Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street
DX SX10088 | Wel ington
T 04 918 8800 |
F 04 918 8820
[email address] | www.justice.govt.nz
8 April 2026
Hayden
[FYI request #33296 email]
Ref: OIA 128832
Tēnā koe Hayden
Official Information Act request: Crime rates and economic correlations
Thank you for your email of 16 December 2025 to the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry),
requesting information under the Of icial Information Act 1982 (the Act), regarding crime rates,
economic correlations, corrections costs, and justice system demand analysis. Your full request
is attached as
Appendix 1, and requests information on the following sections:
1. Crime Data and Economic Correlations
2. Cost Of Crime Analysis
3. Corrections System Demand and Costs
4. Reoffending and Intergenerational Crime
5. Preventive vs. Punitive Approaches
6. Coordination with Economic Policy Agencies
7. Economic Policy Impact Assessment
8. Family Violence and Economic Stress
9. Youth Justice
10. Victim Support and Costs
11. Justice System Capacity
12. International Comparisons
13. Longitudinal and Causal Analysis
14. Transparency and Accountability
15. Clarification Questions
On 26 January 2026, you were advised that parts 3, 4, 5.3 and 12.1 of your request were
transferred to the Department of Corrections (Corrections), and parts 9.1 and 9.3 were
transferred to Oranga Tamariki.
That same day you were also advised that due to substantial collation and research, and the
need for external consultation, the timeframe to respond to your request was extended under
section 15 of the Act and a response would be with you by 10 April 2026.
For ease of response, each section of your request wil be addressed in turn.
1. Crime Data and Economic Correlations
1.1 Crime Rate Time-Series Data
Your request for this information is refused under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information is
publicly available.
You can refer to Ministry of Justice information at:
NZCVS Violent Crime Releases | Ministry of
Justice and New Zealand Police (the Police) information at:
Crime statistics publications | New
Zealand Police and policedata.nz | New Zealand Police.
1.2 Economic Stress Crime Indicators
In addition to what is contained on the websites above, you can refer to
Appendix 2 attached to
this response, that relates to analysis undertaken in 2009 and 2010. This information was not
released and remains in draft form. Some information has been withheld under section 9(2)(a)
of the Act, to protect the privacy of natural persons.
In withholding information under section 9, the Ministry has considered the public interest and
does not consider that it outweighs withholding the information at this time.
The report was produced by the Ministry’s Justice Strategic Policy Unit and covered data up to
2007-08. This analysis was carried out in 2009, and the draft report attached was sent out for
both internal (Research & Analysis team at the Ministry of Justice) and external (Lew Evans,
Victoria University) peer review in 2010.
This draft report was never published due to a large number of concerns about the quality of the
analysis and the main findings in the report, from both the internal and external reviewers.
This feedback was saved as Groupwise files, which was the email system for the Ministry at the
time. Unfortunately, we can no longer open these files or convert them to a readable format.
Access to these files is therefore refused under section 18(e) of the Act, as the documents
alleged to contain the information requested, despite reasonable efforts to provide the
information, cannot be provided.
1.3 Offender Economic Circumstances
The Ministry attempted to transfer this part of your request to the Police, however this was
declined as they do not hold this information. This part of your request is therefore refused
under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not hold this information and there are no
grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or Minister subject to the Act.
2. Cost of Crime Analysis
This full section of your request is refused under 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not
hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
3. Corrections System Demand and Costs
This full section was transferred to Corrections for response under section 14 of the Act.
4. Reoffending and Intergenerational Crime
This full section was transferred to Corrections for response under section 14 of the Act.
5. Preventative vs Punitive Approaches
5.1 Economic Efficiency Analysis
This part of your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not
hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
5.2 Alternative Justice Models
Restorative Justice, Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court and
Family Violence evaluations
are all publicly available on the Ministry’s website. Your request for this information is refused
under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information is publicly available.
5.3 Māori Justice Outcomes
This part of your request was transferred to Corrections for response under section 14 of the
Act. However, the Ministry can refer you to a small amount of joint agency information that does
fall within scope of your request but is refused under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information
is publicly available. You can find this at:
Justice Sector Longterm Insights Briefing -
Imprisonment in New Zealand and What works to reduce crime.
6. Coordination with Economic Policy Agencies
This full section of your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does
not hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
7. Economic Policy Impact Assessment
This full section of your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does
not hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
8. Family Violence and Economic Stress
8.1 Family Violence Data
This part of your request is refused under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information is publicly
available at:
Family violence offence data | Ministry of Justice.
8.2 Economic Correlations
8.3 Cost Analysis
These parts of your request are refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does
not hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
9. Youth Justice
9.1 Youth Crime Trends
9.3 Prevention Investment
These parts of your request were transferred to Oranga Tamariki for response under section 14
of the Act. However, the Ministry can refer you to a small amount of data that does fall within
scope of your request but is refused under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information is publicly
available. You can find this at:
Youth Justice Indicators | Ministry of Justice.
9.2 Risk Factors
This part of your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not
hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
10. Victim Support and Costs
This full section of your request is refused under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information is
publicly available at:
New Zealand Crime & Victims Survey (NZCVS) | Ministry of Justice.
11. Justice System Capacity
11.1 Court backlogs
The High Court does not have a backlog. Jury trials are held on the first available date in the
relevant centre, taking into account the time required for the prosecution and defence to prepare
for trial, counsel availability, existing cases already scheduled for jury trials (and other work) in
that centre, and courtroom and cell availability. The number of criminal trial cases awaiting
hearing in the High Court at a national level has remained steady over the past two years.
By way of background, approximately 80 per cent of the High Court’s jury trial workload is
homicide trials. These trials are lengthy and complex. The average time for such a trial is now
17.5 days. The seriousness and complexity of the charges tried in the High Court means that
the prosecution and defence wil usually require a minimum of 12 months from a defendant’s
first appearance in the High Court to prepare for trial.
For information on High Court criminal case numbers and waiting time for scheduled hearings
as at 31 December 2024, please refer to the Courts of New Zealand website:
Annual Statistics
for the year ended 31 December 2024 — Courts of New Zealand. Data for the year ended 31
December 2025 wil be published in the coming weeks.
For District Court data, please refer to
Appendix 3:
•
Table 1a: proportion of backlog in the criminal jurisdiction and
•
Table 1b: proportion of backlog in civil and family jurisdictions, by financial year, from
July 2015 to June 2025.
You have also asked whether backlogs have worsened and the drivers of this. Over the last 10
years, we have seen a larger volume of complex cases entering our district court system. This
has resulted in more adjournments, delays, and a growing backlog of active cases which was
exacerbated by delays during COVID-19.
While the longer-term trend reflects sustained pressure on the District Court, the 2024/25
financial year shows early signs of improvements. Compared to the previous year, more cases
were disposed, the number of active cases decreased, and backlogs have decreased. These
improvements are likely attributable to the initiatives currently underway across the Ministry
aimed at improving court efficiency and timeliness.
Key initiatives include the Chief District Court Judge’s Timely Access to Justice Protocol, which
sets standards and timely justice thresholds for criminal cases; the jointly led District Court
Timely Justice Programme to reduce delays; and priority-based rostering and scheduling to
direct judicial and sector resources to courts with the largest backlogs.
Average time from charge to trial/sentencing
In response to your request for average time from charge to trial, please refer to
Table 2 for the
average number of days to establish guilt or innocence at a trial, by financial year, from July
2015 to June 2025.
In response to your request for average time from charge to sentencing, please refer to
Table 3
for the average number to disposal for cases with an outcome of ‘Convicted and Sentenced’, by
financial year, for cases disposed between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2025.
Cost of delays
The part of your request about the cost of delays is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as
this information is not recorded or reported by the Ministry, and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by any other agency or Minister subject to the Act.
11.2 Legal Aid
The part of your request regarding unmet legal aid demand is refused under section 18(g)(i) of
the Act, as this information is not recorded or reported by the Ministry, and there are no grounds
for believing it is held by any other agency or Minister subject to the Act.
For context, the Ministry does not have visibility of those who do not apply for legal aid either
due to being ineligible or are unable to find a legal aid lawyer to take their case. The remainder
of this part of your request is refused under section 18(d) of the Act, as the information
requested is publicly available.
Please s
ee Annual Reports and Data tables for the number of legal aid applications processed
and the total legal aid expenditure from 2015 to 2024. You can also refer to the
Legal Services
Act 2011 and Legal Aid Grants Handbook for information on the factors the Legal Services
Commissioner, or Legal Aid Services staff member delegated this function, must consider when
deciding an applicant’s eligibility to legal aid – this includes financial hardship considerations.
For more information you c
an Contact Legal Aid Services.
11.3 System Sustainability
This part of your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not
hold this information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or
Minister subject to the Act.
12. International Comparisons
12.1 Imprisonment Rates
This part of your request was transferred to Corrections for response under section 14 of the
Act.
12.1 Best Practice
The Ministry attempted to transfer this part of your request to the Police, however this was
declined as they do not hold this information. This part of your request is therefore refused
under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not hold this information and there are no
grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or Minister subject to the Act.
13. Longitudinal and Casual Analysis
The Ministry attempted to transfer this full section of your request to the Police, however this
was declined as they do not hold this information. This full section of your request is therefore
refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not hold this information and there
are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or Minister subject to the Act.
14. Transparency and Accountability
14.1 Published research
Please refer to the response to question 1.2.
14.2 Ministerial briefings
There have been no briefings to Ministers in the last 5 years regarding economic drivers of
crime or warnings or recommendations about economic policy settings, therefore this part of
your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not hold this
information and there are no grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or Minister
subject to the Act.
However, there is some publicly available information on the Ministry’s website from 2011-2018
regarding drivers of crime that may be of interest to you. You can refer to:
Trends in Conviction
and Sentencing in NZ - 2011, NZCVS - Drivers of Crime and
Drivers of Crime: Investment
package for alcohol and other drug assessments and interventions – implementation plan.
15. Clarification questions
While the Act allows New Zealanders to ask Government agencies for information, there is no
requirement to create new information, compile information they do not hold, respond to
hypothetical questions, or provide an opinion. The Act does not support requests where a
question is put to an agency for response. This section of your request is therefore refused
under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the Ministry does not hold this information and there are no
grounds for believing it is held by any other agency or Minister subject to the Act.
Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the
Ministry’s website at:
Of icial Information Act responses | New Zealand Ministry of Justice. If you are not satisfied with the way your request is being managed, you have the right to make
a complaint to the Ombudsman under section 28 of the Act. The Office of the Ombudsman may
be contacted by phone on: 0800 802 602, by email at: [email address], or via
the webform:
Make a complaint (for members of the public) | Ombudsman New Zealand.
Nāku noa, nā
Georgina Matheson
General Manager, Communications and Ministerial Services
Appendix 1: Copy of full Official Information request
-----Original Message-----
From: Hayden
<[FYI request #33296 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2025 6:10 pm
To:
[Ministry of Justice request email]
Subject: Official Information request - Crime Rates, Economic Correlations, Corrections Costs,
and Justice System Demand Analysis
Dear Ministry of Justice,
I am writing to request information under the Official Information Act 1982 regarding crime rates,
justice system utilization, corrections costs, and their relationship to economic conditions. This
request focuses on whether the Ministry monitors and analyzes economic drivers of crime and
coordinates this information with economic policy agencies.
1. CRIME DATA AND ECONOMIC CORRELATIONS
1.1 Crime Rate Time-Series Data:
Please provide for the period 2015-2024 (or most recent available):
Monthly recorded crime rates for:
Violent crime (assault, robbery, homicide)
Family violence incidents
Property crime (burglary, theft, shoplifting)
Drug offences
Fraud and white-col ar crime
Data disaggregated by:
Geographic region
Of ender age group
Of ender ethnicity
Victim demographics
1.2 Economic Stress Crime Indicators:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Correlations between unemployment rates and property crime rates
Correlations between cost of living increases and shoplifting/theft
Correlations between interest rate increases and family violence
Correlations between benefit sanction rates and crime rates
Crime pattern changes during economic recessions versus growth periods
1.3 Of ender Economic Circumstances:
Please provide data on:
Employment status of offenders at time of offending
Benefit recipient status of offenders
Housing status (homeowner, renter, homeless) of offenders
Debt levels and financial stress indicators in offender backgrounds
Whether "financial hardship" or "economic stress" is systematically coded as an offending
factor
2. COST OF CRIME ANALYSIS
2.1 Updated Cost of Crime Estimates:
In my previous request to Treasury (OIA 20250861), I noted that Treasury's last comprehensive
cost-of-crime analysis dates to 2003/04 at $9.1 bil ion. Please provide:
The Ministry of Justice's current estimate of total annual cost of crime (most recent year
available)
Methodology for calculating this figure
Breakdown by crime categories (violent, property, white-collar, etc.)
When this analysis was last updated
2.2 Cost Categories:
Please provide breakdown of crime costs including:
Direct justice system costs (Police, courts, prosecution, legal aid)
Corrections costs (imprisonment, community sentences, rehabilitation)
Victim costs (medical treatment, counselling, lost productivity)
Property damage and theft losses
Social costs (fear of crime, reduced quality of life)
Lost economic productivity from incarceration
2.3 Cost Projections:
Please provide:
10-year projections of justice system costs under current policy settings
30-year projections if available
Assumptions about crime rate trends underlying these projections
Whether projections assume economic conditions remain stable
3. CORRECTIONS SYSTEM DEMAND AND COSTS
3.1 Prison Population Data:
Please provide for 2015-2024:
Monthly prison population (total and per capita)
Average sentence length by offence type
Remand versus sentenced prisoner ratios
Re-imprisonment rates (recidivism)
Prison population projections to 2030, 2040
3.2 Economic Circumstances of Prisoners:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Employment status of individuals prior to imprisonment
Benefit receipt history of prisoners
Educational attainment levels
Intergenerational patterns (children of prisoners becoming prisoners)
Whether prisoners come disproportionately from economically deprived communities
3.3 Cost per Prisoner:
Please provide:
Average annual cost per prisoner (most recent year)
Total annual corrections budget 2015-2024
Projected corrections costs to 2030
Analysis of whether corrections spending growth is sustainable
4. REOFFENDING AND INTERGENERATIONAL CRIME
4.1 Recidivism Analysis:
Please provide:
Reoffending rates within 1 year, 2 years, 5 years of release
Analysis of factors predicting reoffending (unemployment, homelessness, lack of support)
Cost of reoffending versus cost of rehabilitation and support
Whether economic support upon release reduces reoffending
4.2 Intergenerational Justice Involvement:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Children of prisoners: likelihood of future offending and imprisonment
Whether children in Oranga Tamariki care show elevated justice involvement
Whether poverty and welfare dependency predict intergenerational crime patterns
Fiscal cost of intergenerational crime cycles
4.3 Breaking the Cycle:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Cost-effectiveness of prevention versus incarceration
Whether early intervention in high-risk families reduces long-term justice costs
Return on investment for social programs preventing crime versus managing offenders
5. PREVENTIVE VS. PUNITIVE APPROACHES
5.1 Economic Ef iciency Analysis:
Please provide any Ministry analysis comparing:
Cost of punitive justice approaches (longer sentences, more imprisonment) versus
preventive/rehabilitative approaches
International comparisons: countries with lower imprisonment rates and their justice costs
Whether reducing poverty and inequality would be more cost-effective than expanding
corrections capacity
5.2 Alternative Justice Models:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Restorative justice outcomes and cost-effectiveness
Community-based sentences versus imprisonment: recidivism and cost comparison
Therapeutic courts (drug courts, mental health courts) versus traditional prosecution
Whether addressing root causes (addiction, mental health, poverty) is cheaper than
punishment
5.3 Māori Justice Outcomes:
Please provide:
Māori imprisonment rates compared to general population
Analysis of drivers of Māori overrepresentation in justice system
Whether economic deprivation explains disparities
Cost-benefit analysis of addressing Māori economic inequality versus current justice
expenditure on Māori offenders
6. COORDINATION WITH ECONOMIC POLICY AGENCIES
6.1 Information Sharing with Treasury:
Please provide documentation of:
What crime and corrections cost data the Ministry routinely provides to Treasury
Whether Treasury incorporates justice system cost projections into fiscal planning
Whether the Ministry has warned Treasury about justice cost blowouts driven by economic
policy settings
Any memoranda of understanding regarding justice system fiscal impacts
6.2 Coordination with Reserve Bank:
Please provide documentation of:
Whether the Ministry notifies RBNZ about crime pattern correlations with economic conditions
Whether RBNZ consults the Ministry before OCR decisions about potential crime impacts
Any joint analysis between Ministry of Justice and RBNZ on monetary policy and crime
6.3 Cross-Agency Coordination:
Please confirm:
Whether the Ministry coordinates with MSD on benefit policy impacts on crime
Whether the Ministry coordinates with Health NZ on mental health/addiction drivers of crime
Whether the Ministry coordinates with Oranga Tamariki on child welfare-to-justice pathways
Any formal mechanisms for the Ministry to influence social policy based on crime prevention
evidence
7. ECONOMIC POLICY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
7.1 Budget Measure Impacts:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of crime impacts from:
Benefit cuts or sanctions → crime rate changes
Social housing reduction → property crime and homelessness-related offending
Mental health service cuts → crime commit ed by people with untreated mental il ness
Education funding changes → youth crime patterns
7.2 OCR and Monetary Policy Impacts:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Whether OCR increases and resulting financial stress correlate with crime increases
Historical analysis: previous OCR tightening cycles and crime patterns
Whether mortgage stress and housing insecurity drive family violence and property crime
7.3 Cost-Benefit of Economic Policy:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Whether fiscal savings from reduced social spending are offset by increased justice system
costs
Examples where cutting preventive programs led to increased crime costs exceeding savings
Whether the Ministry has calculated the justice system cost of economic austerity
8. FAMILY VIOLENCE AND ECONOMIC STRESS
8.1 Family Violence Data:
Please provide for 2015-2024:
Monthly family violence incident reports
Protection order applications
Family violence prosecutions and convictions
Family violence homicides
8.2 Economic Correlations:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Whether family violence increases during economic downturns
Correlations between unemployment and family violence
Correlations between housing stress and family violence
Whether financial counselling/support reduces family violence
8.3 Cost Analysis:
Please provide:
Total annual cost of family violence (justice system, health, social services, lost productivity)
Whether addressing economic stress would reduce family violence and associated costs
Cost-benefit analysis of economic support versus family violence intervention
9. YOUTH JUSTICE
9.1 Youth Crime Trends:
Please provide:
Youth offending rates 2015-2024 by age group and offence type
Youth justice facility population trends
Projections of future youth justice demand
9.2 Risk Factors:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
Economic circumstances of young offenders (family poverty, benefit dependency, housing
instability)
Educational disengagement and economic insecurity as crime predictors
Whether children from economically deprived backgrounds are overrepresented in youth
justice
9.3 Prevention Investment:
Please provide:
Cost comparison: youth justice intervention versus early childhood support
Whether investing in child poverty reduction would reduce long-term youth justice costs
International examples of countries that reduced youth crime through social investment
10. VICTIM SUPPORT AND COSTS
10.1 Victim Costs:
Please provide:
Annual victim support service costs
Victim compensation scheme payments
ACC claims related to crime injuries
Total economic burden on crime victims
10.2 Victim Demographics:
Please provide any analysis of:
Whether economically vulnerable people are disproportionately crime victims
Whether poverty areas have higher victimization rates
Whether crime creates poverty (victims losing income, incurring costs)
11. JUSTICE SYSTEM CAPACITY
11.1 Court Backlogs:
Please provide:
Current court case backlog levels
Average time from charge to trial/sentencing
Whether backlogs have worsened and drivers of this
Cost of court delays to defendants, victims, and system
11.2 Legal Aid:
Please provide:
Legal aid expenditure trends 2015-2024
Number of people requiring legal aid
Whether legal aid eligibility captures people in financial hardship
Unmet legal aid demand
11.3 System Sustainability:
Please provide:
Whether current justice system funding is adequate for demand
Projected funding gaps if crime rates don't decrease
Whether economic conditions are creating justice system demand that exceeds capacity
12. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
12.1 Imprisonment Rates:
Please provide:
New Zealand's imprisonment rate compared to OECD countries
Countries with lower imprisonment rates: their crime rates and approaches
Cost comparison: NZ justice system versus more rehabilitation-focused countries
12.2 Best Practice:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of:
International evidence on economic security and crime reduction
Countries that successfully reduced crime through social investment
Whether New Zealand could learn from Nordic models combining social welfare and low
crime
13. LONGITUDINAL AND CAUSAL ANALYSIS
13.1 Life Course Studies:
Please provide any Ministry analysis tracking:
Poverty → educational failure → unemployment → crime pathways
Childhood adversity (abuse, neglect, poverty) → adult offending
Intergenerational transmission of offending in economically deprived families
13.2 Natural Experiments:
Please provide any Ministry analysis of crime impacts from:
1991 benefit cuts → crime rate changes
2008 GFC → crime patterns
COVID-19 economic support → crime trends versus periods without support
2021-2023 OCR increases → property crime and family violence patterns
14. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
14.1 Published Research:
Please confirm:
Whether any of the analyses requested above exist but have not been publicly released
Reasons for non-publication
Whether the Ministry publishes crime data correlated with economic indicators
14.2 Ministerial Briefings:**
Please provide (titles and dates):
Briefings to Ministers in the last 5 years regarding economic drivers of crime
Warnings about justice system costs increasing due to economic policy settings
Recommendations to Cabinet regarding economic policy settings to reduce crime
15. CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS
15.1 Does the Ministry of Justice consider it within its mandate to advocate for economic policy
settings that reduce crime, or is the Ministry limited to managing crime regardless of its
economic causes?
15.2 Has the Ministry ever been directed not to analyze or publish correlations between
economic conditions and crime rates?
15.3 If the Ministry has evidence that economic hardship drives crime, does the Ministry have
an obligation to make this evidence public and advocate for addressing root causes?
15.4 Does the Ministry believe that addressing poverty and inequality would be more cost-
effective than expanding the justice system to manage crime caused by economic deprivation?
RATIONALE FOR THIS REQUEST:
This request addresses whether New Zealand's justice system is documenting and responding
to evidence that economic policy is driving crime.
Criminological research establishes clear links between:
Economic deprivation and property crime
Unemployment and offending
Financial stress and family violence
Inequality and violent crime
If the Ministry is tracking these correlations but not sharing them with economic policy agencies,
this represents a system coordination failure.
If the Ministry is not analyzing these pathways despite having the data, this represents a missed
opportunity for evidence-based crime prevention.
If the Ministry has evidence of economic drivers of crime but has been prevented from
publishing it or advocating for addressing root causes, this raises serious policy questions.
The public has a right to know:
Whether crime is driven by economic conditions
Whether addressing economic security would be more cost-effective than expanding the
justice system
Whether economic policy agencies are informed of crime impacts before making decisions
Whether justice system costs from economic policy decisions are factored into fiscal planning
This request is made in context of:
Treasury's claim (OIA 20250861) that no analysis exists of justice costs related to economic
policy settings
The need to understand whether service delivery agencies coordinate with policy agencies on
demand drivers
Rising corrections costs and questions about sustainability
The Ministry's mission includes reducing crime and improving justice outcomes. This requires
understanding and addressing root causes of offending, including economic determinants.
Transparency about economic drivers of crime is essential for evidence-based policy.
I am happy to discuss this request if clarification would be helpful.
Yours faithfully,
Hayden
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Of icial Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #33296 email]
I
s [Ministry of Justice request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Ministry of
Justice? If so, please contact us using this form:
https:/ fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?body=ministry_of_justice
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make wil be published on the internet. Our
privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Of icial Information officer, please ask your web manager to
link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 3: Court data
Table 1a: Proportion of backlog cases in the criminal jurisdiction in the District Court, by financial year, between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2025.
ACT 1982
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Criminal
8%
10%
11%
13%
18%
19%
25%
22%
21%
19%
Table 1a notes:
• In June 2024, the Chief District Court Judge established a timely access to justice standard and category-based timely justice thresholds for criminal cases in the
District Court. Cases that fal out of these thresholds are considered backlog cases. These thresholds have been retrospectively applied to data on cases to
produce the measures below. For more information, refer to
CDCJ-Timely-Access-to-Justice-Protocol-June.pdf.
• Criminal timely justice thresholds:
o Category 1 case: > 6 months
INFORMATION
o Category 2 case: > 9 months
o Category 3 judge-alone trial case: > 9 months
o Category 3 jury trial case: > 15 months
• When calculating backlog of criminal cases, time that the case was formal y 'on hold' was excluded - this is general y when there is an appeal underway or there is
an active warrant.
• This data was extracted from the Ministry of Justice's Case Management System (CMS) on 17 February 2026. Since this is an operational system, data for earlier
months may have been updated since any previous publications.
• This data represents backlog measures in the District Court only.
• This data represents backlog measures as at 30 June of each year, for each financial year between 2015/16 and 2024/25 inclusive.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Table 1b: Proportion of backlog cases in the civil jurisdiction and applications in the family jurisdiction in the District Court, by financial year,
1982
between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2025.
Jurisdiction 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
ACT
Civil
28%
28%
27%
27%
33%
29%
34%
30%
32%
26%
Family
32%
33%
34%
34%
39%
37%
40%
38%
38%
36%
Table 1b notes:
• The definition of backlog cases/applications for each case/application type in the Family and Civil jurisdictions are set in legislation. The percentages provided in
Table 1b represent the proportion of total active cases and applications with an age greater than that defined for its case type.
• Family data does not include dissolution, child support, adoption, family proceedings, estates, requests, miscellaneous, alcohol & drugs, and substance addiction
application types. The fol owing application/case types are included:
o Care of Children Act applications; made up of guardianship and Hague application types,
INFORMATION
o Domestic violence applications; made up of family violence and domestic violence application types,
o General proceeding cases; made up of notice of claim and general proceeding case types.
• Civil data does not include cases heard outside of the District Court such as probate, Disputes Tribunal, law practitioners, company liquidation, mortgagee sale,
taxation, bankruptcy, rating sale, judicial review, admiralty and habeas corpus cases.
• Family backlog thresholds
o Care of Children Act applications: > 12 months
o Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act applications: > 3 months
OFFICIAL
o Property applications: > 18 months
o Domestic violence applications: > 95 days
o Mental health applications: > 14 days
o Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act applications: > 26 weeks
THE
• Civil backlog thresholds
o Defended general proceeding cases: > 9 months
o Undefended general proceeding cases: > 9 months
o Originating cases: > 9 months
o Appeals: > 9 months
UNDER
• This data was extracted from the Ministry of Justice's Case Management System (CMS) on 17 February 2026. Since this is an operational system, data for
earlier months may have been updated since any previous publications.
• This data represents backlog measures in the District Court only.
• This data represents backlog measures as at 30 June of each year, for each financial year between 2015/16 and 2024/25 inclusive.
RELEASED
Table 2: Average number of days to establish guilt or innocence at a trial, by financial year, for cases between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2025.
1982
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Average number of days
247
257
272
281
315
345
387
419
413
400
ACT
Table 2 notes:
• This data was extracted from the Ministry of Justice's Case Management System (CMS) on 17 February 2026. Since this is an operational system, data for
earlier months may have been updated since any previous publications.
• This data includes data in the District Court and High Court.
• This data is limited to disposed cases that involved a trial. A case is counted as involving a trial if it reached the date the trial was expected to begin.
• This data represents the active days between case prior activation and the date guilt or innocence was established at a trial; this excludes any time that a case is
"on hold" due to the issuing of a warrant to arrest for the defendant.
• Year is based on the date of the trial.
INFORMATION
Table 3: Average number of days to disposal for cases with an outcome of "Convicted and Sentenced", by financial year, for cases disposed
between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2025.
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/
OFFICIAL
21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25
Average number of days
96
103
114
124
142
156
174
178
184
181
THE
Table 3 notes:
• This data was extracted from the Ministry of Justice's Case Management System (CMS) on 17 February 2026. Since this is an operational system, data for
earlier months may have been updated since any previous publications.
• This data includes data in the District Court and High Court.
• This data is limited to cases with a case disposal type of "Convicted and Sentenced."
UNDER
• A case is disposed when all charges on the case have an outcome.
• This data represents the active days between case prior activation and disposal; this excludes any time that a case is "on hold" due to the issuing of a warrant to
arrest for the defendant.
• Year is based on the disposal date.
RELEASED
