapter 3, as well as providing some new information. The new material includes information on: the average number of males and females in prison at any one time over the decade the lengths of prison sentences imposed over the decade the lengths of non-parole periods imposed for life imprisonment and preventive detention sentences. 26 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

Chapter 5 describes statistical trends in the use of community-based sentences. It summarises some of the material presented in Chapter 3, as well as providing some additional data. The new information includes data relating to: the lengths of community-based sentences imposed over the decade the number of cases resulting in periodic detention or community work with supervision over the last decade. Chapter 6 presents information on the use of fines and reparation. It includes data on: the number of charges resulting in a fine the amounts of fines imposed sentences imposed in conjunction with fines. This chapter also provides similar information for reparation sentences. Chapter 7 provides a summary of the main findings described in the preceding chapters. The report also includes appendices that present tables showing ethnicity data for 2005. Problems with the electronic transfer of ethnicity data for 2005 were identified last year when a larger proportion of defendants were found to have unknown ethnicity compared to previous years. While the problems were under investigation, ethnicity data for 2004 was presented in the 2005 report. Most of the statistics presented in this report can be accessed through the Table Builder function on the Statistics New Zealand web site (www.stats.govt.nz). These statistics are updated annually. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 27

28 Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006

2 Prosecutions and convictions for all offences 2.1 Introduction This chapter examines trends in the number of prosecutions and convictions for all offences for each calendar year from 1997 to 2006. The first part of this chapter will present statistical information on the number of prosecution outcomes (criminal charges laid in court) for all offences over the decade. It will identify key trends found in this data, examine the number of convictions for each type of offence, and analyse changes in the seriousness of offences resulting in a conviction. The second part of this chapter will summarise conviction trends over the past decade for different offence types in more depth, including: convictions for violence, other offences against the person, property offending, drugs, offences against the administration of justice, offences against good order, traffic, and miscellaneous offences. Where the data allows, a brief explanation of major changes will be provided alongside these summaries. A breakdown of the number and proportion of convictions (by offence type) finalised in each individual court will also be provided for 2006, excluding convictions finalised in the Court of Appeal and Youth Court. The third part of this chapter will present data about the gender, age and ethnicity of offenders convicted for each offence category in 2006. It also includes data about the victims of sex offences. The final section will provide a brief overview of the key findings. It will highlight major trends in the number of convictions during the decade. Before statistical trends can be discussed, however, it is first necessary to briefly describe the nature of the data utilised in this chapter and identify the limitations associated with its interpretation. The information presented in the following pages is based on the number of criminal charges processed by courts. A change in the number of offences prosecuted in court does not necessarily reflect a change in the actual number of offences committed in the same period. Fluctuations occur in the number of prosecutions and convictions for different offences from year to year. Such fluctuations are not necessarily the result of changes in offending or the number of offenders, but may instead be caused by a range of other factors. For example, changes in population numbers, growing levels of awareness and reporting of crime, improvements in police recording and offence coding practices, legislative changes, as well as changes in the availability and prioritisation of Police recourses for detecting and investigating crime are all likely to impact on conviction numbers. As noted in Chapter 1, the data for 2004 to 2006 in this report was extracted from the new CMS computer system. This technological shift may also account for some changes in the number of prosecutions and convictions during this period. Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006 29