Offences' Convictions and Sentences

As is clear from the data given in Table 2, Maori offenders in Nelson committed much the same type of offences in 1970, 1971 and 1972. Similarly, the offences of non-Maoris in Nelson did not differ significantly over the three year survey period. Comparing Maori and non-Maori offenders directly it can be seen that Maori offenders tended to commit somewhat fewer crimes against the person, and more against justice administration, but overall the differences were not great.

page 9

On the other hand, the conviction rate and the sentences for Maoris compared with non-Maoris in Nelson in the two 'normal' years present a different picture. Although the rate of conviction and the penalties imposed on all offenders were much the same in 1970 and 1971, it is clear that in both years a greater proportion of Maori offenders were convicted, and those convicted were more severely punished. Thus in 1970, 3.5% of cases against Maoris were dismissed or withdrawn, compared with 11.8% for non-Maoris; and in 1971 the figures were 1.2% for Maoris and 5.1% for non-Maoris. Comparing the penalties, it can he seen that in 1970 36.5% of all Maori offenders in Nelson were imprisoned compared with 27.4% of all nonMaori offenders. This pattern was repeated in 1971 when 31.2%.of all Maori offenders were imprisoned compared with 24.6% of all non-Maori offenders.

In order to show whether these figures for Nelson differ from the national average, we have included the figures for all Magistrates' courts of New Zealand for 1970 in Tabic 3. These are comparable with our Nelson (Table 2) figures as we have used the same categories for offences as the Department of Justice in their publications. Overall, the figures for Nelson follow those for the combined courts of New Zealand, but it should be noted that the conviction rate and the imprisonment rate in Nelson for both Maori and non-Maori offenders are considerably higher than the national averages.

The same discrepancies in sentencing between Maoris and non-Maoris are found in the national statistics (Table 3) as in those for Nelson alone (Table 2). Unlike sentences imposed in the Children's Court, those imposed on Maoris and non-Maoris in the Magistrate's courts cannot easily be compared. A number of factors, particularly the magnitude of the offence, the previous record of the offender, and his work record will have a bearing on the sentence. Nevertheless, we tend to the view that strictly racial criteria can influence sentencing and that the presence or absence of counsel may contribute to much of the discrepancy in sentencing of these defendants.

In order to test these proposals, we have compared the statistics for Maori offenders in Nelson for 1970 and 1971 on the one hand, and those for Maori offenders in 1972 on the other (Table 4). As was shown in Table 2, Maoris offenders in the three years committed much of the same sort of crimes' Any significant differences in penalty could not, therefore, be attributed to differences in the types of offences committed. In addition, 69% of the Maori offenders in 1972 had a previous criminal record compared with 74% in 1970.

In 1972 we were able to ensure that 79% of all Maori offenders appearing on criminal charges before the Magistrate's court in Nelson were represented by counsel. A comparison of the pleas, conviction rates and penalties imposed on these offenders, and the corresponding figures for Maori offenders in the two previous years, most of whom were not represented, indicates marked differences. In 1972 there was a significant increase in the number of pleas of Not Guilty and for the first time in the survey period cases against Maori defendants were dismissed — previously none had been. Imprisonments of Maoris in 1972 were down by over one third (34% to 19%). Sentences to probation were even more drastically reduced from 17% in 1970/71 to 5% in 1972. There was a corresponding rise in the proportion of Maori offenders who were fined from 38% in 1970/71 to 60% in 1972.

Furthermore, if the 1972 figures for Maori offenders are compared with those for non-Maori offenders in Nelson in the same year it will be seen that in Nelson in 1972 there was an imprisonment rate for Maoris which was actually tower than that for non-Maoris (Table 2). We are unaware that this has ever been true of any other court in New Zealand before.

The implications of these figures are startling. The so-called "Maori crime rate", often assessed by the number of Maoris in jail, now begins to look very different. For if representation by counsel has a similar effect on sentencing in courts elsewhere in New Zealand as it has in Nelson, then at least one of every three Maoris at present in prison should not be there. The reason for the high percentage of Maoris in our penal institutions may now become clearer. Many of them are behind bars not because they are particularly bad offenders, but because we have a particularly bad judicial system. The punishment does not so much fit the crime, but rather fits the version of it which the Magistrate hears or wishes to hear. In the case of most Maori offenders that is the police version because they have no lawyer to present adequately their side of the case. This is also true for some pakehas, but as our figures show they obtain counsel much more often and tend to speak more confidently on their own behalf in what is usually a wholly pakeha-occupied courtroom.

It will be recalled that a major aim of our programme was to help ensure that each defendant felt that he had had a 'fair go' within the limitations of the present system. It is impossible to measure our success in this regard quantitatively. Nevertheless, as we have taken a close interest in every case handled by our lawyers, and as we have spoken at length with many of the defendants, some recurrent altitudes have become apparent. There was often initially a lack of concern among the offenders about their situation, their plea and the nature of the charges brought against them: a feeling of hopelessness in the face of the system was common. When the matter was raised, many offenders were highly cynical about the possibility of ever having a fair trial and took the attitude of "I might as well plead guilty and get it over with—"I'm going to be convicted anyway". (This attitude was occasionally reinforced by police officers, mainly CIB, who in some cases strenuously urged alleged offenders to plead guilty, and in other cases actually warned offenders against the cost of representation by counsel). However, an increased interest in the progress of their own hearing was often apparent once counsel was assigned, and we found many defendants surprised and even pleased at the outcome of their hearings. This was not always true. On two occasions convictions were entered against defendants in the face of considerable evidence indicating their innocence. Their scepticism regarding justice for Maoris in New Zealand was reinforced.