Document 2
From:
Section 9(2)(a)
To:
David Seymour; Karen Chhour; Simon Court; Brooke van Velden; Cameron Luxton; Nicole McKee; Parmjeet
Parmar; Todd Stephenson; Laura Trask
Subject:
3 Strikes
Date:
Tuesday, 23 April 2024 10:20:38 AM
Out of Scope
Hello
I was very pleased that you are re-introducing the 3 Strikes law
But I was very disappointment in that it seems weaker than the previous version.
EG you are giving judges even more discretion.
That was the problem with the last law
How many peoples actually got given a 3rd strike notice (ie on the second office)
Judges always found a way round it.
I think you will find that VERY few people were even given a third strike
So it was working
But unless you force the judges to enforce it, it will be a waste of time, and an opportunity for
the MSM and Opposition to call you out.
We voted for more prisons and more people in jail - Keep them off the street and keep us safe.
If enough are sent to jail for a long time - the others will get the message
Kind Regards
Section 9(2)(a)
Taurnag
From: Section 9(2)(a)
Document 3
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 2:34 PM
To: Paul Goldsmith (MIN) <[email address]>; Karen Chhour (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: Three strikes legislation
Good morning,
I am a Judicial Justice of the Peace Section 9(2)(a)
I look after arrests at the Section 9(2)(a)
by audio visual link.
Why I am contacting you is that although it is marvellous that you have now added strangulation (impeding breathing) to the
three strikes legislation, I would like to respectfully suggest that MP’s consider adding intent to cause bodily harm
(Section189(1) of the Crimes Act 1961).
In particular when victims are forced to the ground, stomped on and kicked in the head / body.
This last month I have handled 52 arrests, 25 of them involve family violence – The Judges also handle a good percentage of the
arrests.
Unfortunately almost everyone is Māori.
I see many extreme cases and invariably the victim is too scared to leave or approach Police.
Many of these women are strangled, kicked in the head, punched in the head and body, as well as dragged by the hair.
Here is an example I had to deal with the other week (Police summary of facts):
Section 9(2)(a)
Section 9(2)(a)
For the many years I have been a Judicial Officer, I have seen numerous examples of this type of violence and I am concerned
enough to contact you, hoping to make a difference.
Three strikes may not stop them doing it, but at least if it carries on they will be out of society for some time.
This offence has 10 years imprisonment.
I hope you and your fellow MP’s can consider my request
Thanks and kind regards,
Section 9(2)(a)
Document 4
Document 5
From: Section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 1:11 PM
To: Nicole McKee (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: Question
Dear Minister,
I have read Mr Farrar's comments on "Kiwiblog" that your 3 Strikes law is "so watered down
it is next to useless."
He also says that you are resetting Strikes at zero as well as making it likely that Judges will
issue light sentences to avoid 3 Strikes.
Is this true?
And if so, why are you going soft on crimes.
One of the worst aspects of NZ is the softness on criminals. People are emigrating because
of it. Ask any Indian shopkeeper for example.
We had hoped the new government would get serious on crime. If Mr Farrar is correct, and
he is seldom wrong, then you stand condemned.
Yours sincerely
Section 9(2)(a)
Wellington
From: Section 9(2)(a)
Document 6
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2024 10:06 PM
To: Paul Goldsmith (MIN) <[email address]>; Chris Penk
<[email address]>
Cc: Cameron Brewer <[email address]>
Subject: 3 Strikes legislation? C'mon, please...
Good evening, all.
I counted to ten before writing this, but I remain firm – bordering on furious - in my view that
your latest legislation is far too soft.
If you think that crimes receiving less than 2 years jail don’t warrant inclusion, please think
again – I don’t need to repeat the examples provided by Heather du-Plessis Allan.
It is particularly galling that you propose forgiving those who already had strikes to their
name – I’m sure you could find a way to insert a clause allowing our judges some leeway
when necessary.
It seems clear to me that our sentencing has become very soft in recent times, to the point
where one wonders if many of our judges have entirely lost the plot.
However, they are not all bad – and we have just seen a fine example of commendable
sentencing by the judge in the trial of the woman who killed her three children.
Please ensure that we are not left with an emaciated version of what is urgently required.
With thanks and kind regards.
Section 9(2)(a)
Section 9(2)(a)
Riverhead
Section 9(2)(a)
-----Original Message-----
Document 7
From: Section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 8:58 AM
To: Paul Goldsmith (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: "New" 3 strikes rule
Good Morning Mr Goldsmith,
I have worked in Australian Corrective Services (2 States) and been an advisor Section 9(2)(a) previously and as such, I know
there's almost no chance that you will personally get to read this, however, I would like to voice my concern over the
new/updated 3 strikes law. I believe that such a law is necessary however the new version that your Government is introducing
has serious flaws that need to be addressed to make it work. Rather than bang on about it, a post in Kiwiblog this morning
sums up some of the major issues.
"July 8, 2024 7:00am by David Farrar
Meet a zero striker #1
This is Ranapera Taumata.
His three strikes are:
1st: aggravated robbery – he was sentenced to 8 months home detention
2nd: robbery (which he committed while on prison release conditions) – he was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment.
3rd: murdered his girlfriend in 2019 by beating her to death with his bare hands.
Now what the Government’s new Three Strikes law does is firstly wipe all three of his strikes. Yep he is back to zero strikes.
Unbelievable.
But even worse is this new law means he would have even got a first or second strike. As both got sentences of under 24
months, he would not have even got strikes for them. So his murder conviction would be a first strike, not a third strike."
As well as working as a Prison Officer, Senior Prison Officer, Chief Prison Officer and Section 9(2)(a)
, working at
all levels of Probation and Parole, from Community work supervisor, to D&A Counsellor to Manger, and as an Advisor Sect
, it is my opinion that the current form of the law is not suitable.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Section 9(2)(a) ,
Retired.
--
Section 9(2)(a)
Section 9(2)(a)
From: Section 9(2)(a)
Sent:
Document 8
Friday, July 19, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Hon Mark Mitchell <[email address]>
Subject: Three Strikes legislation
Dear Mark
As a National Party member, I write to express my extreme disappointment in the Three Strikes legislation as drafted.
There are so many undesirables who have up to three strikes already who will have those strikes wiped off their record.
The other major concern I have is that a sentence of less than 2 years will not qualify as a Strike. Sadly, with our present
judiciary, the chances of some of these individuals not receiving a sentence of two years or more, is quite high and so
the bar is set very high for a strike to be achieved.
As a party and individual who campaigned so strongly on being tough on crime, I find this falling very short of your
promises. I am sure ACT and NZ First would have quite different attitudes.
Yours sincerely
Section 9(2)(a)
Document 11
ORAL SUBMISSION
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill
The Oral Submission was delivered to the
Parliament Select Committee by Safe Communities
Association on August 22, 2024, apart from the
written submission lodged earlier in July.
It has been reiterated by the association that the
original Three Strikes Law will have to be reinstated
completely without any compromise.
Safe Communities Association is determined to
fully support the Tough on Crime Policy promised
by the coalition government. Restoring an original
Three Strikes Law sends a strong message to the criminal fraternity. Repeat serious violent and sexual
offenders should be imprisoned for as long as
possible. Watering down Three Strikes is not what
we voted for!
The voice has been heard during the Anti-Crime
Rally on 13.07.2024, with a huge turnout of the
general public and the support from community
leaders, MPs, deputy mayor and other politicians, in
response to the recent crime incidents including 16-
year-old school boy attacked on the bus and
jewellery shop robbery.
However, those incidents keep happening on the bus, on the street, in the shops and at homes.
We hereby make our stance very clear that we
advocate to impose harsher punishment on crime
including juvenile offence.
Your support is very import to bring Safe New
Zealand back, therefore for ourselves, for our next
generation, kindly sign the Anti-Crime Petition
including the full restore of Three Strikes Law.
https://chng.it/mmxzN9n8d2
(Donations optional for website promotion, not into SCA )
Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill at a glance
Under this bill, it massively reduces the number of
recidivist criminals who will make it to Second or
Third Strike stage, by setting a 24 months
imprisonment threshold at all three stages of the
regime.
As soft sentences are commonly handed down by
lenient judges, almost all Judges oppose Three
Strikes sentencing.
As a result, a much smaller number of criminals
will be imprisoned for longer, consequently more new victims will be created，this will not help the
Government achieve its goal of fewer victims of crime.
Highlights of the submission under this amendment
bill:
•
This reduces the number of Third Strikers by
70%
•
This is a clean slate 14,687 serious criminals
•
This empowers Judges to be soft and
discount on sentences
•
Marginal cases should use the “manifestly
unjust” clause
SAFE COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION
Section 9(2)(a)
26.08.2024
Section 9(2)(a)
