Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 36, Number 1. 28th February 1973

[Introduction]

Together with venereal disease and measles, the judicial system of New Zealand was brought to this country by pakeha colonists. In common with every other similarly transplanted institution the judicial system was introduced to this multiracial society with no effort made towards modifying it to suit the needs, mores and cultural values of all the people it was to serve. To the present day it has been operated almost exclusively by pakehas and very largely for the benefit of pakehas. As the past Minister of Justice Sir Roy Jack so aptly put it "We have the best of British Justice for all"1. But, unfortunately for Sir Roy Jack perhaps, we are not a country of British people, but rather a country of many people among whom no one group can claim absolute authority on the matter of the dispensation of justice within the society.

Nevertheless, with the arrogance typical of their race, white New Zealanders have ensured that we have a monocultural judicial system in our multicultural society. The criteria upon which judgements of what is right and what is wrong are made, and the criteria used to decide what is just and what is unjust are wholly pakeha criteria. They are today and they always have been. At no time since the coming of the pakeha have Maori people had a meaningful opportunity to help formulate the laws of their land, nor to participate in the planning of the administration of justice. Not surprisingly, Maoris are grossly under-represented in the police force, the probation service, the court system and on the bench.

Our organization rejects the assumption that the British judicial system has any rightful place in New Zealand. We would like to see vast changes in the whole judicial process and in the laws of the country to make them responsive to all the people of New Zealand and to serve fully the needs of all members of this society. But at the same time we recognize that these are long-term aims and that there is an immediate need to help those who at present do not receive a semblance of British or anyone's justice in [unclear: our courts] As Jeremy Pope, Editor of the [unclear: some oof the nal] has stated "Every day, as the [unclear: interests of ession] well knows, defendants [unclear: focus for ty] to offences which they did not [unclear: commit].

When we first considered this matter over a year ago a number of facts suggested that Maoris and other non-pakehas were less likely to receive justice in the courts than were pakehas. Firstly, Justice Department statistics for 1968, 1969, 1970 indicated that the conviction rate for Maoris was consistently higher than for non-Maoris. A possible reason for this was given by the Justice Department itself in a study of offenders committing serious crimes3. It was shown that twice as many non-Maori offenders had lawyers (86.7%) as did Maoris (44.3%). Correspondingly, Maoris tended to plead guilty more often and the author concluded "With a greater proportion of Maoris pleading guilty, and fewer having representation there is, of course, a greater likelihood of Maoris being convicted".

Secondly, the Justice Department's statistics for the same three years also showed that the imprisonment rate for Maoris was significantly greater each year than it was for non-Maoris. Furthermore, in the Children's Court, where "the very great majority appear without legal advice or representation"2, there is an even greater discrepancy in sentencing. A Maori child offender is twice as likely to be sentenced to a penal institution as a non-Maori, while the non-Maori child is more likely to be fined, or simply admonished and discharged4. It has been claimed that these discrepancies in sentencing are due both to Maori offenders committing "a different type of offence"5 and to "Maori offenders having far longer records of convictions for offences than Europeans"5. Whether either claim has any substance is doubtful, but certainly there is no proof that these factors account for the considerably higher imprisonment rate for Maori offenders. Indeed, there is now some evidence to the contrary (see below).

Several reasons may account for these facts. Negative racial stereo-typing of Maoris is undoubtedly an important factor. On the part of police this may be manifest as a greater suspicion of Maoris, a more ready assumption of guilt, and a correspondingly higher arrest rate. Similar racist attitudes on the part of some court officials, child welfare officers, probation officers, and magistrates further compound the problem for the Maori offender. At the same time, our experience has been that Maoris are less knowledgeable of their rights and in this pakeha-dominated society do not assert those rights as strongly as do pakehas. In court Maoris speak less forth rightly on their own behalf, and very often say nothing at all. The Maori offender is probably less well-educated than his pakeha counterpart and his knowledge of English may not be good. Although these characteristics of Maori offenders are well known to anyone with any court experience, the Department has never attempted to modify court procedure to accommodate these ethnic differences. Instead the offender is penalised for them.

Present efforts to advise Magistrate Court defendants of their rights are pathetic. Firstly, only those placed in custody are told of their right to see a solicitor, not those released on bail or summonsed to appear. Secondly, prisoners are 'told' by means of a form, written only in English, which the police now require them to sign. Thirdly, it is assumed that the prisoner knows what a solicitor is, and how he can help him. In our legal aid programme of the past year we have interviewed over 70 Maori offenders. Of these, only 6 had ever heard of the official offenders Legal Aid Scheme. Few of the remainder realized that a lawyer could help them. Of the 50 who had duly signed the police form, only two requested a lawyer, and one of these believed that having signed the form a lawyer would automatically be called for him. Several did not know the meaning of the word "solicitor".