Conviction and sentencing of
offenders in New Zealand:
1991 to 2000
Philip Spier
Ministry of Justice
First published in December 2001 by the
Ministry of Justice
PO Box 180
Wellington
New Zealand
ã Crown Copyright
ISSN 1172-0638
ii
Foreword
The “Conviction and Sentencing” report, which is published annually, is now well established
as the primary source of information on the criminal justice sector. It contains the most
comprehensive range of statistics available on New Zealand criminal court proceedings and
sentencing.
The Ministry of Justice is committed to providing quality policy advice on the criminal justice
sector. Robust policy can only be developed from a base of good information. Reports such
as this are therefore a critical cornerstone for future policy advice. Policy development also
benefits from consultation and collaboration with individuals or groups who have an interest
in the issue under investigation. For the public to be fully equipped to discuss policy
proposals, it is essential that they be well informed. The Ministry can assist in this process
and this report is one of the means by which the Ministry seeks to keep the public informed
about trends and developments in the criminal justice system. The Ministry will also publish
other reports which are likely to be of interest to the public as they become available.
In recent years, more than 45,000 cases annually have involved people being remanded on
bail. Offending while on bail is an issue that remains prominent in public debate. Therefore,
the Ministry identified a need to produce a regular series of statistics on this topic so that
changes may be tracked over time. A method for producing annual statistics on offending
while on bail was developed in 1999 so that this information could also be included as a
regular feature in the annual publication.
Over the past years, there has been a gradual modification of the contents and presentation of
this report. We are always looking for ways to enhance the final product, and welcome
suggestions on how further improvements can be made to the report.
Belinda Clark
Secretary for Justice
iii
iv
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Sue Triggs from the Department for Courts, and Geoff Dunn, Andrea King,
and Ruth Fairhall from the Ministry of Justice for their helpful suggestions and comments on
a draft copy of this report.
Thanks also to Sue Montgomery from the Department of Corrections, and Judy Paulin and
Alison Chetwin from the Ministry of Justice for reviewing Chapter 9 on the use of home
detention in 2000.
The information on the length of time people spend in custodial remand presented in
Section 4.5 of the report was produced by Christopher Clark, a Research Adviser in the
Ministry of Justice.
Chapter 8 of this report presents information on trends in the use of bail and in offending
while on bail. This chapter was written by Barb Lash, a Research Adviser in the Ministry of
Justice.
Philip Spier
Senior Research Adviser
Ministry of Justice
v
vi
Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
iii
v
Contents
vii
Tables
xi
Figures
xvii
Executive Summary
xix
1
2
3
Introduction
1.1
Background
1.2
Quality of the data
1.3
Comparability with previous reports
1.4
Structure of the report
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Outcome of prosecutions
2.3
Convictions for offences in each major offence category
2.4
Average seriousness of all offences
2.5
Convictions for violent offences
2.6
Convictions for other offences against the person
2.7
Convictions for property offences
2.8
Convictions for drug offences
2.9
Convictions for offences against the administration of justice
2.10 Convictions for offences against good order
2.11 Convictions for traffic offences
2.12 Convictions for miscellaneous offences
2.13 Regions where convictions were finalised in 2000
2.14 Gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders convicted in 2000
2.15 Victims of sex offences
Sentencing for all offences
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Sentencing for all cases
3.3
Sentencing for violent offences
3.4
Sentencing for other offences against the person
3.5
Sentencing for property offences
3.6
Sentencing for drug offences
3.7
Sentencing for offences against the administration of justice
3.8
Sentencing for offences against good order
3.9
Sentencing for traffic offences
3.10 Sentencing for miscellaneous offences
3.11 Sentences imposed in each region in 2000 for all offences
3.12 Gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders given each sentence in 2000
1
1
1
2
3
5
5
5
8
11
13
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
29
31
31
33
37
44
47
51
55
59
62
66
68
70
vii
4
5
6
7
8
9
viii
Custodial sentences and remands
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Types of offences resulting in custodial sentences
4.3
Custodial sentence lengths imposed
4.4
Prison inmate numbers
4.5
Custodial remands
4.6
Community-based sentences imposed cumulative to custodial sentences
4.7
Age, gender, and ethnicity of offenders sent to prison in 2000
Community-based sentences
5.1
Introduction
5.2
Periodic detention
5.3
Community programme
5.4
Community service
5.5
Supervision
Monetary penalties
6.1
Introduction
6.2
Use of fines
6.3
Use of reparation for all offences
6.4
Use of reparation for property offences
Court statistics on young offenders
7.1
Introduction
7.2
Number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the Police
7.3
Outcomes of prosecutions of young people
7.4
Types and seriousness of cases that were proved
7.5
Sentencing of young offenders
7.6
Final court of sentencing
Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
8.1
Introduction
8.2
Those on bail and other types of remand
8.3
Offending while on bail
8.4
Nature of offending while on bail
Use of home detention in 2000
9.1
Introduction
9.1.1 “Front-end” home detention
9.1.2 “Pre-parole” home detention
9.1.3 Determination of application for release to home detention
9.1.4 Other provisions relating to home detention
9.2
Courts’ use of “front-end” leave to apply
9.3
Whether inmates had a home detention hearing
9.3.1 Whether “front-end” inmates had a hearing
9.3.2 Whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had a hearing
9.4
Whether release to home detention was approved
9.4.1 Whether “front-end” inmates had release to home detention
approved
9.4.2 Whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had release to home detention
approved
73
73
73
75
76
77
80
80
83
83
83
85
86
88
91
91
92
96
99
105
105
106
108
110
113
115
117
117
117
119
122
125
125
125
126
126
126
127
130
130
132
135
135
140
9.5
Home detention served
9.5.1 “Front-end” home detention served
9.5.2 “Pre-parole” home detention served
10 Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
10.1 Introduction
10.2 All offenders
10.2.1 Prior histories of offending for all offenders
10.2.2 Reoffending by all offenders
10.3 Violent offenders
10.3.1 Prior conviction histories for violent offenders
10.3.2 Reoffending by violent offenders
10.4 Burglars
10.4.1 Prior conviction histories for burglars
10.4.2 Reoffending by burglars
11 Summary of main findings
11.1 Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
11.2 Sentencing for all offences
11.3 Custodial sentences and remands
11.4 Community-based sentences
11.5 Monetary penalties
11.6 Court statistics on young offenders
11.7 Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
11.8 Use of home detention in 2000
11.9 Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
References
144
145
146
147
147
147
147
153
162
162
163
164
164
165
167
167
171
173
174
175
176
178
178
182
185
Appendix 1 Some recent criminal justice research publications of the Ministry of
Justice and the former Department of Justice
187
Appendix 2 Outcome of prosecutions in 2000, by type of offence
191
Appendix 3 Ethnicity, age, and gender of all offenders convicted
195
Appendix 4 Ethnicity, age, and gender of all offenders receiving each type of
sentence
205
ix
x
Tables
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 2.10
Table 2.11
Table 2.12
Table 2.13
Table 2.14
Table 2.15
Table 2.16
Table 2.17
Table 2.18
Table 2.19
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Outcome of all charges prosecuted, 1991 to 2000
Outcome of all charges prosecuted in 2000, by type of offence
Total number of charges resulting in conviction, by type of offence,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of all convictions involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions with each level of offence seriousness and average
seriousness of all convictions, 1991 to 2000
Average seriousness of convictions, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for violent offences, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for other offences against the person, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for property offences, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for drug offences, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for offences against the administration of justice,
1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for offences against good order, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for traffic offences, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for miscellaneous offences, 1991 to 2000
Regions where convictions were finalised in 2000, by type of offence
Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence
and gender of offender
Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence
and ethnicity of offender
Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence
and age of offender
Number of convictions for various sex offences, by age and gender of the
victim, 2000
Total number of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence,
1991 to 2000
Average seriousness of cases resulting in each type of sentence, and average
seriousness of all cases resulting in conviction, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving violent offences with each level
of offence seriousness and average seriousness of violent offences,
1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each violent offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of violent offence, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of violent
offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
6
8
8
9
12
13
14
16
17
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
34
34
36
38
38
39
41
42
43
45
xi
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Table 3.14
Table 3.15
Table 3.16
Table 3.17
Table 3.18
Table 3.19
Table 3.20
Table 3.21
Table 3.22
Table 3.23
Table 3.24
Table 3.25
Table 3.26
Table 3.27
Table 3.28
Table 3.29
Table 3.30
Table 3.31
Table 3.32
Table 3.33
Table 3.34
xii
Percentage of convicted cases involving other offences against the person
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each other offence against the person,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of
other offence against the person, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of other
offence against the person, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving property offences with each
level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of property
offences, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each property offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of
property offence, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
property offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each type
of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving drug offences with each level
of offence seriousness and average seriousness of drug offences,
1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each drug offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of drug offence, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of drug
offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving offences against the administration
of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against the administration
of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each offence against the
administration of justice, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of
offence against the administration of justice, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
offence against the administration of justice, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving offences against good order
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against good order
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each offence against good order,
1991 to 2000
45
46
46
47
47
48
49
50
50
51
52
52
53
54
54
55
56
56
57
57
59
60
60
61
Table 3.35
Table 3.36
Table 3.37
Table 3.38
Table 3.39
Table 3.40
Table 3.41
Table 3.42
Table 3.43
Table 3.44
Table 3.45
Table 3.46
Table 3.47
Table 3.48
Table 3.49
Table 3.50
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 5.1
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of
offence against good order, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
offence against good order, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 20001
Number of convicted cases involving each traffic offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of traffic offence, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of traffic
offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting in
each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting
in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted cases involving each miscellaneous offence,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of miscellaneous offence, 1991 to 2000
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
miscellaneous offence, 1991 to 2000
Most serious sentence imposed for all convicted cases finalised in each
region in 2000
Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious
sentence imposed and gender of the offender
Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious
sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender1
Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious
sentence imposed and age of the offender
Total number of cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of offence,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of cases resulting in a custodial sentence involving each type of
offence, 1991 to 2000
Total number of custodial sentences imposed of various lengths, and
average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), 1991 to 2000
Annual average daily prison inmate numbers, 1991 to 2000
All cases involving a remand in custody, by type of offence and outcome
of case, 2000
Estimated total number of cases involving a period of remand in custody
of various lengths, and average custodial remand period (in days),
1993 to 2000
Total number of cases resulting in both a custodial and a community-based
sentence, 1993 to 2000
Age, gender and ethnicity of offenders in all cases resulting in a custodial
sentence in 2000
Total number of cases resulting in periodic detention as the most serious
sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
61
62
62
63
64
64
65
66
67
67
68
68
69
71
71
72
74
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
84
xiii
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 5.6
Table 5.7
Table 5.8
Table 5.9
Table 5.10
Table 5.11
Table 5.12
Table 5.13
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 6.13
Table 6.14
xiv
Percentage of cases resulting in periodic detention as the most serious
sentence involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of periodic detention sentences imposed of various lengths,
and average length of periodic detention sentences (in months),
1991 to 2000
Total number of cases resulting in a community programme as the most
serious sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of cases resulting in a community programme as the most
serious sentence involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of community programme sentences imposed of various lengths,
and average length of community programme sentences (in months),
1991 to 2000
Total number of cases resulting in community service as the most serious
sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of cases resulting in community service as the most serious
sentence involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of community service sentences imposed of various lengths, and
average length of community service sentences (in hours), 1991 to 2000
Total number of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence,
by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence
involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of supervision sentences imposed of various lengths, and average
length of supervision sentences (in months), 1991 to 2000
Total number of cases resulting in a supervision sentence in conjunction
with periodic detention, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Total number of convicted charges resulting in a fine, by type of offence,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of all convicted charges resulting in a fine, by type of offence,
1991 to 2000
Amounts of fines imposed, 1991 to 2000
Other sentences imposed with fines, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of fines imposed with other sentences, 1991 to 2000
Number of convicted charges resulting in an order for all or part of the
fine to be paid to the victim, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Total number of convicted charges resulting in reparation, by type
of offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of all convicted charges resulting in reparation, by type
of offence, 1991 to 2000
Amounts imposed for all offences resulting in reparation, 1991 to 2000
Other sentences imposed with reparation, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of reparation sentences imposed with other sentences,
1991 to 2000
Number of convicted property charges resulting in a sentence of
reparation, by type of property offence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of convicted property charges resulting in a sentence of
reparation, by type of property offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of convictions for property offences resulting in reparation
in each region, 1991 to 2000
84
85
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
90
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
97
98
99
99
100
100
102
Table 6.15
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Table 7.10
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
Table 8.6
Table 8.7
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3
Table 9.4
Table 9.5
Table 9.6
Table 9.7
Percentage of convictions for property offences resulting in reparation
in each region, 1991 to 2000
Number of offenders aged 14 to 16 apprehended by the Police for
non-traffic offences, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Outcomes of cases prosecuted involving young people for all offences
except non-imprisonable traffic offences, 1991 to 2000
Gender, ethnicity, and age of young people involved in cases finalised
in 2000, by outcome of prosecutions
Number of proved cases involving young offenders, by type of offence,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of all proved cases involving young offenders involving each
type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Number of proved cases involving young offenders with each level of
offence seriousness and average seriousness of offences, 1991 to 2000
Number of proved cases involving young offenders resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of proved cases involving young offenders resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of proved cases involving young offenders that were finalised
in each court, 1991 to 2000
Court where proved cases involving young offenders were finalised
in 2000, by type of offence
Percentage of all cases prosecuted that involved a remand on bail,
by major charge, 1993 to 1998
Major charge for which people were remanded on bail, 1993 to 1998
Number and percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail,
1993 to 1998
Percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail, by major charge
for which remanded on bail, 1993 to 1998
Major offence committed while on bail, 1993 to 1998
Major offence committed while on bail as a percentage of all cases
where an offence was committed on bail, 1993 to 1998
Percentage of offences of each type committed while on bail, by major
charge for which remanded on bail in 1998
Whether leave to apply for home detention was granted for prison
sentences of two years or less imposed in 2000
Whether front-end inmates sentenced in 2000 had a home detention
hearing in 2000
Whether inmates who were “pre-parole” eligible had a home detention
hearing in 2000
Whether inmates who were “pre-parole” eligible had a home detention
hearing in 2000, by prison
Outcome of home detention hearing for front-end inmates sentenced
in 2000
Whether all front-end inmates sentenced in 2000 had release to home
detention approved in 2000
Outcome of home detention hearing for “pre-parole” eligible inmates
who had a hearing in 20001
103
107
108
109
111
112
112
114
114
116
116
118
119
120
121
122
122
123
128
131
133
134
136
138
141
xv
Table 9.8
Table 9.9
Table 9.10
Table 9.11
Table 10.1
Table 10.2
Table 10.3
Table 10.4
Table 10.5
Table 10.6
Table 10.7
Table 10.8
Table 10.9
Table 10.10
Table 10.11
Table 10.12
Table 10.13
Table 10.14
Table 10.15
Table 10.16
Table 10.17
Table 10.18
Table 10.19
Table 10.20
Table A2.1
Table A2.2
Table A2.3
Table A2.4
Table A2.5
Table A2.6
Table A2.7
Table A2.8
Table A3.1
Table A3.2
xvi
Whether all “pre-parole” eligible offenders had release to home detention
approved in 2000
Whether all “pre-parole” eligible inmates had release to home detention
approved in 2000, by prison
Reason for home detention ending in 2000 for “front-end” inmates
Reason for home detention ending in 2000 for “pre-parole” inmates
Prior offending histories of all people convicted in 1995
Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by gender
Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by ethnicity
Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by age
Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by most
serious sentence imposed
Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by type
of offence
Time to previous conviction for all people convicted in 1995
Prior convicted cases and custodial sentences of all people convicted
in 1995
Reconvictions within one or two years by all people convicted in 1995
Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by gender
Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995,
by ethnicity
Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by age
Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by most
serious sentence imposed in 1995
Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by type
of offence
Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995,
by number of convictions prior to 1995
Length of time to first reconviction for all people convicted in 1995
Prior conviction histories of people convicted of a violent offence in
1995, by type of offence previously convicted for
Reconvictions within two years of people convicted of a violent offence
in 1995, by type of offence reconvicted for
Prior conviction histories of people convicted of burglary in 1995, by type
of offence previously convicted for
Reconvictions within two years of people convicted of burglary in 1995,
by type of offence reconvicted for
Outcome of prosecutions for violent offences, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for other offences against the person, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for property offences, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for drug offences, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for offences against justice, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for offences against good order, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for traffic offences, 2000
Outcome of prosecutions for miscellaneous offences, 2000
Number of cases involving European offenders resulting in conviction
in 2000, by type of offence, and age and gender of offender
Number of cases involving Mäori offenders resulting in a conviction
in 2000, by type of offence, and age and gender of offender
142
144
145
146
148
148
149
150
151
152
152
153
154
154
155
156
156
157
158
158
163
163
164
165
191
192
192
192
193
193
193
194
196
196
Table A3.3 Number of cases involving Pacific people offenders resulting in a
conviction in 2000, by type of offence, and age and gender of offender
Table A3.4 Number of cases involving offenders of “other” ethnicity resulting in a
conviction in 2000, by type of offence, and age and gender of offender
Table A3.5 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence
and gender of offender, 1996 to 2000
Table A3.6 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence
and gender of offender, 1991 to 1995
Table A3.7 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence
and ethnicity of offender, 1996 to 2000
Table A3.8 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence
and ethnicity of offender, 1991 to 1995
Table A3.9 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence
and age of offender, 1996 to 2000
Table A3.10 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence
and age of offender, 1991 to 1995
Table A4.1 Number of cases involving European offenders resulting in conviction in
2000, by most serious sentence imposed, and age and gender of offender
Table A4.2 Number of cases involving Mäori offenders resulting in conviction in
2000, by most serious sentence imposed, and age and gender of offender
Table A4.3 Number of cases involving Pacific people offenders resulting in
conviction in 2000, by most serious sentence imposed, and age
and gender of offender
Table A4.4 Number of cases involving offenders of “other” ethnicity resulting in
conviction in 2000, by most serious sentence imposed, and age and
gender of offender
Table A4.5 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and gender of the offender, 1996 to 2001
Table A4.6 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and gender of the offender, 1991 to 1995
Table A4.7 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 1996 to 2000
Table A4.8 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 1991 to 1995
Table A4.9 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and age of the offender, 1996 to 2000
Table A4.10 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and age of the offender, 1991 to 1995
197
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
206
206
207
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
Figures
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Percentage of prosecutions resulting in each type of outcome, 1991 to 2000 6
Percentage of all convictions involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
9
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence,
1991 to 2000
35
Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
39
xvii
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 4.1
Figure 8.1
Figure 8.2
Figure 8.3
Figure 9.1
Figure 9.2
Figure 10.1
Figure 10.2
Figure 10.3
Figure 10.4
Figure 10.5
Figure 10.6
Figure 10.7
Figure 11.1
Figure 11.2
xviii
Percentage of violent offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence,
and average seriousness of violent offences resulting in conviction,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of property offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence,
and average seriousness of property offences resulting in conviction,
1991 to 2000
Percentage of drug offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and
average seriousness of drug offences resulting in conviction, 1991 to 2000
Percentage of entire case spent in custodial remand for all cases involving
a remand in custody in 2000
Percentage of all cases prosecuted that involved a remand on bail,
by major charge, 1998
Percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail, 1993 to 1998
Percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail, by major charge
for which remanded on bail, 1998
Summary of “front-end” home detention in 2000
Summary of “pre-parole” home detention in 2000
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by gender
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by ethnicity
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by age
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by sentence
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by major offence
Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by number
of prior convictions
Summary of “front-end” home detention in 2000
Summary of “pre-parole” home detention in 2000
40
49
53
79
119
120
121
139
143
159
159
160
160
161
161
162
179
181
Executive Summary
This is the eleventh report in an annual series. As with the other reports, trends in
prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing are examined, this time over the ten year period
1991 to 2000, using data extracted from the Law Enforcement System. Trends over the
decade in the number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the Police, and in offending by
young people which resulted in an appearance in court are also examined. Trends in the use
of bail and in offending while on bail are also presented for the period 1993 to 1998. Special
topics investigated this year are: the use of home detention in 2000; and recidivism patterns
for people convicted in 1995.
The information presented in this report is based on charges or cases processed by courts. It
should be noted that a change in the number of offences prosecuted in court in a particular
period does not necessarily reflect a change in the actual number of offences committed in
the same period. Not all offences which are committed are discovered by, reported to, or
recorded by the Police. Also, not all offences that come to the attention of the Police result
in prosecution, with resolution/clearance rates and prosecution rates differing significantly by
type of offence.
Prosecutions
•
The total number of criminal prosecutions peaked in 1996 at nearly 277,000, and has
generally decreased since then. The figure in 2000 was 262,921. A large part of the
decrease in prosecutions in 1997 was attributable to the offence of failing to register a dog
under the Dog Control Act 1996 becoming an infringement offence. There were about
6,700 fewer prosecutions for this offence in 1997 compared with 1996. Also of note, is
that there were nearly 3,000 fewer prosecutions for driving while disqualified in 2000
compared with 1999.
•
The proportion of all prosecutions resulting in a conviction has generally shown a slowly
decreasing trend over the decade, reaching the lowest level recorded in the decade in 2000
(66%). At least part of the decrease is likely to be linked to the use of diversion by the
Police. Violent offence prosecutions are the least likely (53%), and traffic offence
prosecutions are the most likely (80%), to result in conviction.
•
The number of discharges without conviction under section 19 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1985 has shown an increasing trend over the decade, with the number in 2000 being
more than double the number in 1991. The majority of the increase occurred for nonimprisonable offences, with smaller increases occurring for imprisonable offences of low
to moderate seriousness.
Convictions
Violent offences
•
The total number of convictions for violent offences has generally shown a slowly
decreasing trend since 1995, after a rapid increase between 1991 and 1995. The 2000
xix
figure (14,639) is the lowest recorded since 1993. The number of convictions for violent
offences in 2000 was still 53% greater than the figure in 1991.
•
The total number of convictions for violent sex offences (rape, unlawful sexual
connection, attempted sexual violation, and indecent assault) peaked at 2,084 in 1996, but
has decreased since then. In 2000, there were 1,297 convictions for violent sex offences.
The number of convictions for rape (138) and attempted sexual violation (42) in 2000
were the lowest recorded in the decade.
•
The number of convictions for aggravated robbery has decreased in the last three years
after showing an increasing trend between 1991 and 1997. The 2000 figure (434) is the
lowest recorded since 1994.
•
Convictions in the two most serious categories of assault - “grievous” and “serious”
assault - increased strongly in number between 1991 and 1998, but have levelled off since
then.
•
Convictions for assaults on children aged less than 14 years increased significantly in the
early 1990s (from 152 in 1991 to 299 in 1994). Since 1994, the number of convictions has
averaged 300 each year, with the 2000 figure (281) being a little lower than this.
•
Convictions for all types of threatening and intimidation offences have increased strongly
in number over the decade.
Property offences
•
Property offences comprise the second largest group of offences resulting in conviction.
In 2000, 29% of all convictions were for offences against property. The total number of
convictions for property offences remained reasonably stable between 1992 and 1996 at
around 57,000 convictions annually, but has decreased significantly in the last four years.
The 2000 figure (50,039) was the lowest recorded in the decade.
•
Most of the decrease in property offences in the last four years was due to a decrease in
the number of convictions for fraud. Between 1994 and 1996 there were around 21,000
to 22,000 convictions for fraud each year, but by 2000 the number had dropped to under
15,000. This is the lowest number of convictions for fraud recorded in the decade.
•
The number of convictions for burglary increased a little in 2000 after generally showing a
downward trend since 1991. The 2000 figure (6,363) was still the second lowest recorded
in the decade.
•
The number of convictions for motor vehicle conversion averaged about 2,750 between
1992 and 1997, but has dropped in the last three years to be at the lowest level recorded
in the decade (2,188 in 2000).
Drug offences
•
xx
A large increase in convictions has occurred over the decade for offences relating to the
possession of pipes or other drug-related utensils, with the number of such offences more
than doubling from 951 in 1991 to 2,034 in 1999, before decreasing slightly to 1,993 in
2000.
•
Convictions for possession or use (other than for supply) of drugs other than cannabis
have shown an upward trend in the second half of the decade, with a particularly large
increase occurring between 1999 and 2000. The 2000 figure (678) is the highest recorded
in the decade. Within this category, the number of convictions for possession or use of
LSD has increased over the decade from an average of 35 in each of the years 1991 to
1994, to 120 in 2000. The number of convictions for the possession or use of “stimulants
or depressants” in 2000 (230) was the highest recorded in the decade.
Offences against the administration of justice
•
Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders when the Domestic Violence
Act 1995 commenced on 1 July 1996. There were 2,265 convictions for breaches of
protection orders in 2000, more than nine times the number of breaches of nonmolestation orders in 1991 (242).
•
The number of convictions for failure to answer bail has continued to increase through
the decade, with the 2000 figure (4,293) being 78% greater than the figure in 1991 (2,411).
Offences against good order
•
The number of convictions for good order offences in 2000 was the highest recorded in
the decade. Convictions for disorderly behaviour have nearly tripled over the decade
from 2,193 in 1991 to 6,160 in 2000 Convictions for trespassing offences have also
shown an increasing trend over the decade.
Traffic offences
•
Convictions for traffic offences decreased in number considerably between 1991 and
1993 (from nearly 80,000 to just over 62,000). From 1993 to 1998, there was an average
of approximately 62,000 convictions each year, but the number dropped to just over
57,000 in 2000. This was the lowest number of traffic convictions recorded in the
decade. Traffic offences accounted for 33% of all convictions in 2000, compared with
43% of convictions in 1991. Despite this decrease in convictions, traffic offences still
comprise the largest group of offences resulting in conviction.
•
Initiatives introduced by the Land Transport Act 1998 such as photo drivers licences, the
power to forbid unlicensed drivers from driving until they get a valid licence, and the
power to impound at the roadside vehicles driven by disqualified or unlicensed drivers,
appear to have had a significant impact on convictions for traffic offences. The number
of convictions recorded in 2000 for driving causing death or injury, driving with excess
alcohol, driving while disqualified, and careless driving were the lowest recorded in the
decade. In contrast, the number of convictions recorded for “failing to comply with a
prohibition of an enforcement officer” (mostly driving while forbidden) reached 6,457 in
2000 compared with 66 in 1998.
xxi
Miscellaneous offences
•
The number of convictions for liquor offences involving “minors” decreased from 1,006
in 1999 to 92 in 2000. This decrease coincides with amendments to the Sale of Liquor
Act 1989 and to section 38 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 that came into force on 1
December 1999. These amendments changed the offences of purchasing of liquor by
minors, minors being found in restricted or supervised areas, and minors drinking liquor
in a public place to infringement offences. The amendments also lowered the legal
drinking age from 20 to 18.
Gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders
•
Male offenders accounted for 83% of all cases that resulted in conviction in 2000 (for
which the gender of the offender was known), and female offenders accounted for 17%
of cases.
•
Of all convicted cases in 2000 for which the ethnicity of the offender was known, 47%
involved Europeans, 42% involved Mäori, 9% involved Pacific peoples, and 2% involved
offenders of some other ethnicity.
•
Nineteen percent of all cases that resulted in conviction in 2000, and for which the age of
the offender was known, involved teenage offenders, 40% involved offenders in their
twenties, 24% involved offenders in their thirties, and 17% involved offenders aged 40 or
over.
Sentencing
Custodial sentences and remands
•
Throughout the decade, 7% to 8% of people convicted each year received a custodial
sentence. In 2000, 7,931 cases resulted in a custodial sentence, a lower number than was
imposed in the three previous years.
•
The average custodial sentence length imposed (including preventive detention) for all
offences increased over the decade from 10.2 months in 1991 to 14.2 months in 2000.
•
The number of corrective training sentences imposed has shown a decreasing trend over
the decade, with the 2000 figure (225) being less than half the number imposed in 1991
(620).
•
The number of preventive detention sentences imposed in 1999 (18) and 2000 (13) were a
little higher than in previous years in the decade.
•
The number of female sentenced inmates in 2000 (240) was the highest recorded in the
decade. During 2000, there was an average of 4,735 sentenced male inmates in prison at
any one time, a slightly lower number than in the previous year, but still the second
highest number recorded in the decade.
•
The average daily number of both male and female prisoners in custody on remand was
higher in 2000 (734 and 33 respectively) than in any other year in the decade.
xxii
•
Nine percent of all cases finalised in 2000 involved offenders who were remanded in
custody at some stage during the hearing of the case. Only the minority (19%) of
defendants who had a period in custodial remand in 2000 spent their whole case
remanded in custody. Almost half (48%) of the defendants who had some time in
custodial remand spent only one-quarter or less of their case in custodial remand.
•
The Crimes Amendment Act (No. 3) 1993 increased the maximum penalty for sexual
violation (rape and unlawful sexual connection) from 14 years to 20 years imprisonment.
In addition, legislation that came into force on 17 July 1999 increased the maximum
penalty for sexual violation to 25 years if the offence involved home invasion. Since the
1993 legislative change, the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for rape
have been considerably longer. In the period 1991 to 1993, rapists had sentences
imposed of 70.5 months (5 years 11 months), on average, but sentences increased to 97.3
months in 1999, before dropping slightly to 95.6 months (8 years) in 2000.
•
After remaining reasonably constant between 1994 and 1998 (at an average of 52.3
months or 4 years 4 months), custodial sentences imposed for unlawful sexual connection
increased in length by a little under a year in 1999 to 62.6 months, before dropping
slightly to 61.4 months (5 years 1 month) in 2000.
•
The average length of the custodial sentences imposed for manslaughter have been longer
in the last two years than in earlier years in the decade. In 2000, the average custodial
sentence imposed for manslaughter was 69.3 months (5 years 9 months).
•
In 2000, 38% of burglars were imprisoned – the highest percentage recorded in the
decade. The length of the custodial sentences awarded for burglary increased through the
decade, with burglars being imprisoned for nearly six months longer, on average, in 2000
than in 1991.
•
Before the Land Transport Act 1998, the maximum penalty for driving with excess
alcohol (excluding cases resulting in death and injury) was three months imprisonment
regardless of the number of previous occasions the person had been convicted of the
offence. Now, people convicted of driving with excess alcohol for the third or
subsequent time can be imprisoned for up to two years, while first or second time
offenders can still only be imprisoned for up to three months. The average length of
custodial sentences imposed for driving with excess alcohol cases increased in both 1999
and 2000. The average sentence in 2000 was 5.6 months - almost three times the average
in the period 1991 to 1998 (2.1 months).
Community-based sentences
•
Over the decade, between 31% and 36% of all convictions each year have resulted in the
imposition of a community-based sentence, with the 2000 figure (31%) being the lowest
recorded in the decade.
•
Periodic detention is the most commonly imposed community-based sentence, and in
terms of principal sentences imposed it is in fact the second most commonly imposed
sentence behind the fine. Nineteen percent of convicted cases in 2000 resulted in
periodic detention. In 2000, there were 18,436 periodic detention sentences imposed –
the lowest number recorded in the decade.
xxiii
•
In 2000, there was 250 breach convictions per 1,000 periodic detention sentences
imposed – the highest figure recorded in the decade.
•
The community programme sentence continues to be used less and less by the courts. In
2000, only 204 such sentences were imposed - which was 0.2% of all sentences imposed.
•
The average length of periodic detention, community service, and supervision sentences
imposed have decreased over the decade.
Monetary penalties
•
The use of monetary penalties (in particular, fines) as the most serious sentence has
fluctuated over the decade between 48% and 53% of cases. Part of the fluctuation is due
to legislative changes affecting the number of non-imprisonable offences resulting in
conviction and a fine.
•
The fine is the most commonly imposed sentence. The majority of fines (63% in 2000)
are imposed with no other penalty. A driving disqualification is the most commonly
imposed sentence in conjunction with a fine (32% of charges where a fine was imposed in
2000).
•
The total amount of fines imposed by the courts in 2000 was $23.5 million. The median
fine imposed in both 1999 and 2000 was $300. This is higher than in previous years in
the decade when the median fine was between $200 and $250.
•
There were small increases in 1994 and 1995 in the use of reparation for all property
offences. These increases coincided with amendments to the Criminal Justice Act in late
1993 which, amongst other changes, strengthened the direction to the courts to consider
imposing reparation in all cases unless it would be clearly inappropriate to do so.
However, in subsequent years, the use of reparation has been only marginally higher than
the level before 1994.
Other sentences
•
There has generally been a slowly increasing trend over the decade in the proportion of
cases in which the person was convicted and discharged. In 6% of cases in 2000 the
person was convicted and discharged - twice the proportion in 1991 (3%). Most offence
types showed an increase over the decade in the proportion of cases that were convicted
and discharged.
Court statistics on young offenders
•
There has generally been an increasing trend throughout the decade in the number of
cases involving young people that are dealt with in formal court proceedings. In 2000,
there were 4,024 cases involving young people that came before the courts, 47% more
than the number in 1991 (2,735).
•
The number of cases involving violent offences proved against young people more than
doubled between 1991 and 1998 (from 210 to 456). However, in the last two years, the
number has been lower than this (390 in 1999 and 403 in 2000). Of note is that the
xxiv
number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended for violent offences by the Police in 2000 was
the highest figure recorded in the decade, but this was not reflected in the court statistics.
•
Over half (56%) of proved cases involving young offenders in 2000 were property
offences, with burglary being the most common such offence.
•
The proportion of proved cases involving young offenders that resulted in imprisonment
or adult community-based sentences in 2000 (6% and 7% of cases respectively) were the
lowest figures recorded in the decade. In contrast, the proportion of cases resulting in a
Youth Court supervision order in 2000 (39%) was the highest recorded in the decade.
Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
•
For each year from 1993 to 1998, around half of the finalised cases which did not start
and finish on the same day involved a remand on bail. In 1998, there were 47,891 cases
that involved a remand on bail.
•
The proportion of people who offended while on bail changed very little between 1993
and 1998. The percentage increased slightly from 20% to 22% of those granted bail
between 1993 and 1995, before decreasing to a similar extent in the next three years to be
20% in 1998.
•
Sixteen percent of those on bail charged with a violent offence in 1998 offended while on
bail. Of this group, 5% committed another violent offence while on bail, 3% committed
a property offence, 2% committed an offence against justice, 3% committed a traffic
offence, and 3% committed other types of offences.
Use of home detention in 2000
•
Home detention became available in New Zealand from 1 October 1999. Home
detention allows some offenders to serve part of their prison sentence outside prison
under electronic surveillance, and under intensive supervision by Probation Officers.
Statistics are presented on the use of home detention in 2000.
•
There were 5,385 cases in 2000 where a court imposed a prison sentence of two years or
less, and information was recorded in the data on whether leave to apply for home
detention was granted. For 1,602 (30%) of these cases, leave to apply for home detention
was granted by the court. Of the 1,602 “front-end” inmates granted leave to apply in
2000, 731 (46%) had a home detention hearing in 2000, and 392 (25%) eventually had
their release to home detention approved in 2000.
•
Male offenders were considerably less likely than females to be granted leave to apply by
the courts (28% of cases compared to 45%). In addition, males coming to prison with
leave to apply were less than half as likely as females to be eventually released to home
detention (22% of male inmates compared with 48% of female inmates).
•
People imprisoned for a drug offence were more likely than other offenders to be granted
leave to apply (45% of cases). In addition, drug offenders with leave to apply were
significantly more likely to eventually be released on home detention than inmates
imprisoned for any other type of offence.
xxv
•
There were 1,040 inmates who were eligible to apply for release to home detention as a
pre-parole option in 2000. Of these, 189 (18%) had a home detention hearing before a
District Prisons Board or the Parole Board in 2000, and 87 (8%) eventually had their
release to home detention approved in 2000.
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
•
Only a quarter of the people convicted in 1995 were first offenders. The people
convicted in 1995 had an average of 12 prior convictions, although the median number of
prior convictions was much lower than this at 4. Thirty percent of the people convicted
in 1995 had more than 10 previous convictions.
•
Just under 40% of the people convicted in 1995 were reconvicted within one year, with
the majority of people (51%) being reconvicted within two years.
•
Male offenders convicted in 1995 had much more extensive offending histories than
females, and were also much more likely to be reconvicted in the next two years than
females. As well as being more likely to be reconvicted, males were reconvicted at a faster
rate than females.
•
Mäori offenders convicted in 1995 were more likely to be reconvicted within two years
(69% of cases) than European offenders and Pacific peoples (61% and 58% of cases
respectively). Mäori had faster reconviction rates than non-Mäori within the first ten
months after the 1995 case.
•
In general, the likelihood of reconviction reduced with the age of the offender. Young
offenders had a faster rate of reconviction than older offenders within the first ten
months after the 1995 case.
•
The more extensive the offending history of a person prior to 1995, the greater the
likelihood that the person would be reconvicted within two years. Only a quarter of first
offenders in 1995 were reconvicted within two years, compared to 88% of people with
more than 50 convictions prior to the 1995 case being reconvicted within two years.
Those people with a greater number of prior convictions had a faster rate of reconviction
than offenders with no or a small number of past convictions.
•
Violent offenders tend to be generalist rather than specialist offenders. Of the violent
offenders convicted in 1995, less than half (44%) had been convicted previously of a
violent offence, but the majority had been convicted previously of property and traffic
offences. In the two years following the 1995 case, 21% of violent offenders were
reconvicted for a violent offence. A similar proportion (20%) were reconvicted for a
property offence, and 31% were reconvicted for a traffic offence.
•
Burglars were slightly more likely to be reconvicted for a violent offence than people who
were convicted of a violent offence in 1995 (24% of cases compared to 21% of cases
respectively).
xxvi
Introduction
1.1
Background
This report is the eleventh in a series of reports published annually examining trends in
prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing over a ten year period. This report covers the
period from 1991 to 2000. As well as presenting statistics, explanations for any changes that
have occurred are given where the reason for the change is known.
The Ministry of Justice and the former Department of Justice have published other research
reports examining various aspects of offending, sentencing, and the criminal justice system.
The most recent of these are listed in Appendix 1.
In this report conviction trends are examined for offending overall, for offences categorised
into groups, and for some selected individual offences. 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, and other offences not otherwise classified (i.e. “miscellaneous” offences). For each
of the grouped offence categories, detail is provided on the offences that were most frequent,
most serious, or thought to be of particular interest.
Unless otherwise specified, the data have come from the Case Monitoring Subsystem of the
Law Enforcement System (on the former Wanganui Computer System). This subsystem
records the court processing of charges. A database has been established consisting of
depersonalised information that has been extracted from the Case Monitoring Subsystem.
The data used for this report relate to charges and cases finalised between 1991 and 2000.
1.2
Quality of the data
Data from the Case Monitoring Subsystem on the outcome of charges (including the
sentences imposed) cannot be regarded as being absolutely exact. It would be impossible to
guarantee perfect accuracy even in the best of circumstances when dealing with an enormous
number of charges. Incorrect codes are occasionally entered on the computer, and duplicated
records sometimes arise for a variety of reasons. Some of the problems with the data were
overcome in the production of this report, and while there may be small errors in some of the
figures shown, the data are certainly sufficiently accurate to indicate trends over time in
prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing.
Some information is presented in the report on the gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders.
These data are usually recorded by the prosecuting authority (mostly the Police) at, for
instance, the time of arrest. Data on the gender and date of birth (used to calculate the age)
of offenders are generally accurate. Official police practice is for ethnicity to be self-identified
by the offender (and then coded on the Law Enforcement System into the categories:
1
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Caucasian, Mäori, Pacific Island, Negro [sic], Indian, Asian, and Other). However, in
practice, ethnicity is likely to be recorded by a mixture of self-identification and recorder
judgement. Recording ethnicity by means other than self-identification can lead to people
being classified in the wrong ethnic groups. Also, no allowance is made for people wanting
to specify more than one ethnic group. Data on the ethnicity of offenders convicted in 2000
were available for 86% of cases.
Offenders who default in the payment of their fine or reparation sentence can be resentenced by a judge to imprisonment, corrective training, periodic detention, or community
service. This type of re-sentencing is not usually recorded in the data used for this report.
However, often when a person is re-sentenced for default in the payment of a monetary
penalty they have other offending being dealt with in the same case, and this other offending
is included in the data. Nevertheless there is significant under-counting of community service
cases in particular, and, to a much lesser extent, periodic detention cases resulting only from
enforcement action for non-payment of monetary penalties. Imprisonment is rarely used for
such cases.
Offenders sentenced to a community-based sentence can, under certain circumstances (such
as a further conviction for an imprisonable offence, a conviction for breach of the
community-based sentence they are serving, or if the offender has failed or is unable to
comply with any condition or requirement of the sentence), have their sentence reviewed,
sometimes resulting in some other (possibly more serious) sentence being imposed. This type
of re-sentencing is not usually recorded in the data used for this report.
People who have a suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed can have the sentence
activated because of a subsequent conviction within the suspension period. While the
activation of prison sentences is not usually recorded in the data used for this report, the
person is often at the same time imprisoned for the reconviction offence, which is recorded
in the data. If the reconviction offence did not result in imprisonment, but the earlier prison
sentence was activated, then the number of prison sentences presented in this report would
be an under-count.
Over the ten year period there have been legislative changes which have affected the way
some minor offences (both traffic and non-traffic) have been recorded in the data used for
this report. Sometimes a large change in the number of convictions was due to the
decriminalisation of an offence rather than a change in offending patterns. Where possible,
this has been highlighted in the report.
1.3
Comparability with previous reports
There has been one change to the presentation of information in this report compared to the
previous publication. Within the “Traffic” offence category it is no longer possible to present
separate information on driving causing death and driving causing injury offences because of
changes to the way these offences are recorded on the Law Enforcement System. Therefore,
statistics on these offences have been combined in this report. The reader is also reminded
that the previous publication outlined significant changes from prior publications in the way
information was presented and the way charges are formed into cases. Therefore, the
2
Introduction
___________________________________________________________
corresponding section in the previous publication should be consulted before making
comparisons with previously reported data.
Since the annual publications were first produced there have been a number of other changes
made to the data reported in them such as: the formats used to group offences into the main
offence categories and the offence sub-categories have been modified; and the Ministry’s
seriousness of offence scale was updated in 1995 and 2000. The changes mean that the
figures presented in the earlier publications in the series cannot always be compared with
those in the current publication. The corresponding section in previous reports has outlined
the changes that have occurred in a particular year, and this should be consulted before
making comparisons with previously reported data.
1.4
Structure of the report
The following chapter presents information on the outcome of prosecutions for all offences
over the last ten years, and discusses trends found in these data. The chapter goes on to
examine convictions in more depth, and presents information on trends between 1991 and
2000 in the number of convictions for particular types of offence. The chapter also includes
an examination of changes in offence seriousness over the ten year period. Chapter 2 also
presents information for 2000 on the gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders who were
convicted. In addition, information is presented on the regions where offences were finalised
in 2000. Information is also presented on the age and gender of the victims of sex offences
that resulted in the conviction of an offender in 2000.
The third chapter deals with trends in sentencing for all cases resulting in conviction.
Information is provided on the number of sentences of each type that were imposed and the
seriousness of offences resulting in each type of sentence. A description is also given of the
sentences imposed for each of the grouped offence categories. Custodial sentences are
examined in more depth for particular types of offence, with information on the proportion
of cases that resulted in a custodial outcome and on the length of the custodial sentences
awarded. Information is also presented for 2000 on the gender, ethnicity, and age of
offenders receiving each type of sentence. Chapter 3 also presents information on the
sentences imposed in each region in 2000.
The fourth chapter discusses the use of custodial sentences and remands. This chapter
summarises some information from 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, detailed information on the lengths of prison sentences
imposed over the decade, and the number of cases resulting in a community-based sentence
cumulative to a prison sentence (under sections 30(4), 39(1), 47(1) or 55(1), and subject to
section 8A, of the Criminal Justice Act 1985).
Chapter 5 discusses the use of community-based sentences. This chapter summarises some
information from chapter 3, as well as providing some new information. The new material
includes detailed information on the lengths of community-based sentences imposed over the
decade, and the number of cases resulting in both periodic detention and supervision over the
last decade.
3
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The sixth chapter presents information on the use of fines and reparation. The chapter
includes information on the number of fines imposed, the amounts of fines imposed, and
sentences imposed in conjunction with fines. Chapter 6 also presents similar information for
reparation, and, in particular, examines whether amendments to the Criminal Justice Act in
late 1993 had an effect on the use of reparation in subsequent years.
Chapter 7 focuses on the types of offences for which young offenders were prosecuted in
court over the last decade, and the sentences that were imposed in the cases proved between
1991 and 2000. Before presenting this information, statistics on the number of 14 to 16 year
olds apprehended by the Police over the decade are examined. These figures give a better
indication of overall trends in offending by young people than do court statistics.
The eighth chapter presents information on trends in the use of bail and in offending while
on bail.
Information on the use of home detention in 2000 is presented in chapter 9.
Chapter 10 presents the findings of some research that examined recidivism patterns for
people who were convicted in 1995.
Chapter 11 provides a summary of the main findings described in the earlier chapters.
4
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 year from 1991 to 2000.
The information presented in this chapter is based on the number of criminal charges
processed by courts. A change in the number of offences prosecuted in court, such as the
decrease which occurred between 1996 and 1997 (as seen in Table 2.1), does not necessarily
reflect a change in the actual number of offences committed in the same period. The
relationship between all offences committed, and offences prosecuted in court, is difficult to
determine. Not all offences that are committed are discovered by, reported to, or recorded
by the Police. Young et al. (1997) found that less than 13% of the offences that were
disclosed in their victimisation survey were recorded by the Police. Also, not all offences that
come to the attention of the Police result in a prosecution, with there being big differences
between the resolution/clearance rates and prosecution rates for different types of offences.
Fluctuations occur in the number of prosecutions and convictions for different offences from
year to year. It is often not clear whether fluctuations are attributable to an actual change in
offending, or whether other factors are responsible. As well as economic, social, or
demographic changes which may affect offending and reporting, the availability of police
resources for detecting and investigating offending may vary from year to year. Legislative
changes may also affect the number of convictions for various offences. A large part of the
decrease in convictions between 1996 and 1997 was due to a legislative change. This is
discussed further below.
2.2
Outcome of prosecutions
Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 present information on the outcome of prosecutions for all offences
between 1991 and 2000.
The total number of criminal prosecutions peaked in 1996 at nearly 277,000, and has
generally decreased since then. The figure in 2000 was 262,921. A large part of the decrease
in prosecutions in 1997 was attributable to the offence of failing to register a dog under the
Dog Control Act 1996 becoming an infringement offence (although it can still be proceeded
against summarily). There were about 6,700 fewer prosecutions for this offence in 1997
compared with 1996 (1,503 compared with 8,180). In 2000, there were only 248 prosecutions
for this offence. Also of note, is that there were nearly 3,000 fewer prosecutions for driving
while disqualified in 2000 (8,865) compared with 1999 (11,706).
5
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 2.1
Outcome of all charges prosecuted, 1991 to 2000
Outcome1
1991
1992
1993
1994
19956
Convicted
186461
182258
188145
190546
3997
3327
3505
4050
Youth Court2
proved
S.19 discharge3
Overall %
change
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
192408
192396
180804
185839
178762
173944
-7%
4984
5763
6147
6396
7259
6794
+70%
2229
2333
2664
2972
3305
3549
3574
3838
4313
4769
+114%
57850
68095
64539
67739
73208
74407
70987
74529
74310
77019
+33%
Other
218
94
189
184
858
646
374
240
387
395
+81%
Total
250755
256107
259042
265491
274763
276761
261886
270842
265031
262921
+5%
Not proved4
5
Notes:
1
Table 2.1 includes outcomes from charges finalised in the High Court, District Court, and Youth Court.
2
Proved charges involving young offenders which are finalised in the Youth Court. These charges are not recorded as
convictions.
3
Discharge without conviction under section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, after the offender is found guilty or
pleads guilty.
4
Charges which were withdrawn, dismissed, discharged, struck out, not proceeded with, or acquitted. This category
includes charges where people completed the police diversion scheme and subsequently had their charges withdrawn
or dismissed. Unfortunately, the data do not distinguish charges which were withdrawn or dismissed because of police
diversion from other “not proven” charges.
5
Includes charges where there was a stay of proceedings. Also includes charges where the person was found to be
under disability or was acquitted on account of insanity, and an order was made under section 115 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1985.
6
The 1995 figure for the outcome “other” includes 573 charges where there was a stay of proceedings. This figure
includes a small number of people who were charged with a large number of fisheries offences, of which 365 charges
resulted in this outcome. In 2000, there were 142 charges resulting in a stay of proceedings.
A conviction is the most frequent outcome of a prosecution. However, the proportion of all
prosecutions resulting in a conviction has generally shown a slowly decreasing trend over the
decade, reaching the lowest level recorded in the decade in 2000 (66%). At least part of the
decrease is likely to be linked to the use of diversion by the Police. Like prosecutions,
convictions were also affected by the offence of failing to register a dog becoming an
infringement offence. In 1996 there were 6,269 convictions for this offence, but the number
dropped to 854 in 1997. In 2000, there were only 135 convictions for this offence.
Figure 2.1
Percentage of prosecutions resulting in each type of outcome, 1991 to
2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
Convicted
60%
Youth Court Proved
50%
s.19 Discharge
40%
Not Proved
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Year
6
1997
1998
1999
2000
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Children and young people who offend are dealt with by the criminal justice system
differently from older people. Under the provisions of the Children, Young Persons, and
Their Families Act 1989, many of the cases involving young offenders are dealt with at family
group conferences without a formal court appearance. The number of charges proven in the
Youth Court dropped a little in 2000 after a strongly increasing trend between 1992 and 1999.
Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 allows a person who has been found guilty, or
who pleads guilty, to be discharged without a conviction. A discharge of this type is deemed
to be an acquittal. The number of section 19 discharges has shown an increasing trend over
the decade, with the number in 2000 being more than double the number in 1991. The
majority of the increase occurred for non-imprisonable offences, with smaller increases
occurring for imprisonable offences of low to moderate seriousness.
In 2000, 29% of all prosecutions resulted in a “not proved” outcome. The proportion of
prosecutions resulting in this outcome has generally shown a slowly increasing trend over the
decade. The number of prosecutions resulting in a “not proved” outcome in 2000 was 33%
greater than the number in 1991.
The expansion of the police adult diversion scheme, particularly in the first half of the decade,
has had a significant impact on the outcomes of prosecutions. This scheme allows some
(usually first-time) offenders who have committed non-serious offences, and who admit their
guilt, not to have a conviction recorded against them. Offenders who are diverted usually
have an initial appearance in court, and when they have complied with the conditions of the
diversion scheme, they have their case withdrawn or dismissed. This has contributed to the
large increase over the decade in the number of charges with a “not proved” outcome. It can
be noted that, in 2000, there were 14,261 prosecutions recorded as being withdrawn by a
Registrar. Section 36(1A) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 allows a Registrar to
withdraw a charge if the Police have notified the Registrar in writing that the defendant has
successfully completed a programme of diversion conducted by the Police. In addition, some
charges where the offender completed Police diversion will have been withdrawn by judges,
but these cannot be distinguished from charges withdrawn by judges for other reasons.
There has also been an increase through the decade in the number and proportion of
prosecutions where the defendant pleaded not guilty that were withdrawn. The introduction
of status hearings in many parts of the country may have contributed to this trend. Status
hearings occur when a not guilty plea is entered for a summary charge and require that a
Judge examine the Police summary of facts to ensure that the charge is appropriate. If not,
this may result in the charge being amended or withdrawn completely, or the defendant
pleading guilty to a reduced charge.
Table 2.2 shows the outcome of all criminal prosecutions in 2000 for each type of offence.
Violent offences are the least likely to result in conviction, with 53% of prosecutions for such
offences resulting in conviction in 2000. Of the 43% of prosecutions for violent offences
that resulted in a “not proved” outcome: 5% were dismissed, 5% were discharged, 27% were
withdrawn, 3% were acquitted, and 2% resulted in some other not proved outcome.
Eighty percent of traffic prosecutions in 2000 resulted in conviction – the greatest proportion
for any offence type. Approximately two-thirds of prosecutions for drug offences and
7
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
offences against justice resulted in conviction in 2000, as did 60% of property offence
prosecutions.
Table 2.2
Offence type
Violent
Other against
persons
Outcome of all charges prosecuted in 2000, by type of offence
Convicted
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No.
%
No.
%
14639
52.6
608
2.2
568
2.0
3492
57.1
77
1.3
159
2.6
Not proved
No.
Other
%
No.
11869
42.7
2367
38.7
Total
%
No.
%
132
0.5
27816
100.0
25
0.4
6120
100.0
Property
50039
60.5
4666
5.6
1146
1.4
26807
32.4
68
0.1
82726
100.0
Drug
13663
66.4
201
1.0
273
1.3
6422
31.2
11
0.1
20570
100.0
Against justice
15491
69.1
406
1.8
173
0.8
6265
27.9
81
0.4
22416
100.0
Good order
11608
61.3
340
1.8
630
3.3
6344
33.5
26
0.1
18948
100.0
Traffic
57112
80.5
421
0.6
1515
2.1
11892
16.8
37
0.1
70977
100.0
7900
59.2
75
0.6
305
2.3
5053
37.9
15
0.1
13348
100.0
173944
66.2
6794
2.6
4769
1.8
77019
29.3
395
0.2
262921
100.0
Miscellaneous
Total
Appendix 2 presents further information on the outcome of prosecutions in 2000 according
to the individual offence type.
2.3
Convictions for offences in each major offence category
Table 2.3 shows the total number of convictions for each category of offence between 1991
and 2000, while Table 2.4 and Figure 2.2 show the percentage of all convictions accounted
for by each category of offence. For a description of trends in the number of convictions for
individual offences within each grouped category, see sections 2.5 to 2.12.
Table 2.3 Total number of charges resulting in conviction, by type of offence, 1991 to
2000
Overall %
change
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
9568
10708
13095
15845
16714
16497
15683
16131
15287
14639
+53%
Other against
persons
2587
2686
2967
3213
3503
3577
3261
3518
3459
3492
+35%
Property
54727
57403
57282
57438
56972
56702
53674
53295
51178
50039
-9%
Drug
11555
11434
13239
14197
11792
11594
12997
14168
14021
13663
+18%
Against justice
10561
11075
12263
13022
13521
13902
14819
15685
15306
15491
+47%
6506
6255
7443
8358
9284
9732
9927
10552
11062
11608
+78%
Good order
Traffic
79563
68828
62178
59508
64024
63183
60502
62201
58785
57112
-28%
Miscellaneous
11394
13869
19678
18965
16598
17209
9941
10289
9664
7900
-31%
186461
182258
188145
190546
192408
192396
180804
185839
178762
173944
-7%
Total
8
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Violent offences involve either a direct act of violence against a person or the threat of such
an act. There are a number of other offences which sometimes, but not always, involve
violent acts or the intention to commit violent acts. Included in this category are a number of
sexual offences, rioting, and various firearm offences. These types of offences have not been
included in the violent offences category.
Table 2.4 Percentage of all convictions involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
5.1
1.4
29.4
6.2
5.7
3.5
42.7
6.1
5.9
1.5
31.5
6.3
6.1
3.4
37.8
7.6
7.0
1.6
30.4
7.0
6.5
4.0
33.0
10.5
8.3
1.7
30.1
7.5
6.8
4.4
31.2
10.0
8.7
1.8
29.6
6.1
7.0
4.8
33.3
8.6
8.6
1.9
29.5
6.0
7.2
5.1
32.8
8.9
8.7
1.8
29.7
7.2
8.2
5.5
33.5
5.5
8.7
1.9
28.7
7.6
8.4
5.7
33.5
5.5
8.6
1.9
28.6
7.8
8.6
6.2
32.9
5.4
8.4
2.0
28.8
7.9
8.9
6.7
32.8
4.5
Total1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note:
1 Due to rounding to one decimal place, not all columns total exactly 100.0%.
Figure 2.2
Percentage of all convictions involving each type of offence, 1991 to
2000
100%
90%
Violent
80%
Other ag. persons
70%
Property
60%
Drugs
50%
Against justice
40%
Good order
Traffic
30%
Miscellaneous
20%
10%
0%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
The number of convictions for violent offences has generally shown a slowly decreasing trend
since 1995, after a rapid increase between 1991 and 1995. The 2000 figure (14,639) is the
lowest recorded since 1993. The number of convictions for violent offences in 2000 was still
53% greater than the figure in 1991. In the last seven years, violent offences have accounted
for 8% to 9% of all convictions, compared with 5% in 1991.
9
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Offences categorised as “other offences against the person” are mainly offences of
obstructing or resisting police officers or other officials, and sexual, threatening and
intimidation offences which are not included in the violent offences category. Convictions
for other offences against the person have been relatively stable since 1995 at around 3,500
convictions annually, after an increasing trend between 1991 and 1995.
Property offences include burglary, theft, fraud, arson, motor vehicle conversion, receiving
stolen goods, and wilful damage. Property offences comprise the second largest group of
offences resulting in conviction. In 2000, 29% of all convictions were for offences against
property. The number of convictions for property offences remained reasonably stable
between 1992 and 1996 at around 57,000 convictions annually, but has decreased significantly
in the last four years. The 2000 figure (50,039) was the lowest recorded in the decade.
The vast majority of convictions for drug offences involve cannabis. This was the case for
89% of drug convictions in 2000. The total number of convictions for drug offences tends to
fluctuate from year to year between about 11,000 and 14,000. In 2000, 8% of convictions
were for drugs offences.
Offences against the administration of justice are mostly the result of a breach of a sentence
awarded for an earlier offence (e.g. breach of periodic detention), failure to answer bail (i.e.
failure by a person on bail to appear in court at a specified time and place), breach of
protection orders, or are offences relating to court procedure. The number of convictions for
offences against the administration of justice increased considerably between 1991 and 1998,
but has levelled off in the last two years. The 2000 figure is 47% greater than the figure in
1991. Offences against justice accounted for 9% of all convictions in 2000, compared with
6% of convictions in 1991.
Offences against good order include disorderly behaviour, offensive language, carrying
offensive weapons, trespassing, and unlawful assembly. Such offences have shown a strongly
increasing trend since 1992. The number of convictions for good order offences in 2000 was
the highest recorded in the decade. The Police Commissioner has indicated that increases in
“drug and anti-social” offences reflected an increase by the Police in enforcement and street
policing (New Zealand Police 1999).
Convictions for traffic offences decreased in number considerably between 1991 and 1993
(from nearly 80,000 to just over 62,000). From 1993 to 1998, there was an average of
approximately 62,000 convictions each year, but the number dropped to just over 57,000 in
2000. This was the lowest number of traffic convictions recorded in the decade. Traffic
offences accounted for 33% of all convictions in 2000, compared with 43% of convictions in
1991. Despite this decrease in convictions, traffic offences still comprise the largest group of
offences resulting in conviction.
All offences not included in one of the previous categories were placed in the category
“miscellaneous offences”. For the most part, offences in the earlier categories are those
defined in the Crimes Act 1961, Summary Offences Act 1981, Criminal Justice Act 1985,
Land Transport Act 1998, and Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, while the miscellaneous category
contains offences defined in an assortment of Acts and regulations including the: Arms
Act 1983, Dog Control Act 1996, Fisheries Act 1983, Income Tax Act 1994, Tax
10
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Administration Act 1994, Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, Postal Services Act 1998, and
Sale of Liquor Act 1989.
The wide variety of offences included in this category makes it difficult to account for
fluctuations in the number of convictions for these offences. As discussed earlier, one of the
offences in the miscellaneous category – failing to register a dog – became an infringement
offence with the introduction of the Dog Control Act 1996, which contributed to the large
drop in the number of convictions in this category in 1997.
2.4
Average seriousness of all offences
A seriousness of offence scale was originally developed by the Policy and Research Division
of the Department of Justice in 1991 (see Spier, Luketina, & Kettles (1991)). The most recent
update of the scale occurred in 2000 by the Ministry of Justice. The updated scale gives
imprisonable offences a score according to how serious judges have deemed each offence in
terms of the use of custodial sentences over a recent five year period. These scores enable
offences to be ranked in terms of their relative seriousness, and can be used to examine
whether offending that leads to conviction has become more serious over time (i.e. whether
there has been an increase in the number of more serious offences relative to less serious
offences over time).
The updated scale is based on court sentencing data for the period 1995 to 1999. The
seriousness score assigned to each offence is the average number of days of imprisonment
imposed on every offender convicted of that offence between 1995 and 1999, where the
average is taken over both imprisoned and non-imprisoned offenders. Suppose, for
example, that between 1995 and 1999 there were 100 cases of offenders convicted of a
particular offence. Of these cases, 50 resulted in a custodial sentence, and the average length
of the custodial sentences imposed on these offenders was 30 days. The seriousness score for
this offence is (30 x 50/100), or 15.
Offences that became obsolete prior to 1995 were given the same score as any new similar
offences, or a score was calculated based on sentencing data before 1995. Imprisonable
offences for which there were convictions but no custodial sentences over the period 1995 to
1999, were given a seriousness rating slightly lower than the least of the offences already
assigned a seriousness score (i.e. a score of 0.2). Non-imprisonable offences were assigned a
seriousness score of zero.
It should be noted that although seriousness scores are based on judges’ determination of
seriousness in terms of the use of custodial sentences, there is an upper constraint on scores i.e. the maximum penalties prescribed in legislation. For example, the highest feasible
seriousness score for an offence with a three month maximum penalty (assuming everyone
convicted was imprisoned for the maximum term) is 90 [3x30 days], whereas for an offence
with a maximum penalty of ten years, the highest feasible score is 3650 [10x365 days].
The scale can be used to examine changes over time in the seriousness of offences that lead
to conviction. It should be noted that the change in the average seriousness score between
years is independent of any change that may have occurred in the severity of sentences that
11
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
the court imposed. This is because the seriousness scores assigned to individual offences do
not change, but rather the frequency of occurrence of particular offences changes from year
to year. Therefore, a higher average seriousness score in one year compared with another
indicates that the ratio of the more serious offences to the less serious offences has increased.
Table 2.5 shows that there has been little change in the last six years in the average
seriousness score for all offences resulting in conviction.
Table 2.5
Number of convictions with each level of offence seriousness and
average seriousness of all convictions, 1991 to 2000
Seriousness score
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Non-imprisonable
>0 – 1
>1 – 10
>10 – 50
>50 - 100
>100 - 500
>500
41228
15951
78001
33130
8870
7771
1510
40728
15622
71187
36623
8124
8233
1741
43615
17427
72339
37845
6830
8286
1803
43282
18126
71350
40918
6258
8746
1866
42899
17537
71092
44164
5860
8741
2115
42162
17028
70357
45358
6080
9279
2132
33546
17171
68900
43949
6642
8605
1991
34447
18481
71712
43990
6201
8992
2016
33488
18379
67357
41366
8069
8198
1905
35469
17825
61655
39205
9183
8833
1774
27
30
30
30
32
33
33
33
32
32
Overall average
Note: The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are
calculated using the new scale.
Between 1993 and 1996 there was an average of 43,000 convictions annually for nonimprisonable offences, however, in the last four years there has been an average of 34,000
convictions annually. Part of this decrease was due to legislative amendments which affected
some minor offences - both traffic and non-traffic.
Convictions for the more serious offences (with seriousness scores of more than 100)
increased between 1991 and 1996, but have generally shown a downward trend since then.
Each offence has a seriousness score, and the seriousness of offence scale can also be used to
compare the seriousness scores of different offences. For example, the seriousness score for
burglary where more than $5,000 worth of goods are stolen is 238, while the score for rape is
2,546. This means that, on average, judges consider the rape offence to be more than 10
times as “serious” as the burglary offence. This is quite a different indication of the relative
seriousness of offences than is indicated by maximum penalties prescribed in legislation. For
example, the maximum penalty for burglary is 10 years’ imprisonment, while for rape, the
maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment for a non-home invasion offence and 25 years’
imprisonment for a home invasion offence.
Violent offences have a much higher average seriousness score than the other types of
offences shown in Table 2.6. The average seriousness of the violent offences resulting in
conviction has decreased over the decade, with the 2000 figure (167) being the lowest
recorded in the decade.
12
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 2.6 Average seriousness of convictions, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
214
220
206
177
195
201
185
191
183
167
Other against persons
65
93
85
75
58
53
47
41
30
42
Property
35
34
34
32
32
33
34
33
31
33
Drug
33
37
28
34
36
43
39
33
34
39
Against justice
11
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
Good order
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Traffic
5
5
3
3
5
6
6
6
8
8
Miscellaneous
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
Note: The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are
calculated using the new scale.
The average seriousness of charges resulting in conviction for other offences against the
person decreased significantly between 1992 and 1999, but increased a little in 2000.
The average seriousness score for drug offences has fluctuated throughout the decade
between 28 and 43 with no clear pattern.
Offences against justice resulting in conviction in 2000 were a little more serious, on average,
than those resulting in conviction in earlier years in the decade.
The average seriousness of traffic offences and miscellaneous offences resulting in conviction
were a little higher in 1999 and 2000 than in previous years in the decade.
Figures shown for property offences and offences against good order indicate there has been
little significant change in the average seriousness rating for these offences over the last
decade.
2.5
Convictions for violent offences
The total number of convictions for violent offences has generally shown a slowly decreasing
trend since 1995, after a rapid increase between 1991 and 1995. The 2000 figure (14,639) is
the lowest recorded since 1993. Table 2.7 shows the number of convictions that resulted
from particular types of violent offence.
The number of convictions for murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder fluctuated over
the decade with no clear trend.
The number of convictions for kidnapping or abduction tends to fluctuate from year to year,
but has generally been greater since 1995, compared with earlier years in the decade.
13
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Number of convictions for violent offences, 1991 to 20001
Table 2.7
Offence type
Murder
2
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
26
43
25
25
34
27
39
24
25
31
Overall
% change
-
Manslaughter
35
43
38
23
38
36
28
45
28
26
-
Attempted murder
14
12
5
13
6
13
19
5
6
9
-
Kidnapping/abduction
81
59
72
81
112
142
112
149
81
113
+40%
Rape
157
149
238
247
327
302
210
253
207
138
-12%
Unlawful sexual
connection
Attempted sexual
violation
Indecent assault
266
341
411
370
380
410
279
349
361
319
+20%
57
55
85
74
73
82
58
56
58
42
-26%
731
939
1099
1150
1112
1290
947
1054
968
798
+9%
Aggravated burglary
59
67
50
75
96
74
102
83
77
71
+20%
Aggravated robbery
284
402
411
422
479
456
582
555
523
434
+53%
3
Robbery
173
143
159
162
204
213
258
278
233
171
-1%
Grievous assault4
694
681
748
988
1157
1222
1209
1335
1258
1324
+91%
Serious assault5
1418
1582
2024
2586
2993
2964
3031
3239
3090
3251
+129%
Male assaults female6
1623
1902
2943
4157
4091
3753
3335
3145
3043
2922
+80%
Assault on a child
7
Minor assault8
9
Threaten to kill/do GBH
Cruelty to a child
11
Other violence
Total
10
152
171
212
299
302
326
298
294
304
281
+85%
3435
3623
4036
4542
4688
4462
4432
4516
4245
3963
+15%
268
369
413
518
511
585
602
633
641
629
+135%
9
41
39
22
24
17
17
17
40
22
-
86
86
87
91
87
123
125
101
99
95
+10%
9568
10708
13095
15845
16714
16497
15683
16131
15287
14639
+53%
Notes:
1
An overall percentage change figure between 1991 and 2000 has not been shown for offences in this and subsequent
tables where the number of convictions each year is small.
2
Includes convictions for manslaughter which involved the use of a motor vehicle.
3
Includes both robbery and assault with intent to rob.
4
Mostly assault with a weapon, wounding with intent, and injuring with intent, but also includes aggravated wounding or
injury, disabling, doing dangerous act with intent, acid throwing, and poisoning with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
These offences have maximum penalties of at least 5 years imprisonment.
5
Mostly common assault under the Crimes Act 1961, but also includes assault with intent to injure, injuring by unlawful
act, and aggravated assault (including assault on a police officer or a person assisting the police under the Crimes Act
1961). These offences have maximum penalties of between 1 and 3 years imprisonment.
6
Offences under section 194(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. These are likely to be mostly domestic-related assaults. These
offences could be included in the “serious assault” category as they have a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
However, they have been presented separately in this report as there is particular interest in trends in domestic-related
assaults. These offences are the best available proxy for such offences, given that the data do not include information on
victim-offender relationships which would allow domestic-related assaults to be identified more accurately.
7
Assault on a child under the age of 14 years under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.
8
Mostly common assault under the Summary Offences Act 1981, but also includes assault on a police, prison or traffic
officer, or on a person assisting the Police, under the same Act. These offences have a maximum penalty of 6 months
imprisonment.
9
Threaten to kill or do grievous bodily harm.
10 Offences under section 195 of the Crimes Act 1961.
11 The majority of these offences involve demanding with intent to steal offences, but the category also includes using a
firearm against a law enforcement officer; commission of a crime with a firearm; inciting, counselling, accessory to,
accessory after the fact to, or attempting to procure murder; and killing or injuring a police dog.
The total number of convictions for violent sex offences (rape, unlawful sexual connection,
attempted sexual violation, and indecent assault) peaked at 2,084 in 1996, but has decreased
since then. In 2000, there were 1,297 convictions for violent sex offences.
14
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
The number of convictions for rape (138) and attempted sexual violation (42) in 2000 were
the lowest recorded in the decade. The number of convictions for unlawful sexual
connection has fluctuated from year to year over the decade, but there have been fewer
convictions in the last four years than in the period 1993 to 1996. The number of convictions
for indecent assault increased from 731 to 1,290 between 1991 and 1996, but has generally
decreased since then. There were 798 convictions for indecent assault in 2000 – the lowest
number since 1991. (Note that section 2.15 provides information on the age and gender of
the victims of violent sex offences that resulted in the conviction of an offender in 2000.)
Aggravated burglary occurs where the offender has a weapon with him or her while breaking
and entering, unlawfully entering, or breaking out of a building or ship; or having broken and
entered or unlawfully entered, uses anything as a weapon. The number of convictions for
such offences peaked at 102 in 1997, and has decreased in the last three years. In 2000, there
were 71 convictions for aggravated burglary, 20% more than there were in 1991.
Robbery is theft accompanied by violence or the threat of violence. Aggravated robbery
occurs where the offender causes grievous bodily harm either immediately before, during, or
after a robbery; where the offender commits robbery or assault with intent to rob with at least
one other person; or where the offender commits robbery or assault with intent to rob while
armed with an offensive weapon.
The number of convictions for robbery showed an increasing trend between 1992 and 1998,
but dropped significantly in both 1999 and 2000. The number of convictions for aggravated
robbery has decreased in the last three years after showing an increasing trend between 1991
and 1997. The 2000 figure (434) is the lowest recorded since 1994.
The total number of convictions for non-sexual assaults of various types increased
significantly between 1991 and 1995, but has generally shown a slowly decreasing trend since
then. A large part of the increase in the early to mid 1990s occurred for the offence of “male
assaults female” (under section 194(b) of the Crimes Act 1961), the majority of which are
domestic-related assaults. Statistics New Zealand (1996) suggests that the “increase may be
due largely to changes in police practice in relation to domestic violence. Whereas police
formerly attempted to mediate and reconcile the parties in domestic incidents, they now treat
such incidents as family violence complaints and, barring exceptional circumstances, arrest
[and prosecute] the offender”. Although the number of male assaults female convictions has
decreased in each of the last six years, the 2000 figure was still 80% greater than the figure in
1991.
Convictions for assaults on children aged less than 14 years (under section 194(a) of the
Crimes Act 1961) also increased significantly in the early 1990s. The number of convictions
doubled between 1991 and 1994 from 152 to 299. Since 1994, the number of convictions for
assault on a child has averaged 300 each year, with the 2000 figure (281) being a little lower
than this.
The number of convictions in the two most serious categories of assault - “grievous” assault
and “serious” assault - increased strongly in number between 1991 and 1998, but have
levelled off since then. (See the notes to Table 2.7 for a description of the offences included
15
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
within each of the assault categories.) Convictions for “minor” assault peaked in 1995 and
have generally decreased in number since then.
The number of convictions for cruelty to a child under the age of 16 years tends to fluctuate
from year to year with no clear trend.
Convictions for threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm have shown a strong upward
trend over the decade. The number of convictions more than doubled from 268 in 1991 to
641 in 1999, before decreasing a little in 2000 to 629.
2.6
Convictions for other offences against the person
The number of convictions for incest peaked in 1992 at 63 and has generally decreased since
then (see Table 2.8). In 2000, there were seven convictions for incest. Convictions for
“other sex” offences (not included in the violent offence category) have decreased since 1996,
although the 2000 figure was higher than the figure in the previous year.
Table 2.8
Number of convictions for other offences against the person, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
Incest
Other sex1
Obstruct/resist2
Threats/intimidation3
Other
24
277
1978
183
125
63
397
1896
217
113
47
402
2095
277
146
44
427
2229
343
170
46
363
2412
440
242
14
416
2471
412
264
12
332
2269
466
182
10
294
2493
477
244
3
244
2405
549
258
7
293
2379
561
252
+6%
+20%
+207%
+102%
Total
2587
2686
2967
3213
3503
3577
3261
3518
3459
3492
+35%
Notes:
1 Mainly unlawful sexual intercourse or doing an indecent act with or upon another person. Sex offences
reported in the violent offences category are not included in the figures for this category.
2 Obstructing or resisting a police officer, traffic officer, or other official.
3 Excludes threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm which is classified in this report as a violent
offence.
Convictions for obstructing or resisting a police officer or some other official increased in the
first half of the decade, but have levelled off since then at around 2,400 convictions annually.
The number of convictions for threatening and intimidation offences (which do not involve a
threat to kill or do grievous bodily harm) increased strongly over the decade. The number in
2000 (561) was more than triple the figure in 1991 (183).
The number of “other” offences in this offence group has been much greater since 1995
compared with earlier years in the decade. This is due to a greater number of offences such
as leaving a child without reasonable supervision and various endangering offences, as well as
offences created under new legislation - an “offence likely to cause harm” under the Health
and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (from 1 April 1993) and criminal harassment under the
16
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Harassment Act 1997 (from 1 January 1998). There were 44 convictions for criminal
harassment in 2000, compared with 32 in 1998 and 49 in 1999.
2.7
Convictions for property offences
Table 2.9 shows that the total number of convictions for property offences remained
reasonably stable between 1992 and 1996 at around 57,000 convictions annually, but has
decreased significantly in the last four years. The 2000 figure (50,039) was the lowest
recorded in the decade.
Table 2.9
Offence type
Burglary
Theft
Receiving stolen
goods
Motor vehicle
conversion
1
Fraud
Arson
Number of convictions for property offences, 1991 to 2000
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
7891
7264
7358
6893
6712
6684
6719
6374
5938
6363
-19%
14479
14673
15415
13611
12780
13332
13208
13793
13720
13370
-8%
3226
3572
4109
3479
3118
3148
3084
3374
3000
3018
-6%
3364
2867
2553
2659
2810
2831
2793
2538
2431
2188
-35%
17884
21426
19480
21708
21960
21336
18661
17124
15078
14620
-18%
144
159
188
191
191
165
198
313
209
171
+19%
Wilful damage
3701
3611
4104
4881
5177
4838
4800
5087
5156
5237
+42%
Other
4038
3831
4075
4016
4224
4368
4211
4692
5646
5072
+26%
Total
54727
57403
57282
57438
56972
56702
53674
53295
51178
50039
-9%
2
Note:
1
Includes fraud, false pretences, and forgery.
2
Mostly unlawfully interfering with or getting into/onto a motor vehicle or motorcycle, unlawfully taking a bicycle,
entering with intent, possessing instruments for burglary or conversion, providing misleading information to obtain a
benefit, or misleading a social welfare officer.
Most of the decrease in property offences in the last four years was due to a decrease in the
number of convictions for fraud. Between 1994 and 1996 there were around 21,000 to
22,000 convictions for fraud each year, but by 2000 the number had dropped to under
15,000. This is the lowest number of convictions for fraud recorded in the decade. However,
this finding needs to be treated with caution. Many offenders convicted of fraud are facing a
vast number of charges, so the total number of charges of fraud could change a lot without
the number of people being convicted of fraud necessarily changing that much. In fact, Table
3.18 later in the report shows that the number of cases where the most serious offence was
fraud was only about 250 lower in 2000 than in 1996.
The number of convictions for burglary increased a little in 2000 after generally showing a
downward trend since 1991. The 2000 figure (6,363) was still the second lowest recorded in
the decade. It can be noted that the number of burglaries resolved by the Police increased in
2000 after a downward trend from 1993.
Convictions for theft have been relatively stable in the last seven years at a lower level than in
the early part of the decade.
17
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Convictions for receiving stolen property have generally remained reasonably stable since
1995 at a slightly lower level than in earlier years.
The number of convictions for motor vehicle conversion averaged about 2,750 between 1992
and 1997, but has dropped in the last three years to be at the lowest level recorded in the
decade (2,188 in 2000).
Apart from an exceptionally high figure in 1998, the annual number of convictions for arson
has not changed very much over the decade.
The number of convictions for wilful damage increased considerably between 1992 and 1995
and has generally remained at a higher level since then. The 2000 figure (5,237) was the
highest recorded in the decade.
The number of “other” offences in this offence group has been higher in the last three years
than in earlier years in the decade. The higher number in recent years is mainly due to a
greater number of convictions under section 127 of the Social Security Act 1964 (which
relates to making a false statement or misleading an officer in relation to a benefit or other
entitlement etc.).
2.8
Convictions for drug offences
Convictions for offences involving cannabis made up 89% of all convictions for drug
offences in 2000 (see Table 2.10).
Table 2.10 Number of convictions for drug offences, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
Use cannabis
6484
6101
7417
7388
5926
5652
6459
6970
6761
6133
-5%
Deal in cannabis
3074
3303
3489
4219
3437
3459
3708
3977
3916
3886
+26%
Other cannabis1
1091
1137
1478
1730
1469
1477
1730
2172
2255
2188
+101%
Use other drug
393
325
336
334
389
350
444
412
493
678
+73%
Deal in other
drug
Other drug1
348
375
355
379
380
497
496
415
405
464
+33%
165
193
164
147
191
159
160
222
191
314
+90%
11555
11434
13239
14197
11792
11594
12997
14168
14021
13663
+18%
Total
Notes:
1 Mostly offences relating to the possession of pipes, needles, syringes or other drug-related utensils. The
category also includes offences where the offender permitted his or her premises or motor vehicle to be used
for a drug offence, or where the offender made a false statement in relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The category “use cannabis” includes the use of cannabis and possession of cannabis other
than for supply. The number of convictions for using cannabis has tended to fluctuate over
the decade with no real pattern.
18
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Convictions for importing, exporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, administering,
selling, cultivating, or possessing for supply controlled drugs are categorised in this report as
“dealing” offences. The number of convictions for dealing in cannabis has decreased a little
in the last two years. However, the figures were still higher in each of the last three years than
in all previous years in the decade, except 1994.
“Other cannabis” offences have generally shown an increasing trend over the last decade,
although the number dropped a little in 2000. The 2000 figure was still the second highest
recorded in the decade. Within this category, a large increase in convictions occurred over
the decade for offences relating to the possession of pipes or other drug-related utensils, with
the number of such offences more than doubling from 951 in 1991 to 2,034 in 1999, before
decreasing slightly to 1,993 in 2000.
Convictions for possession or use (other than for supply) of drugs other than cannabis have
shown an upward trend in the second half of the decade, with a particularly large increase
occurring between 1999 and 2000. The 2000 figure (678) is the highest recorded in the
decade and is 73% greater than the figure in 1991. Within this category, the number of
convictions for possession or use of LSD has increased over the decade from an average of
35 in each of the years 1991 to 1994, to 120 in 2000. The number of convictions for the
possession or use of “stimulants or depressants” in 2000 (230) was the highest recorded in the
decade. New Zealand Police (2001) noted an increase between 1999 and 2000 in noncannabis related drug crimes such as those involving methamphetamine (“speed”).
The number of convictions for dealing in drugs other than cannabis has been greater in the
second half of the decade than in the first half.
2.9
Convictions for offences against the administration of
justice
The total number of convictions for offences against the administration of justice increased
considerably between 1991 and 1998, but has levelled off in the last two years. The 2000
figure is 47% greater than the figure in 1991 (see Table 2.11).
Convictions for breach of periodic detention increased substantially in the first half of the
decade, then fluctuated at a higher level in subsequent years, until decreasing in 1999 and
2000 to the lowest level since 1992. In 2000, breach of periodic detention accounted for 43%
of all convictions for offences against the administration of justice.
The number of breaches of periodic detention increased between 1991 and 1996 despite a
decrease in the number of periodic detention sentences imposed over this period (see section
5.2 later in the report). It appears, therefore, that between 1991 and 1996 in particular, the
proportion of offenders breaching their periodic detention sentences increased a little, or the
likelihood of periodic detention wardens laying an information in court for breach of periodic
detention increased a little, or both. The rate of convictions for breaching periodic detention
sentences was a little lower between 1997 and 1999 than in 1996, but increased in 2000 to the
highest level in the decade. The rate in 2000 was 250 breach convictions per 1,000 sentences
imposed. This compares with 168 breach convictions per 1,000 sentences imposed in 1991.
19
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 2.11 Number of convictions for offences against the administration of justice,
1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall
% change
Breach periodic
detention
Breach supervision
5711
6005
6643
7101
7302
7552
7318
7532
7011
6628
+16%
464
542
595
714
678
558
634
601
553
503
+8%
Breach parole1
251
339
469
321
194
208
180
202
199
236
-6%
Breach community
service
Failure to answer
bail2
Breach non-moltn/
protection order3
Escape custody4
258
350
454
418
403
335
326
282
220
246
-5%
2411
2405
2668
2898
3380
3622
3959
4013
4124
4293
+78%
242
321
379
437
421
496
1223
1881
2117
2265
+836%
345
380
319
351
424
387
380
424
406
373
+8%
100
106
93
117
88
122
155
152
132
143
+43%
779
627
643
665
631
622
644
598
544
804
+3%
10561
11075
12263
13022
13521
13902
14819
15685
15306
15491
+47%
Obstruct/pervert
course of justice
Other
Total
Notes:
1
Failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any condition of release from prison.
2
Failure by a person on bail to appear in court at a specified time and place. (This category was called “breach of bail”
in some previous annual publications.)
3
Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995.
4
Mostly escaping from custody in a penal institution, or escaping from police custody. Also includes a small number of
charges of escaping custody from some other type of institution such as a psychiatric hospital.
The number of convictions for breaching the conditions of a supervision sentence increased
between 1991 and 1994, but has generally decreased since then. The rate of convictions for
breaching supervision sentences (i.e. the ratio of breaches to sentences imposed) has been
lower in recent years than in the early 1990s. In 2000, the rate was 60 breach convictions per
1,000 sentences imposed, compared to 82 breach convictions per 1,000 sentences imposed in
1991.
The number of convictions for breach of parole increased considerably between 1991 and
1993, then dropped by a greater amount in 1994 and 1995. Since then the number has
remained at a much lower level, with the 2000 figure being slightly higher than the figures in
the five previous years. The lower number of convictions for breach of parole after 1993 may
be associated with greater use of recall to prison (instead of breaching offenders) following
changes to recall provisions in late 1993.
Convictions for breach of community service increased strongly in number between 1991 and
1993, before decreasing in each subsequent year before 2000. The 2000 figure was slightly
higher than the figure in 1999, but was still the second lowest recorded in the decade. The
rate of convictions for breaching community service sentences increased in the early to mid
1990s (peaking at an average of 45 breach convictions per 1,000 sentenced imposed over the
period 1993 to 1995), but decreased in the next four years to 26 in 1999, before increasing to
34 in 2000.
20
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
The number of convictions for failure to answer bail has continued to increase through the
decade, with the 2000 figure (4,293) being the highest recorded in the decade. In 2000, over a
quarter (28%) of all convictions for offences against the administration of justice related to
this offence. Chapter 8 discusses bail, and offences committed while on bail, in more detail.
Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders when the Domestic Violence Act
1995 commenced on 1 July 1996. The number of breaches of protection orders increased
dramatically between 1996 and 2000. There were 2,265 convictions for breaches of
protection orders in 2000, more than nine times the number of breaches of non-molestation
orders in 1991 (242).
Convictions for escaping from custody have fluctuated significantly from year to year with no
clear trend.
The number of convictions for obstructing or perverting the course of justice has been
greater in the last four years than in earlier years in the decade.
The “other” category in 2000 included a small number of individuals convicted of 266
charges of: corrupt use of official information, bribing officials, officials accepting bribes, or
other bribery or corruption offences. In 1999, there were only 21 such convictions, and five
or less convictions in each of the earlier years in the decade.
2.10 Convictions for offences against good order
There were very few convictions for rioting in the 1990s, but the number in 2000 (23) was
slightly greater. Convictions for unlawful assembly have fluctuated without a clear trend over
the decade (see Table 2.12).
Table 2.12 Number of convictions for offences against good order, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Riot
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
6
3
3
0
7
8
7
2
5
23
-
Unlawful assembly
32
42
30
44
64
33
69
40
21
23
-
Possess offensive
weapon
Offensive language
1179
1035
1177
1245
1197
1257
1259
1417
1417
1312
+11%
630
552
641
693
675
663
598
650
699
685
+9%
2193
2304
3099
3672
4284
4612
4661
5130
5645
6160
+181%
2051
1977
2202
2397
2737
2859
2997
3028
3006
3138
+53%
Other
415
342
291
307
320
300
336
285
269
267
-36%
Total
6506
6255
7443
8358
9284
9732
9927
10552
11062
11608
+78%
Disorderly
behaviour1
Trespassing
Note:
1
Mostly behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner (s.4 Summary Offences Act), disorderly or threatening behaviour
(s.3 Summary Offences Act), and fighting in a public place (s.7 Summary Offences Act).
The number of convictions for possession of an offensive weapon showed an increasing
trend between 1992 and 1998, stayed at the higher level in 1999, then dropped a little in 2000.
21
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The number of convictions for offensive language (under section 4 of the Summary Offences
Act 1981) has fluctuated around an average of about 650 throughout the decade.
Convictions for disorderly behaviour have nearly tripled over the decade from 2,193 in 1991
to 6,160 in 2000. Convictions for trespassing offences have also shown an increasing trend
over the decade. The Police Commissioner has indicated that increases in “drug and antisocial” offences reflected an increase by the Police in enforcement and street policing (New
Zealand Police 1999).
2.11 Convictions for traffic offences
A number of initiatives were introduced by the Land Transport Act 1998 such as photo
drivers licences, the power to forbid unlicensed drivers from driving until they get a valid
licence, and the power to impound at the roadside vehicles driven by disqualified or
unlicensed drivers. These initiatives appear to have had a significant impact on convictions
for traffic offences.
Table 2.13 shows that the number of convictions for driving offences resulting in the death or
injury of another person was lower in 2000 than in any other year in the decade. Land
Transport Safety Authority (2001) shows that, in 1998, there were 50 deaths and over 1,000
injuries attributed to disqualified or never licensed drivers, but the numbers dropped to 32
deaths and 667 injuries in 2000. The article states that “More than 25,000 vehicles driven by
disqualified and unlicensed drivers have been impounded at the roadside since tougher laws
were brought in as part of the photo driver licensing system in May 1999…”. The Director
of Land Transport Safety is quoted as saying “By impounding the vehicles of serious repeat
offenders we’re taking away their means to re-offend and sending a clear message that we’re
serious about keeping them off the road.”
Table 2.13 Number of convictions for traffic offences, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall
% change
Driving causing death
or injury1
Driving with excess
alcohol2
Driving while
disqualified
Reckless/dangerous
driving
Careless driving
1677
1582
1561
1620
1739
1654
1556
1679
1575
1446
-14%
30995
25192
24079
22652
25456
25427
24672
24819
23101
21615
-30%
13290
12220
11056
10695
10451
10948
10746
11605
10451
7879
-41%
2680
2230
2109
2136
2443
2521
2611
2881
2939
2697
+1%
13698
12911
11324
11319
12345
11139
9639
10248
9177
8437
-38%
Other traffic
17223
14693
12049
11086
11590
11494
11278
10969
11542
15038
-13%
Total
79563
68828
62178
59508
64024
63183
60502
62201
58785
57112
-28%
Notes:
1
Charges involving driving with excess alcohol, reckless/dangerous driving, or careless driving where death or injury
occurred. It is no longer possible to distinguish in the data between charges resulting in injury and charges resulting in
death. A small number of people who kill a person while driving a motor vehicle will be charged with manslaughter
rather than driving causing death.
2
Mostly charges where the person was driving with excess alcohol, but also includes charges where the offender refused
to supply a blood specimen, or was convicted for driving under the influence of drink or drugs. Charges where a
person was driving with excess alcohol and caused death or injury are included in the first category in this table.
22
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Convictions for driving with excess alcohol have decreased by 30% over the decade, with the
2000 figure (21,615) being the lowest recorded in the decade.
The number of convictions for driving while disqualified dropped considerably in 2000 to
7,879 after averaging nearly 11,000 annually in the previous seven years. It is likely that the
roadside impoundment of a very large number of vehicles driven by disqualified drivers from
May 1999 has impacted on the number of convictions for driving while disqualified.
Convictions for reckless or dangerous driving showed an increasing trend between 1993 and
1999 (from 2,109 to 2,939), but dropped to 2,697 in 2000.
There has generally been a downward trend over the decade in the number of careless driving
convictions, with the 2000 figure being 38% lower than the figure in 1991.
The number of convictions for “other traffic” offences increased considerably in 2000 after a
smaller increase the previous year. The number of convictions for “failing to comply with a
prohibition of an enforcement officer” under section 52(1)(c) of the Land Transport Act
1998 increased from 66 in 1998, to 2,166 in 1999, then to 6,457 in 2000. The Land Transport
Act gave Police new powers to issue a notice to unlicensed drivers or drivers with expired
licences that forbids them from driving until they obtain a licence or renew their licence. It is
likely that a large number of the “failing to comply with a prohibition of an enforcement
officer” offences arose when such drivers were caught driving again while the notice that
forbids them to drive was still in effect.
2.12 Convictions for miscellaneous offences
All offences not included in one of the previously discussed categories are placed in the
“miscellaneous” offence category.
Over the last decade there has been no clear trend in convictions under the Arms Act 1983
(see Table 2.14). The 2000 figure was the second lowest recorded in the decade.
The Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982 was replaced on 1 July 1996 by the Dog Control Act
1996. The number of convictions under the Dog Control Act 1996 dropped dramatically in
1997, principally due to the offence of failing to register a dog becoming an infringement
offence (although it can still be proceeded against summarily). There were further drops in
convictions under this Act in the next three years.
Convictions for tax-related offences increased considerably between 1991 and 1993, then
decreased to nearly the same extent in the next seven years. Over two-thirds (69%) of these
convictions in 2000 related to failing to furnish an income tax or GST return.
There was a large decrease in liquor-related convictions in 2000. In particular, liquor offences
involving “minors” (mostly being found in a restricted or supervised area, or drinking liquor
in a public place) decreased from 1,006 in 1999 to 92 in 2000. This decrease coincides with
amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and to section 38 of the Summary Offences Act
1981 that came into force on 1 December 1999. These amendments changed the offences of
23
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
purchasing of liquor by minors, minors being found in restricted or supervised areas, and
minors drinking liquor in a public place to infringement offences (although they can still be
proceeded against under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, rather than having an
infringement notice served). The amendments also lowered the legal drinking age from 20 to
18, therefore, a “minor” became someone aged under 18, as opposed to someone aged under
20.
In 2000, there were 11 convictions for selling, supplying, or allowing liquor to be sold to a
minor (under section 155 of the Sale of Liquor Act). This compares with six such convictions
in 1999, and an average of 27 such convictions in each of the previous eight years.
Table 2.14 Number of convictions for miscellaneous offences, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Arms Act
1991
1
Dog Control Act
3
Tax Acts
Liquor-related
Fisheries Act
5
4
2
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
981
991
1029
934
826
866
880
952
921
858
-13%
4559
5366
6714
7723
6828
7440
1641
885
592
442
-90%
1344
2850
6814
5096
4389
3710
2471
2464
2105
2282
+70%
759
644
975
1163
940
928
957
1200
1181
223
-71%
861
758
983
1247
453
310
319
714
455
751
-13%
Other
2890
3260
3163
2802
3162
3955
3673
4074
4410
3344
+16%
Total
11394
13869
19678
18965
16598
17209
9941
10289
9664
7900
-31%
6
Notes:
1
Excludes a small number of offences prosecuted under this Act which were categorised in this report as violent
offences or other offences against the person.
2
The Dog Control Act 1996, which came into force on 1 July 1996, replaced the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982.
3
Offences under the Income Tax Act 1976, the Income Tax Act 1994, the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, or the
Tax Administration Act 1994.
4
Includes convictions under the Sale of Liquor Act 1962 and the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 (from 1 April 1990), as well as
convictions under s.38(3) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (minors drinking in a public place).
5
This category comprises convictions under the Fisheries Act 1983 and related regulations, e.g. commercial fishing
regulations and freshwater fisheries regulations.
6
Includes a wide variety of offences such as breaches under: the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992; the
Insolvency Act 1967; the Resource Management Act 1991; the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993;
the Building Act 1991, the Telecommunications Act 1987; the Medicines Act 1981; and the Conservation Act 1987.
Convictions under the Fisheries Act and related regulations peaked in 1994 and the number
has been much lower since.
2.13 Regions where convictions were finalised in 2000
Table 2.15 shows the total number of convictions for each type of offence that were finalised
in each region in 2000. The regions correspond to the location of Community Probation
Service Centres around the country. The figures for each region include all convictions that
were finalised in all of the courts serviced by each Community Probation Service Centre.
The proportion of convictions that involved violence in each region in 2000 ranged from 4%
in Rangiora to 12% in Wellington.
24
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 2.15
Region
Regions where convictions were finalised in 2000, by type of offence
Violent
No.
Kaitaia
%
Other ag
persons
Property
No.
No.
%
%
Drug
No.
Against
justice
%
Good
order
No.
%
No.
Traffic
%
No.
%
Miscellaneous
No.
%
Total
No.
%
61
6
13
1
203
21
148
15
97
10
29
3
405
41
21
2
977
Kaikohe*
189
9
52
2
399
19
282
13
183
9
93
4
795
38
101
5
2094
100
100
Whangarei*
460
8
109
2
1201
22
667
12
490
9
432
8
1733
32
344
6
5436
100
North Shore
495
6
157
2
2059
25
782
9
674
8
433
5
3315
40
372
4
8287
100
Waitakere
575
9
153
2
1544
25
456
7
370
6
422
7
2563
41
167
3
6250
100
Auckland*
1807
8
482
2
7456
34
1377
6
1833
8
1906
9
6321
29
587
3
21769
100
Otahuhu/
Manukau*
1102
10
147
1
2723
25
458
4
1011
9
421
4
4066
37
975
9
10903
100
Papakura
560
9
113
2
1628
26
261
4
920
15
304
5
2177
35
185
3
6148
100
Pukekohe
119
8
17
1
369
25
93
6
195
13
51
3
598
40
60
4
1502
100
Tauranga*
454
8
114
2
1842
31
589
10
496
8
333
6
1838
31
225
4
5891
100
Whakatane
219
7
71
2
696
23
363
12
333
11
245
8
959
32
137
5
3023
100
Hamilton*
1105
9
226
2
3625
28
943
7
945
7
907
7
4179
33
865
7
12795
100
Te Kuiti
70
7
17
2
285
28
86
8
75
7
48
5
424
42
16
2
1021
100
Rotorua*
376
9
77
2
1072
25
526
12
395
9
269
6
1362
31
287
7
4364
100
Tokoroa
117
7
30
2
452
28
156
10
111
7
83
5
568
35
96
6
1613
100
Taupo
98
6
9
1
528
31
175
10
94
6
87
5
577
34
117
7
1685
100
414
11
90
2
998
26
271
7
493
13
356
9
1068
28
165
4
3855
100
9
164
13
96
8
394
31
42
3
1266
100
7
219
8
184
7
930
33
75
3
2804
100
New
Plymouth*
Hawera
141
11
22
2
297
23
110
Wanganui*
280
10
69
2
847
30
200
Taihape
26
6
12
3
85
21
83
21
10
2
14
3
164
41
9
2
403
100
Palmerston*
North
Levin
325
7
98
2
1592
35
370
8
259
6
319
7
1349
30
177
4
4489
100
110
9
33
3
306
24
94
7
126
10
83
6
439
34
87
7
1278
100
Masterton
220
9
75
3
515
22
195
8
233
10
221
9
801
34
83
4
2343
100
Hastings
334
7
111
2
1267
27
307
7
543
12
305
7
1701
37
91
2
4659
100
Napier*
349
10
73
2
939
26
283
8
383
11
343
10
1151
32
63
2
3584
100
Gisborne*
297
8
72
2
842
22
336
9
685
18
209
5
1191
31
255
7
3887
100
Porirua
284
7
67
2
1115
28
176
4
492
12
151
4
1486
38
167
4
3938
100
100
Lower Hutt
250
7
79
2
1057
29
164
5
438
12
172
5
1393
38
87
2
3640
Upper Hutt
125
8
38
3
362
24
131
9
160
11
83
6
516
34
82
5
1497
100
Wellington*
882
12
153
2
2532
34
469
6
504
7
628
9
1837
25
377
5
7382
100
Blenheim*
205
9
36
2
607
28
290
13
180
8
161
7
567
26
114
5
2160
100
Nelson*
298
8
78
2
1154
31
437
12
273
7
275
7
1026
28
157
4
3698
100
Greymouth*
78
7
17
1
308
27
170
15
65
6
67
6
370
32
73
6
1148
100
Christchurch*
1020
7
230
2
4905
35
1087
8
1081
8
688
5
4453
32
658
5
14122
100
Rangiora
35
4
8
1
180
22
42
5
29
4
34
4
458
56
31
4
817
100
Timaru*
267
9
64
2
893
29
385
13
161
5
265
9
936
30
109
4
3080
100
Dunedin*
433
9
151
3
1432
31
362
8
427
9
427
9
1285
27
171
4
4688
100
Alexandra
34
8
5
1
84
20
53
13
15
4
42
10
161
38
26
6
420
100
Gore
Invercargill*
65
7
26
3
301
30
54
5
66
7
105
11
332
33
44
4
993
100
360
9
98
2
1339
33
232
6
263
7
317
8
1224
30
202
5
4035
100
Notes:
1
The regions in this table are based on the location of Community Probation Service Centres. Each centre services one or more courts,
and the figures for all such courts were included in each region’s figures.
2
The figures in this table are charge-based.
3
The regions marked with an * have a High Court and/or hold District Court jury trials. Some types of cases must be tried in a High
Court, and in regions where the court(s) do not hold jury trials, if the defendant pleads “not guilty” and elects a jury trial, then the case
will be transferred to another court which does hold such trials. For this reason, some of the more serious offences which were
committed in regions such as Levin will actually appear in other regions’ figures.
25
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Property offences accounted for 19% of the convictions in Kaikohe, while in Auckland,
Palmerston North, Wellington, Christchurch and Invercargill at least a third of the
convictions involved property offences. The proportions for the other regions fell between
these figures.
Drug offences ranged from a low of only 4% of the convictions in Otahuhu/Manukau,
Papakura and Porirua, to a high of 21% of the convictions in Taihape.
Only 2% of the convictions in Taihape were for offences against justice, while in Gisborne
18% of the convictions involved such offences.
Traffic offences accounted for a quarter (25%) of the convictions in Wellington in 2000,
while in Rangiora over half (56%) of the convictions involved traffic offences. The
proportions for the other regions fell between these figures.
2.14 Gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders convicted in 2000
This section of the report presents information on the gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders,
as recorded on the Law Enforcement System. The gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders are
recorded by the prosecuting authority (usually the Police) at, for instance, the time of arrest.
See section 1.2 for a discussion of the accuracy of these variables.
The data used in the previous sections of chapter 2 were charge-based, whereas the data used
in this section are case-based. Generally, charges for which proceedings start or finish on the
same day are combined to form a case (see section 3.1 in the next chapter for a full
description of how cases are formed from charges).
Of the cases that resulted in conviction in 2000, and for which the gender of the offender was
known, 83% involved male offenders and 17% involved female offenders (see Table 2.16).
Table 2.16 Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence
and gender of offender
Offence type
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
8760
1200
14382
5794
5327
6619
34574
2317
1100
194
4164
1051
880
660
7468
495
0
7
4
0
2
1
88
123
9860
1401
18550
6845
6209
7280
42130
2935
Total
78973
16012
225
95210
Note: 524 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
26
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Eighty-nine percent of the convictions for a violent offence in 2000 involved male offenders
and only 11% involved female offenders.
Female offenders were responsible for 22% of the property offence cases and 18% of the
traffic and “miscellaneous” offence cases that resulted in conviction in 2000. Forty-seven
percent of the offences for which females were convicted in 2000 were traffic offences. This
proportion is only a little higher than the corresponding proportion for males (44%). Just
over a quarter (26%) of the offences for which females were convicted in 2000 were property
offences, while the corresponding proportion for males was 18%.
Of the convicted cases in 2000 for which the ethnicity of the offender was recorded, 47%
involved Europeans, 42% involved Mäori, 9% involved Pacific peoples, and 2% involved
offenders of some other ethnicity (see Table 2.17).
Table 2.17 Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence
and ethnicity of offender1
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
3649
636
7799
3714
2324
3434
16167
987
4480
606
7966
2779
3005
2996
11995
399
Pacific
peoples
1439
123
1299
243
478
645
2925
87
Total
38710
34226
7239
Offence type
European
Mäori
Other2
Unknown
Total
214
12
351
62
67
139
919
67
78
24
1135
47
335
66
10124
1395
9860
1401
18550
6845
6209
7280
42130
2935
1831
13204
95210
Notes:
1 524 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
2 It should be noted that for 79% of such cases, the person’s ethnicity was recorded in the Law
Enforcement System as either Asian or Indian. For the remaining 21% of cases, ethnicity was recorded
just as “Other”.
European offenders accounted for 37% of the convictions for a violent offence in 2000 for
which information on ethnicity was available, while Mäori offenders accounted for 46% and
Pacific peoples 15% of such convictions. Nine percent of the offences for which Europeans
were convicted were violent offences. The proportions for Mäori and Pacific peoples were
13% and 20% respectively.
European offenders accounted for 45% of the property offences in 2000 for which the
ethnicity of the offender was available, while Mäori offenders accounted for 46% of such
cases.
European offenders accounted for a greater proportion of the drug offence cases in 2000
than was the case for all the other types of cases except miscellaneous offences. Fifty-five
percent of the convictions in drug offence cases in 2000 involved Europeans. Only 3% of
27
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
the convictions in 2000 for Pacific peoples were for drug offences. This is lower percentage
than for Europeans and Mäori (10% and 8% respectively).
Forty-two percent of all convictions for Europeans were for traffic offences, while for Pacific
peoples and Mäori, the proportions were 40% and 35% respectively.
Nineteen percent of the cases that resulted in a conviction in 2000, and for which the age of
the offender was known, involved teenage offenders, 23% involved offenders aged between
20 and 24 years, 17% involved offenders aged between 25 and 29 years, 24% involved
offenders aged between 30 and 39 years, and 17% involved offenders of or over 40 years of
age (see Table 2.18).
Table 2.18 Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence
and age of offender
Offence type
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Unknown
Total
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
56
1
47
0
14
4
427
11
1416
207
4572
917
1082
1804
7125
391
2098
333
4809
1509
1841
2098
8723
330
1827
288
3015
1372
1178
1204
6586
304
2804
352
3968
2082
1447
1465
10079
621
1658
207
2124
965
582
703
9095
791
1
13
15
0
65
2
95
487
9860
1401
18550
6845
6209
7280
42130
2935
Total
560
17514
21741
15774
22818
16125
678
95210
Note: 524 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
Offenders in their twenties were responsible for 40% of the cases involving violent offences
in 2000, and offenders in their thirties were responsible for over a quarter (28%) of such
cases.
Offenders aged 17 to 24 were responsible for over half (51%) of the property offence cases in
2000. Offenders of this age (and in particular 17 to 19 year olds) were a little more likely to
have been convicted of a property offence than offenders of other ages.
Except for 14 to 16 year olds, the likelihood of a conviction being for a traffic offence
generally increased with age. Forty-one percent of the convictions of 17 to 19 year olds were
for traffic offences, compared with 56% of convictions of people aged at least 40 being for
traffic offences. Just over three-quarters (76%) of convictions involving 14 to 16 year olds
were for traffic offences.
See Appendix 3 for a cross-tabulated breakdown of the ethnicity, age, and gender of
offenders convicted of each type of offence in 2000. Appendix 3 also contains information
on the number of cases resulting in conviction for each offence type, controlling for gender,
ethnicity, and age separately, for each of the years 1991 to 2000.
28
Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
2.15 Victims of sex offences
Information is presented in this section on the age and gender of the victims of sex offences
that resulted in the conviction of an offender in 2000. Each charge which resulted in
conviction is counted separately in Table 2.19. Some offenders may have been convicted of
several offences involving a single victim, so the figures in the table may be greater than the
number of individual victims in each age category.
Table 2.19 Number of convictions for various sex offences, by age and gender of the
victim, 20001
Age and gender of victim2
Offence
Rape
Unlawful sexual
connection
Attempted sexual
violation
Indecent assault
Subtotal – Violent
Incest
Do indecent act3
Unlawful sexual
intercourse
Attempted unlawful
sexual intercourse
Anal intercourse4
Subtotal – Other
against persons
< 12 Years
12 - 16 Years
> 16 Years
Unknown
M
F
Unk
M
F
Unk
M
F
Unk
M
F
Unk
-
31
-
-
42
-
-
63
-
-
2
-
37
118
0
9
70
0
5
72
2
0
0
6
0
61
98
11
239
399
0
0
0
0
84
93
8
197
317
0
0
0
1
16
22
19
196
350
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
14
0
45
0
82
0
0
0
21
4
33
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
-
2
-
-
52
-
-
6
-
-
1
-
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
45
86
0
21
90
1
0
9
0
0
10
15
Total
143
485
0
114
407
1
22
359
2
0
12
29
Notes:
1 Only sex offences included in the categories “violent” and “other offences against the person” were
included in this table. Twenty-three of the “other sex” offences in Table 2.8 were excluded from this table,
as the offences were not able to be classified into one of the categories in this table.
2 The gender of the victim is indicated in this table by the abbreviations M = Male, F = Female, and
Unk = Unknown.
3 All nine of the female victims for whom the age was indicated as unknown were under the age of 17 years,
but it was not known whether they were under 12 years of age or between 12 and 16 years of age.
4 Fourteen of the victims for whom the age was indicated as unknown were under the age of 17 years, but it
was not known whether they were under 12 years of age or between 12 and 16 years of age, or what their
gender was.
In 2000, there were 1,297 convictions for a violent sex offence (rape, unlawful sexual
connection, attempted sexual violation, or indecent assault). Seventy-one percent of the
violent sex offences for which the age of the victim was available involved victims under the
age of 17 years: 497 (39%) involved children under the age of 12 years and 410 (32%)
29
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
involved victims aged between 12 and 16 years. Of these 907 offences involving victims
under the age of 17 years, 79% related to girls and the remaining 21% related to boys.
Over a quarter (27%) of the violent sex offences resulting in conviction in 2000 were
committed at least five years earlier, with 17% of the convictions in 2000 relating to offences
that occurred at least ten years ago (with 1 before 1960, 12 in the 1960s, 98 in the 1970s, and
111 in the 1980s). Most (87%) of the convictions for offences that occurred before 1980
involved victims who were at the time under 17 years of age.
In addition to the 1,297 convictions for violent sex offences discussed above, there were 277
convictions for other sex offences against the person in 2000. These are offences for which it
is not possible to know if the offence involved violence or the threat of such an act, so these
offences have been classified as “other offences against the person” rather than violent
offences. Most of these offences are not crimes if they take place between fully consenting
adults. They are offences when the victim is under the age of 16 years, is under the age of 20
and under the care or protection of another person, or is severely subnormal. In some of
these cases, there may have been force or coercion involved, but there was not sufficient
evidence to prove this. Had there been, the offence for which the offender was convicted
would have been one of the more serious violent sex offences. In other cases, the victim will
have been either willing, or will have been persuaded or tricked by the offender to become
involved in the sexual act.
Of the victims of an “other sex” offence for whom the age was known, 47% were under the
age of 12 years, 41% were aged between 12 and 16 years, 9% were aged under 17 years but it
was not known if they were under 12 years of age or between 12 and 16 years of age, and 3%
were aged over 16 years.
30
Sentencing for all offences
3.1
Introduction
This chapter examines patterns in sentencing for all cases resulting in conviction over the
period 1991 to 2000. The following types of sentence are examined: custodial sentences,
periodic detention, community service, community programme (formerly named community
care), supervision, monetary penalties (fines or reparation), deferred sentences (to come up
for sentence if called upon or suspended prison sentences), and “other” sentences (e.g. a
driving disqualification or an order under s.118 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 for treatment
of the offender in a psychiatric hospital). Data are also available on cases convicted and
discharged under section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
The custodial sentences are: life imprisonment, preventive detention, imprisonment, and
corrective training. Life imprisonment and preventive detention are both indeterminate
sentences where the offender is not eligible for parole until he or she has served 10 years in
custody. For both sentences, a minimum non-parole period longer than 10 years can be
imposed, and for a life imprisonment sentence imposed for murder involving home invasion,
a non-parole period of at least 13 years must be imposed. Life imprisonment is the
mandatory sentence for both murder and treason, and the maximum penalty (although rarely
used) for a small number of other offences. Preventive detention is available for repeat sexual
and violent offenders, but can be imposed on any offender aged at least 21 who is convicted
of sexual violation. Imprisonment sentences are determinate sentences that can be imposed
at the discretion of the court up to a maximum period expressed in legislation. Corrective
training is a three month custodial sentence with a rigorous regime for young people aged 16
to 19. It should be noted that as from 1 October 1999 some offenders can serve part of their
prison sentences by way of home detention. The courts, however, cannot directly sentence
offenders to home detention. Rather, they can grant the offender leave to apply to a District
Prisons Board for release to home detention once the offender has entered prison.
Information is presented in chapter 9 on the use of home detention in 2000.
The community-based sentences are: periodic detention, community service, community
programme, and supervision. Periodic detention involves an offender reporting to a work
centre for at least one day a week for up to 10 hours. A periodic detention warden supervises
the offender in unpaid work. Periodic detention can be imposed for a period not exceeding
12 months. Community service involves an offender doing between 20 and 200 hours unpaid
work for a community group. A sponsor from the community group supervises the offender.
Community care was renamed community programme from 1 September 1993 by the
Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 and involves an offender being placed in the care of
an appropriate group or individual, and participating in a programme for a period not
exceeding 12 months. Supervision can be imposed for a period of between six months and
two years. The offender is under the supervision of a probation officer and must report to
the probation officer, as and when required to do so. Additional restrictions may be imposed
31
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
on the offender by the court. These restrictions typically relate to the offender’s work,
education or training, residence, or associates.
The monetary sentences considered in this report are fines1 and reparation. Fines can be
imposed for nearly every offence. Reparation can be imposed whenever an offender caused
any loss of, or damage to, any property of another person, or where a victim suffered
emotional harm. (See chapter 6 for detailed information on the use of fines and reparation.)
Section 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 allows the court, instead of passing sentence, to
order the offender to appear for sentence if called to do so within a period of up to one year
from the date of conviction.
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 introduced the suspended prison sentence into
the range of penalties available to the courts from 1 September 1993. Where a court
sentences an offender to a term of imprisonment of between six months and two years, it
may make an order suspending the sentence for a period of up to two years. If the offender
is convicted of a further imprisonable offence within the term of the suspension, he or she
will be required to serve the prison sentence which was suspended, unless the Court is of the
opinion that this would be unjust. For detailed information on the use of suspended prison
sentences in New Zealand see chapters 8 and 9 of Spier (1998).
The information presented in this chapter is case-based. Charges were combined to form a
“case” if they had either the same first court hearing date or the same final court hearing date.
Two charges without a first or a final court hearing date in common can, however, belong to
the same case. This can occur if there exists another charge with which one of the charges
has the first court hearing date in common and the other charge has the final court hearing
date in common, or where a charge is not proved (usually withdrawn) on the same day that
proceedings for another charge are commenced in court. For a case involving more than one
charge, the charge taken to represent the case is the one that resulted in the most serious
penalty. If two or more charges result in the same type and length/amount of penalty, then
the charge taken to represent the case is the one where the type of offence committed has the
highest seriousness score using the scale described in section 2.4.
This chapter only presents information on the most serious sentence imposed in a case. For
example, if in one case an offender was sentenced to periodic detention and reparation for
one charge and supervision for another charge, the offender would appear in the statistics in
this chapter as having been sentenced to periodic detention for that case, as this sentence has
the highest ranking of these three sentences in terms of their “seriousness”. (This sentence
ranking was determined from factors such as the level of restrictions and requirements placed
on the offender.) Choosing only one type of sentence to represent the sentencing of a case
has the most effect on the number of supervision, suspended, reparation, and driving
disqualification sentences, as these sentences are the ones most frequently combined with
more serious sentences.
1 Only court imposed fines are included in this report. That is, fines resulting from the issue of an infringement
notice (for speeding or parking offences etc.) are not included in the data.
32
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
It should be noted that from a legal point of view, suspended prison sentences would fall in
the sentencing hierarchy between prison and periodic detention. However, Ministry of
Justice research has indicated that the majority of suspended sentences appear to be imposed
on offenders who would not have received a prison sentence if the power to suspend such
sentences did not exist (see chapter 8 of Spier (1998) for further details). Therefore, so as to
not misrepresent the number of prison sentences that would have been imposed if the power
to suspend prison sentences did not exist, suspended sentences were placed in the sentence
ranking below all other sentence types. For this reason, suspended sentences do not show up
in the case-based data as the most serious sentence for a very high proportion of cases.
Therefore, cases where a suspended sentence was the most serious sentence imposed were
included in the “deferred” sentence category together with “orders to come up for sentence if
called upon”.
Offenders who default in the payment of their fine or reparation sentence can be resentenced by a judge to imprisonment, corrective training, periodic detention or community
service.
Offenders sentenced to a community-based sentence can, under certain
circumstances, have their sentence reviewed, sometimes resulting in some other (possibly
more serious) sentence being imposed. Also, people who have a suspended sentence of
imprisonment imposed can have the sentence activated because of a subsequent conviction2.
All of these types of re-sentencing are not usually recorded in the data used for this report.
Therefore, the actual number of offenders awarded a custodial or community-based sentence
in each year is greater than the figures shown in this report.
3.2
Sentencing for all cases
This section presents information on the sentencing for all convicted cases over the period
1991 to 2000. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show the number and percentage respectively of cases that
resulted in each type of sentence for each of the years 1991 to 2000. Figure 3.1 graphs the
information displayed in Table 3.2.
Throughout the decade, 7% to 8% of people convicted each year have received a custodial
sentence, with the proportion being marginally higher in the last four years than in earlier
years in the decade. In 2000, 7,931 cases resulted in a custodial sentence, a lower number
than was imposed in the three previous years. (Table 4.3, later in the report, presents
information on the lengths of the custodial sentences imposed over the decade.)
Over the decade, between 31% and 36% of all convictions each year have resulted in the
imposition of a community-based sentence, with the 2000 figure (31%) being the lowest
recorded in the decade.
The number of periodic detention sentences imposed in 2000 (18,436) was the lowest
recorded in the decade. In terms of principal sentences imposed, periodic detention is the
second most commonly imposed sentence behind the fine (and third most commonly
imposed sentence in total behind fines and driving disqualifications). The proportion of cases
2 While the activation of prison sentences is not usually recorded in the data used for this report, the person is
often at the same time imprisoned for the reconviction offence, which is recorded in the data.
33
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
resulting in periodic detention fluctuated between 18% and 22% over the decade with no
clear pattern.
Table 3.1
Total number of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1991
to 20001
Sentence type
1991
Custodial
Periodic detention
2
Community
programme
Community service
Supervision
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
7739
7805
7989
7361
7246
7787
8102
8255
8177
7931
22548
21702
22065
20777
19437
19116
19510
21340
20481
18436
1123
1164
1058
899
880
703
430
379
287
204
9196
9765
9731
9406
8625
8030
7812
8525
8226
7135
3103
3939
4977
5166
5166
5037
5004
4550
4032
49738
52176
54715
54931
47515
47165
47326
47346
3141
3710
3779
3530
3146
3499
3233
3560
3502
3598
887
891
869
785
805
789
808
983
1116
1127
3377
4000
4195
4784
4902
4656
4068
4994
4982
5925
106142
100584
103363
104695
104922
104677
96515
100205
98647
95734
5
6
Total
1995
48444
4
Conviction &
discharge
1994
3010
Deferment
Other
1993
55121
3
Monetary
1992
Notes:
1
Only the most serious sentence imposed is shown for cases where more than one sentence was imposed.
2
Community care was renamed “community programme” by the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993.
3
On this and subsequent tables, monetary penalties are fines and reparation.
4
To come up for sentence if called upon or a suspended prison sentence.
5
Mainly cases that resulted in disqualification from driving, or an order under s.118 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 for
treatment of the offender in a psychiatric hospital. Deportation orders are also included in this category.
6
Conviction and discharge under section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
Table 3.2
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to
2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.0
6.9
7.4
8.4
8.2
8.3
8.3
21.2
21.6
21.3
19.8
18.5
18.3
20.2
21.3
20.8
19.3
Community programme
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
Community service
8.7
9.7
9.4
9.0
8.2
7.7
8.1
8.5
8.3
7.5
Custodial
Periodic detention
Supervision
2.8
3.1
3.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.2
5.0
4.6
4.2
Subtotal - Community
33.8
35.5
35.6
34.4
32.5
31.5
34.0
35.2
34.0
31.1
Monetary
51.9
48.2
48.1
49.8
52.1
52.5
49.2
47.1
48.0
49.5
Deferment
3.0
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.0
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.8
Other
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.2
Conviction & discharge
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.2
5.0
5.1
6.2
Subtotal – Other
7.0
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.4
8.5
8.4
9.5
9.7
11.1
The community programme sentence continues to be used less and less by the courts. In
2000, only 204 such sentences were imposed - which was 0.2% of all sentences imposed.
34
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
The proportion of cases resulting in community service peaked at 10% in 1992, then dropped
to 8% in 1995. Since that year, the proportion has been fairly stable at 8%. The number and
proportion of cases resulting in community service in 2000 were lower than in any other year
in the decade.
Figure 3.1
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to
2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
Custodial
Community
Monetary
Other
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
The proportion of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence increased a little
from 3% to 5% between 1991 and 1997. Since then, the proportion has decreased a little to
4% in 2000.
The use of monetary penalties (in particular, fines) as the most serious sentence has fluctuated
over the decade between 48% and 53% of cases. Part of the fluctuation is due to legislative
changes affecting the number of non-imprisonable offences resulting in conviction and a fine.
For example, the offence of “failing to register a dog” became an infringement offence in
1996 and caused a large drop in the number of fines from 1997. In contrast, the new powers
given to Police in early 1999 to forbid unlicenced drivers from driving until they have gained
a valid licence has led to an increase in 1999 and 2000 in the number of people convicted and
fined for “failing to comply with a prohibition of an enforcement officer” after they were
caught driving again without a valid licence.
Throughout the decade 3% to 4% of convicted cases have resulted in deferred sentences (to
come up for sentence if called upon or suspended prison sentences) as the most serious
sentence3. (See Spier (1998) for detailed information on the use of suspended sentences in
New Zealand.)
There has generally been a slowly increasing trend over the decade in the proportion of cases
in which the person was convicted and discharged. In 6% of cases in 2000 the person was
convicted and discharged – twice the proportion in 1991 (3%).
3 See section 3.1 for a discussion of the reason why suspended sentences were included in the “deferred”
sentence category.
35
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.3 presents the average seriousness of cases that resulted in each sentence, and the
average seriousness of all convicted cases. The seriousness scale used is described in
section 2.4.
Table 3.3
Average seriousness of cases resulting in each type of sentence, and
average seriousness of all cases resulting in conviction, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Overall
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
198
28
59
15
49
3
12
10
5
206
29
59
15
52
4
12
8
4
216
28
58
15
47
4
11
7
6
222
30
64
16
48
4
18
11
6
234
35
58
17
53
4
17
13
8
229
35
70
18
50
4
16
12
6
216
36
81
19
53
4
17
19
7
212
34
74
17
50
4
16
12
6
207
35
76
18
48
4
16
14
6
213
36
69
17
52
5
14
15
5
26
28
29
29
30
31
33
32
31
32
Note: The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are
calculated using the new scale.
As would be expected, the average seriousness of offences resulting in a custodial sentence is
much greater than for any other type of sentence. The average seriousness of the offences in
cases resulting in a custodial sentence peaked in 1995 at 234, then decreased in the next four
years to 207 in 1999, before increasing slightly in 2000 to 213.
Next in terms of average offence seriousness are community programmes. The average
seriousness of cases resulting in community programme sentences was higher in the second
half of the decade than in the first half. This trend is not due to an increase in the number of
offenders being sentenced to a community programme for “serious” offences. Over the
decade, the number of cases resulting in a community programme sentence has decreased
across all levels of offence seriousness, but the largest decrease has been for cases of low
seriousness (under 10). This resulted in an artificial increase in the average seriousness of
cases resulting in a community programme.
There has been little change in the average seriousness of cases resulting in periodic detention
or community service in the last six years.
The average seriousness of the offences committed by the people sentenced to supervision as
the most serious sentence has fluctuated between 47 and 53 over the decade with no clear
pattern.
Monetary penalties are imposed for much less serious cases, on average, than custodial or
community-based sentences. The average seriousness of the offences resulting in a monetary
36
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
penalty has not changed very much over the decade, with the 2000 figure (5) being marginally
higher than those in earlier years.
The average seriousness of cases resulting in a deferred sentence has been a little higher since
1994 compared to earlier years in the decade. This may be due to cases resulting in a
suspended prison sentence as the most serious sentence being included in this sentence
category from 1993. Such cases are likely to have a higher average seriousness than cases
where the offender has to “come up for sentence if called upon”. The 2000 figure (14) is the
lowest recorded since 1993.
Table 3.3 shows that the average seriousness of all convicted cases increased from 26 in 1991
to 33 in 1997. In the last three years, the average seriousness has been 31 or 32. Part of the
increase in the early 1990s may have been due to an expansion of police diversion, with a
large number of less serious offences not resulting in conviction. There was also an increase
in the number of convictions for more serious offences in the early part of the decade.
3.3
Sentencing for violent offences
This section presents information on the sentencing of cases involving all violent offences as
a group, then presents further information on the use of custodial sentences for individual
violent offences.
Tables 3.4 and 3.5 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving violent
offences resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000. Figure 3.2 graphs the information
displayed in Table 3.5.
The proportion of violent offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence decreased
significantly between 1991 and 1995 (from 27% to 19%), but has shown a slowly increasing
trend since then. In 2000, 22% of violent offenders were imprisoned. Some violent
offenders having their prison sentences suspended (from 1 September 1993) is likely to have
contributed to the decrease between 1993 and 1994 in particular. A significant decrease in
the average seriousness of violent offences resulting in conviction between 1991 and 1994
may also have contributed to changes in the proportion of cases involving violent offences
that received a custodial sentence in this time period. Changes in the seriousness of violent
offences resulting in conviction are examined in Table 3.6 later in this section.
Around half the violent offences resulting in conviction receive a community-based sentence.
The use of community-based sentences for cases involving violent offences increased
between 1991 and 1994 (from 44% to 52% of cases), dropped a little in the next two years to
49% of cases, then stayed at this level until 2000 when it dropped again to 47%.
37
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.4
Number of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
1746
1857
2184
2142
2176
2225
2230
2225
2180
2132
Periodic detention
1822
1956
2395
2937
2822
2695
2593
2763
2630
2588
Community programme
185
237
232
326
338
231
134
116
85
56
Community service
364
486
586
734
695
624
617
609
655
566
Supervision
498
630
1040
1841
1987
1871
1829
1770
1663
1389
Monetary
1314
1262
1713
2003
2223
2204
2159
2074
1887
2023
Deferment
480
572
693
876
838
940
855
890
804
804
Other
23
12
19
23
19
17
31
31
45
29
Conviction & discharge
85
126
153
291
340
242
233
261
274
273
6517
7138
9015
11173
11438
11049
10681
10739
10223
9860
Total
Table 3.5
Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
26.8
26.0
24.2
19.2
19.0
20.1
20.9
20.7
21.3
21.6
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
28.0
2.8
5.6
7.6
44.0
27.4
3.3
6.8
8.8
46.4
26.6
2.6
6.5
11.5
47.2
26.3
2.9
6.6
16.5
52.3
24.7
3.0
6.1
17.4
51.1
24.4
2.1
5.6
16.9
49.1
24.3
1.3
5.8
17.1
48.4
25.7
1.1
5.7
16.5
49.0
25.7
0.8
6.4
16.3
49.2
26.2
0.6
5.7
14.1
46.6
Monetary
20.2
17.7
19.0
17.9
19.4
19.9
20.2
19.3
18.5
20.5
7.4
0.4
1.3
9.0
8.0
0.2
1.8
9.9
7.7
0.2
1.7
9.6
7.8
0.2
2.6
10.7
7.3
0.2
3.0
10.5
8.5
0.2
2.2
10.9
8.0
0.3
2.2
10.5
8.3
0.3
2.4
11.0
7.9
0.4
2.7
11.0
8.2
0.3
2.8
11.2
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal – Other
The use of periodic detention for cases involving violent offences decreased a little between
1991 and 1997 (from 28% to 24% of cases), but has increased a little in the last three years to
26% of cases in 2000. Community programme sentences were imposed on 3% of violent
offences between 1991 and 1995, but the proportion decreased in subsequent years to 0.6%
by 2000. Throughout the decade 6% to 7% of violent offence cases have resulted in
community service. Between 1991 and 1995, the proportion of violent offence cases resulting
in supervision as the most serious sentence increased from 8% to 17%. This greater use of
supervision for violent offences was generally maintained in subsequent years, before
dropping slightly to 14% in 2000. The increase in the early to mid 1990s was due, at least in
part, to very large increases in convictions for male assaults female (mostly domestic assaults),
which result in supervision sentences more frequently than other violent offences.
38
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Figure 3.2
Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in
each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Custodial
Community
Monetary
Other
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
The use of monetary penalties for violent offences has fluctuated between 18% and 21% over
the decade.
Table 3.6 shows the number of cases involving violent offences with each level of offence
seriousness and the average seriousness of violent offences for each of the years 1991 to
2000. (The seriousness score groupings in the table have little inherent meaning, but are
merely a useful way of categorising offences - see section 2.4 for a description of the way
these seriousness scores are calculated.)
Table 3.6
Number of convicted cases involving violent offences with each level
of offence seriousness and average seriousness of violent offences, 1991
to 2000
Seriousness score
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0–1
>1 – 10
>10 – 50
>50 – 100
>100 – 500
>500
10
2274
2190
406
882
755
6
2423
2531
456
918
804
3
2797
3728
597
985
904
8
3158
5238
776
1043
950
5
3120
5296
793
1215
1009
7
3036
4909
832
1255
1010
6
2928
4596
873
1287
991
14
2935
4542
960
1276
1012
4
2747
4414
922
1181
955
1
2526
4349
932
1166
886
201
198
180
152
160
165
168
163
162
158
Overall average
Note: The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are
calculated using the new scale.
39
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The average seriousness of violent offences has been lower in the last seven years than in
earlier years in the 1990s. The lower average seriousness of violent offences in this period
may have contributed to a slightly lower proportion of violent offence cases resulting in a
custodial sentence in this period compared with earlier years in the decade (see Figure 3.3).
Percentage of violent offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence,
and average seriousness of violent offences resulting in conviction, 1991
to 2000
30%
250
25%
200
20%
150
15%
100
10%
5%
50
0%
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Average seriousness
% of cases resulting in
custodial sentence
Figure 3.3
2000
Year
Custodial %
Average Seriousness
The number of cases involving the most serious violent offences (with seriousness scores of
more than 500) increased from 755 in 1991 to just over 1,000 in 1995, and remained at this
higher level for the next three years. In the last two years, the number has dropped to 886 in
2000.
Trends in the number of violent cases with seriousness scores of >10 to 50 were influenced
by trends in convictions for male assaults female, as discussed in section 2.5.
Tables 3.8 and 3.9 deal with the custodial sentencing of a number of specific violent offences.
Table 3.7 shows the actual number of cases on which Table 3.8 is based.
40
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.7
Number of convicted cases involving each violent offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Murder
Manslaughter
Attempted murder
Kidnapping/abduction
Rape
Unlawful sexual
connection
Attempted sexual
violation
Indecent assault
Aggravated burglary
Aggravated robbery
Robbery
Grievous assault
Serious assault
Male assaults female
Assault on a child
Minor assault
Threaten to kill/do GBH
Cruelty to a child
Other violence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
23
33
8
40
107
35
40
6
27
101
25
37
5
40
149
23
22
10
48
148
28
37
6
56
169
27
28
8
75
161
37
26
15
59
128
24
43
4
66
130
23
27
6
35
116
29
21
7
44
99
99
126
161
155
134
146
116
119
123
117
43
32
37
34
31
33
32
21
27
25
282
39
236
138
539
978
1328
117
2294
150
8
55
336
35
301
115
507
1073
1554
140
2430
206
17
57
357
31
323
134
599
1443
2401
154
2802
248
21
48
364
42
335
130
778
1820
3445
231
3172
344
16
56
365
40
341
151
913
2077
3346
213
3127
330
12
62
353
43
342
165
928
2076
2977
225
3047
344
9
62
331
52
389
198
936
2118
2646
207
2934
370
6
81
304
44
401
189
1033
2242
2502
197
2951
388
9
72
298
41
395
177
979
2216
2331
214
2753
382
21
59
273
39
340
139
998
2320
2240
186
2534
379
11
59
Table 3.8 shows that, in 2000, 85% of the cases involving aggravated burglary and 64% of
cases involving cruelty to a child resulted in a custodial sentence – the highest figures
recorded in the decade.
The proportion of cases involving indecent assault, aggravated robbery, assault on a child, and
threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm that resulted in a custodial sentence in 2000
(46%, 85%, 16%, and 25% respectively) were the highest recorded since 1993, while the 2000
figure for attempted sexual violation (96%) was the highest recorded since 1991.
The proportions of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for all categories of (non-sexual)
assault have been a little lower since 1994 compared with earlier years in the decade. Part of
the reason for the lower figures in recent years may be due to the suspension of some
sentences of imprisonment.
41
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.8
Offence
Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of violent offence, 1991 to 2000
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Murder
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Manslaughter
88
95
97
82
86
89
92
86
89
86
Attempted murder
100*
83* 100*
80
100* 100*
93
67* 100*
Kidnapping/abduction
78
81
75
65
71
77
76
85
60
70
Rape
98
97
95
97
93
94
95
98
97
97
Unlawful sexual
91
91
89
86
76
86
80
91
89
90
connection
Attempted sexual
98
91
84
82
87
94
88
95
85
96
violation
Indecent assault
45
47
46
38
42
38
42
38
42
46
Aggravated burglary
69
66
74
62
50
70
54
70
78
85
Aggravated robbery
85
84
89
80
73
74
78
77
79
85
Robbery
57
63
62
48
61
53
67
57
61
65
Grievous assault
57
58
51
47
44
45
43
41
45
43
Serious assault
21
21
18
13
13
14
13
12
14
14
Male assaults female
20
18
18
13
11
12
13
14
13
14
Assault on a child
25
22
21
12
9
15
12
13
7
16
Minor assault
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
Threaten to kill/do GBH
22
25
25
18
17
17
20
19
24
25
Cruelty to a child
50*
47
33
38
50
11*
33*
56*
24
64
Other violence
56
63
44
48
48
42
47
53
41
37
Note: The percentage of cases resulting in a custodial sentence is not shown where less than five cases resulted
in conviction. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in conviction, the percentage shown
is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small number
of cases.
Table 3.9 shows the average length (in months) of the custodial sentences imposed for each
of the violent offences, as well as the average length of custodial sentences for all violent
offences. Violent offenders imprisoned in 2000 received sentences five months longer, on
average, than violent offenders imprisoned in 1991. The average length of custodial
sentences imposed on violent offenders in 2000 (26.2 months) was fractionally shorter than
the figure in the previous year.
From 1 September 1993, the maximum penalty for sexual violation (rape and unlawful sexual
connection) increased from 14 years to 20 years imprisonment. In addition, legislation that
came into force on 17 July 1999 increased the maximum penalty for sexual violation to 25
years if the offence involved home invasion.
Since the 1993 legislative change, the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for
rape have been considerably longer. In the period 1991 to 1993, rapists had sentences
imposed of 70.5 months (5 years 11 months), on average, but sentences increased to 97.3
months in 1999, before dropping slightly in 2000 to 95.6 months (8 years).
42
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.9
Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
violent offence, 1991 to 20001
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Manslaughter
Attempted murder
Kidnapping/abduction
Rape
Unlawful sexual
connection
Attempted sexual
violation
Indecent assault
Aggravated burglary
Aggravated robbery
Robbery
Grievous assault
Serious assault
Male assaults female
Assault on a child
Minor assault
Threaten to kill/do GBH
Cruelty to a child
Other violence
50.1
77.8*
34.7
69.8
60.0
92.4*
30.3
70.6
58.8
59.8*
44.8
71.0
64.4
36.0*
39.7
83.1
71.2
73.0*
39.1
85.7
48.3
95.3*
37.9
87.8
63.1
83.6
36.1
86.9
59.8
39.5
94.6
71.4
29.3
97.3
69.3
102.0*
36.6
95.6
42.0
43.7
43.6
52.1
53.8
51.8
52.6
51.5
62.6
61.4
39.0
43.7
30.1
40.3
43.8
41.4
61.0
47.1
49.2
43.4
15.5
17.2
34.7
17.5
19.0
7.6
5.9
8.7
2.4
7.9
17.6
18.1
18.4
41.4
12.6
16.4
6.6
6.3
6.0
2.5
6.2
15.3*
29.4
16.6
17.7
40.0
15.6
18.6
7.4
6.1
7.0
2.6
7.7
12.0*
14.3
19.7
22.8
39.0
19.4
19.3
7.0
6.0
6.5
2.5
8.7
11.7*
30.0
20.1
20.9
41.3
14.7
19.9
7.6
6.3
10.0
2.3
5.7
15.5*
16.6
20.1
23.8
38.8
16.0
21.1
8.1
7.1
6.9
2.6
12.0
17.3
19.9
30.5
39.8
20.4
21.8
7.9
6.6
5.5
2.4
9.4
22.0
20.4
33.5
40.1
22.9
22.8
7.2
6.6
6.9
2.2
7.0
12.2*
19.7
21.6
26.5
44.6
22.2
22.0
7.2
6.7
8.5
2.3
8.4
15.0*
17.9
20.9
42.1
41.5
21.4
25.8
7.5
7.7
7.6
2.0
8.5
14.3*
20.3
Overall
21.5
22.6
22.4
23.9
24.9
25.1
25.1
25.9
26.5
26.2
Notes:
1 No information is shown for murder as life imprisonment is the mandatory sentence for this offence.
2 The average custodial sentence length is not shown where less than five cases resulted in a custodial
sentence. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in a custodial sentence, the figure shown is
marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small number of
cases.
3 The average length of custodial sentences is calculated using all discretionary sentences (including
preventive detention), but does not include sentences of life imprisonment which are mandatory. Although
preventive detention is of an indefinite length, a value of 15 years was used in calculations as the
approximately equivalent finite sentence. People sentenced to preventive detention are not eligible for
parole until they have served 10 years in custody. Also, serious violent offenders sentenced to more than
two years imprisonment are not eligible for parole, and are released after serving two-thirds of the sentence
imposed, unless it is a term of 15 or more years in which case the offender is eligible for parole after 10
years. Hence, a 15 year sentence for a serious violent offence is the finite sentence which most equates to a
preventive detention sentence.
After remaining reasonably constant between 1994 and 1998 (at an average of 52.3 months or
4 years 4 months), custodial sentences imposed for unlawful sexual connection increased in
length by a little under a year in 1999 to 62.6 months, before dropping slightly to 61.4 months
(5 years 1 month) in 2000.
The Crimes Act 1961 was amended from 1 July 1999 so as from 17 July the maximum
penalties increased by three years or five years for a number of serious violent and sexual
offences if the offence involved home invasion. All of the categories in Table 3.9 except
serious assault, male assaults female, assault on a child, minor assault, and cruelty to a child
were affected by this legislative change. For manslaughter, the maximum penalty was already
43
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
life imprisonment, so the legislative change was worded in terms of regarding home invasion
as a factor that justifies the imposition of a longer sentence than might otherwise be
appropriate.
The average length of the custodial sentences imposed for manslaughter have been longer in
the last two years than in earlier years in the decade. In 2000, the average custodial sentence
imposed for manslaughter was 69.3 months (5 years 9 months).
Sentences imposed for indecent assault had been stable between 1994 and 1998 at 20.0
months, on average, but increased to 21.6 months in 1999, and were only slightly lower in
2000 at 20.9 months.
The lengths of custodial sentences imposed on people convicted of robbery tend to fluctuate
from year to year, but have been longer in the last three years than in earlier years in the
decade.
Custodial sentences imposed for “grievous” assault have increased in length, on average,
since 1992. The 2000 figure (25.8 months) was the highest figure recorded in the decade.
People imprisoned for male assaults female offences in 2000 were given sentences of 7.7
months, on average. This is the highest figure recorded in the decade.
Custodial sentences for “minor” assault have decreased marginally in recent years with the
2000 figure (2.0 months) being the shortest sentence, on average, imposed in the decade.
3.4
Sentencing for other offences against the person
This section presents information on the sentencing of all offences against the person other
than violent offences, then presents further information on the use of custodial sentences for
some of the individual offences included in this category. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of these
cases in 2000 involved obstructing or resisting a police officer or other official.
Tables 3.10 and 3.11 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving other
offences against the person resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000.
The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for an offence against the person
other than violence has decreased significantly since 1992. The proportion has more than
halved from 13% in 1992 to 6% in 2000. Part of this change will be due to changes in the
number of convictions for the different offences included in this category (see Table 3.12).
Periodic detention and community service have been used less often for other offences
against the person in the last five or six years compared with earlier in the 1990s. The 2000
figures for both sentences were the lowest recorded in the decade. The use of supervision for
other offences against the person increased from 3% of cases in 1991 to 7% of cases in 1995,
but has decreased since then to 5% of cases in 2000.
44
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.10 Number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Total
Table 3.11
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
118
231
13
74
28
416
96
0
56
141
263
10
85
38
371
118
3
66
146
285
7
100
61
446
113
5
72
127
270
12
112
65
484
135
2
96
109
274
15
81
96
591
143
1
127
121
243
4
87
85
653
165
0
144
89
237
6
74
71
523
156
0
122
100
272
2
82
82
544
169
0
192
83
253
3
83
65
540
153
3
157
86
195
2
60
67
599
185
2
207
1032
1095
1235
1303
1437
1502
1278
1443
1340
1403
Percentage of convicted cases involving other offences against the
person resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
11.4
12.9
11.8
9.7
7.6
8.1
7.0
6.9
6.2
6.1
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
22.4
1.3
7.2
2.7
33.5
24.0
0.9
7.8
3.5
36.2
23.1
0.6
8.1
4.9
36.7
20.7
0.9
8.6
5.0
35.2
19.1
1.0
5.6
6.7
32.4
16.2
0.3
5.8
5.7
27.9
18.5
0.5
5.8
5.6
30.4
18.8
0.1
5.7
5.7
30.4
18.9
0.2
6.2
4.9
30.1
13.9
0.1
4.3
4.8
23.1
Monetary
40.3
33.9
36.1
37.1
41.1
43.5
40.9
37.7
40.3
42.7
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal – Other
9.3
0.0
5.4
14.7
10.8
0.3
6.0
17.1
9.1
0.4
5.8
15.4
10.4
0.2
7.4
17.9
10.0
0.1
8.8
18.9
11.0
0.0
9.6
20.6
12.2
0.0
9.5
21.8
11.7
0.0
13.3
25.0
11.4
0.2
11.7
23.4
13.2
0.1
14.8
28.1
The proportion of such cases resulting in a monetary penalty has fluctuated around an
average of about 40% in the last six years. This is a little higher than the level in the period
1992 to 1994.
There has generally been an upward trend over the decade in the proportion of other
offences against the person that have had the sentencing deferred, or which were convicted
and discharged. In 2000, 13% of such cases had the sentencing deferred compared with 9%
in 1991, while 15% of cases in 2000 were convicted and discharged compared with 5% in
1991.
Tables 3.13 and 3.14 deal with the custodial sentencing of offences against the person other
than violence. Table 3.12 shows the actual number of cases on which Table 3.13 is based.
45
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.12 Number of convicted cases involving each other offence against the
person, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Incest
Other sex
Obstruct/resist
Threats/intimidation
Other
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
11
119
725
90
87
27
132
754
106
76
27
122
836
154
96
13
124
890
168
108
16
134
926
207
154
5
137
1005
195
160
4
89
856
207
122
5
98
938
241
161
1
76
822
270
171
4
94
864
281
160
Table 3.13 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of other offence against the person, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1996
1998
1999
2000
Incest
100
81
78
85
88
60*
80*
Other sex
55
59
63
53
40
50
42
48
57
48
Obstruct/resist
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Threats/intimidation
4
7
10
6
4
5
5
6
4
3
Other
23
25
24
18
11
14
15
10
12
13
Note: The percentage of cases resulting in a custodial sentence is not shown where less than five cases resulted
in conviction. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in conviction, the percentage shown
is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small number
of cases.
Although fluctuating from year to year, the proportion of “other sex” offences (not included
in the violent offences category) resulting in a custodial sentence has been lower in the period
1994 to 2000 compared with earlier years in the decade. (Note that “other sex” offences are
mainly unlawful sexual intercourse or doing an indecent act with or upon another person.)
The proportion of threatening/intimidation offences (excluding those involving threats to kill
or do grievous bodily harm) resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000 (3%) was the lowest
recorded in the decade.
Table 3.14 shows that the average length of the custodial sentences awarded for offences
against the person other than violence tend to fluctuate from year to year with no clear
pattern.
Custodial sentences imposed in 2000 for “other sex” offences (not included in the violent
offences category) were longer than in any other year in the decade.
46
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.14 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
other offence against the person, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Incest
Other sex
Obstruct/resist
Threats/intimidation
Other
33.0
29.1
1.6
13.8
43.2
24.1
2.1
2.6*
9.2
44.2
23.4
2.4
13.9
52.9
26.0
1.2
3.7
17.6
51.9
30.1
1.4
7.0*
17.2
28.0
1.5
2.5*
13.3
18.9
1.4
1.9
11.9
30.1
1.7
3.2
10.3
20.4
1.0*
2.7
8.0
33.1
0.9
2.3*
9.6
Overall average
21.9
21.7
21.2
21.2
24.7
19.6
12.1
17.8
13.0
20.5
Notes:
1
Sentences of preventive detention have been included in the figures shown for “other” sex offences and
the overall average. See the notes to Table 3.9 for further details on this.
2
The average custodial sentence length is not shown where less than five cases resulted in a custodial
sentence. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in a custodial sentence, the figure shown
is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small number
of cases.
3.5
Sentencing for property offences
Tables 3.15 and 3.16 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving
property offences resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000.
Table 3.15 Number of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
2348
2417
2415
2157
2121
2244
2397
2429
2456
2479
Periodic detention
6491
6485
6402
5509
5107
4875
5365
5560
5570
5064
Community programme
Community service
425
433
375
272
254
218
136
107
90
71
2517
2704
2802
2635
2366
2302
2267
2535
2760
2543
Supervision
1341
1285
1433
1545
1487
1484
1380
1386
1200
1132
Monetary
5821
5318
5440
5597
5693
5556
5346
5294
5387
5565
Deferment
1239
1609
1479
1227
1002
1117
1012
1107
1088
1042
45
33
25
19
31
22
20
22
19
26
360
402
497
634
619
568
562
668
646
628
20587
20686
20868
19595
18680
18386
18485
19108
19216
18550
Other
Conviction & discharge
Total
Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 requires that persons convicted of an offence
against property, punishable by imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, should not
serve a custodial sentence, unless special circumstances are involved. However, some
property offences have maximum penalties of more than seven years (e.g. burglary and arson)
so section 6 does not apply to such offences.
47
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.16 Percentage of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in
each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
11.4
11.7
11.6
11.0
11.4
12.2
13.0
12.7
12.8
13.4
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
31.5
2.1
12.2
6.5
52.3
31.3
2.1
13.1
6.2
52.7
30.7
1.8
13.4
6.9
52.8
28.1
1.4
13.4
7.9
50.8
27.3
1.4
12.7
8.0
49.3
26.5
1.2
12.5
8.1
48.3
29.0
0.7
12.3
7.5
49.5
29.1
0.6
13.3
7.3
50.2
29.0
0.5
14.4
6.2
50.1
27.3
0.4
13.7
6.1
47.5
Monetary
28.3
25.7
26.1
28.6
30.5
30.2
28.9
27.7
28.0
30.0
6.0
0.2
1.7
8.0
7.8
0.2
1.9
9.9
7.1
0.1
2.4
9.6
6.3
0.1
3.2
9.6
5.4
0.2
3.3
8.8
6.1
0.1
3.1
9.3
5.5
0.1
3.0
8.6
5.8
0.1
3.5
9.4
5.7
0.1
3.4
9.1
5.6
0.1
3.4
9.1
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal - Other
In 2000, just over 13% of property offenders were imprisoned. The proportion of property
offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence has been a little higher in the last four years
than in the six previous years, with the 2000 figure being the highest recorded in the decade.
In general, just under half the property offences resulting in conviction in the last six years
have resulted in a community-based sentence. This is a slightly lower level than in the period
1991 to 1993 when 52% to 53% of such cases were so sentenced. The use of periodic
detention for property offences has fluctuated a little from year to year, but has been lower
since 1994 compared with earlier years in the 1990s. Between 1991 and 1998, 12% to 13% of
property offence cases resulted in community service. In 1999 and 2000, the proportion was
slightly higher at 14%. In contrast, the use of supervision has dropped a little in recent years
from 8% of property cases in 1996 to 6% of cases in 2000.
The proportion of cases involving property offences resulting in a monetary penalty has
fluctuated between 26% and 30% over the decade with no clear pattern.
Conviction and discharges have been used slightly more often for property cases since 1994
compared with earlier years in the decade.
The number of cases involving property offences with each level of offence seriousness and
the average seriousness of property offences are presented in Table 3.17.
The average seriousness of all property offences has not changed very much over the decade,
with the 1999 and 2000 figures being marginally lower than those in earlier years. It appears
that the recent increase in the proportion of property offence cases resulting in a custodial
sentence that was highlighted above is not due to an increase in the seriousness of the
property offences resulting in conviction (see Figure 3.4).
The number of convictions for the most serious property offences (with scores >100) was
lower in 1999 and 2000 than in almost all previous years in the decade. The number of
48
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
convictions for property offences with seriousness scores of between 10 and 100, was lower
in 2000 than in all previous years in the decade.
Table 3.17 Number of convicted cases involving property offences with each level
of offence seriousness and average seriousness of property offences, 1991
to 2000
Seriousness score
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0–1
>1 – 10
>10 - 50
>50 - 100
>100 - 500
>500
1732
7684
6271
2429
2469
2
1846
7515
6570
2400
2349
6
2019
7495
6689
2196
2466
3
2220
6788
6414
1971
2192
10
2446
5888
6417
1776
2147
6
2360
5903
6307
1768
2038
10
2146
5843
6284
1990
2218
4
2302
6481
6267
1788
2261
9
2193
7178
6098
1647
2088
12
2276
6852
5674
1622
2110
16
38
38
37
36
37
36
39
37
34
35
Overall average
Note: The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are
calculated using the new scale.
Percentage of property offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence,
and average seriousness of property offences resulting in conviction,
1991 to 2000
16%
45
14%
40
12%
35
30
10%
25
8%
20
6%
15
4%
10
2%
5
0%
Average seriousness
% of cases resulting in
custodial sentence
Figure 3.4
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Custodial %
Average Seriousness
Tables 3.19 and 3.20 deal with the custodial sentencing of some of the property offences.
Table 3.18 shows the actual number of cases on which Table 3.19 is based.
As noted earlier, burglary and arson are two property offences to which section 6 of the
Criminal Justice Act does not apply, as the maximum penalties for these offences are 10 years
and 14 years imprisonment respectively. Table 3.19 shows that the proportion of cases
involving burglary offences resulting in a custodial sentence has been a little higher in the last
49
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
five years compared with earlier years in the decade, with the 2000 figure (38%) being the
highest recorded in the decade. The proportion of arson cases resulting in a custodial
sentence has fluctuated significantly over the decade, with the 2000 figure being 42%. (The
fluctuation in the proportion of arson cases that are imprisoned is not really surprising given
that this offence can involve a wide range of seriousness in terms of damage to property and
danger to life.)
Table 3.18 Number of convicted cases involving each property offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Burglary
Theft
Receiving stolen
goods
Motor vehicle
conversion
Fraud
Arson
Wilful damage
Other
4175
7264
1600
3989
7262
1786
3933
7363
1897
3430
6604
1669
3201
5938
1453
3111
5830
1352
3412
5842
1373
3259
6071
1406
3111
6302
1396
3091
6124
1292
1455
1399
1227
1226
1244
1293
1190
1172
1097
942
2727
109
1809
1448
2858
117
1876
1399
2829
125
2086
1408
2919
135
2293
1319
2894
132
2539
1279
2816
136
2444
1404
2860
139
2235
1434
2928
174
2386
1712
2763
130
2261
2156
2574
125
2347
2055
Table 3.19 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of property offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Burglary
Theft
Receiving stolen
goods
Motor vehicle
conversion
Fraud
Arson
Wilful damage
Other
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
29
4
7
30
4
8
29
5
8
29
5
8
30
4
7
34
5
9
34
5
9
35
6
10
37
6
11
38
6
10
16
17
19
19
20
20
20
22
24
23
12
48
2
8
12
52
2
9
12
45
2
10
9
51
2
8
11
45
2
8
12
40
1
8
12
44
3
8
10
39
2
7
11
52
1
6
13
42
1
8
For the property offences other than burglary and arson, the proportion of cases resulting in a
custodial sentence is quite a bit lower. For theft, receiving stolen goods, and motor vehicle
conversion offences there has been an increase in the proportion of people imprisoned over
the decade. In 2000, 13% of people convicted of fraud were imprisoned – a marginally
higher proportion than in earlier years in the decade.
Table 3.20 shows that the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for property
offences has shown an increasing trend over the decade from 8.0 months in 1991 to 11.3
months in 2000.
50
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.20 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
property offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
8.7
6.6
5.7
9.1
6.4
5.3
9.1
7.0
7.2
10.5
6.4
6.2
10.9
6.2
7.6
11.1
5.1
6.5
12.0
6.2
6.4
12.0
7.1
6.6
12.8
7.4
5.5
14.2
6.2
7.7
Burglary
Theft
Receiving stolen
goods
Motor vehicle
conversion
Fraud
Arson
Wilful damage
Other
6.0
5.6
6.3
6.8
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
7.7
7.5
8.5
18.6
5.8
5.0
8.7
16.8
3.3
5.8
8.9
23.9
5.2
4.7
8.1
20.3
4.9
5.3
8.9
19.7
4.2
4.9
10.2
23.6
3.6
5.6
9.3
24.3
4.0
5.0
10.4
19.7
3.6
6.4
9.5
24.8
2.4
5.0
11.1
23.8
6.7
7.1
Overall average
8.0
8.1
8.4
8.9
9.1
9.4
9.8
9.9
10.4
11.3
The length of the custodial sentences awarded for burglary increased over the ten year period,
with burglars being imprisoned for nearly six months longer, on average, in 2000 than in
1991.
Custodial sentences imposed for receiving stolen goods in 2000 were, on average, the longest
recorded in the decade.
Offenders imprisoned for motor vehicle conversion in the last two years received sentences
of just under eight months, on average. This is a longer period than in previous years in the
decade.
Custodial sentences awarded for fraud offences have been a little longer, on average, in the
second half of the decade compared to the first half of the decade, with the 2000 figure (11.1
months) being the highest recorded in the decade.
Offenders imprisoned for wilful damage in 2000 received sentences of 6.7 months, on
average, a significantly longer period than in any previous year in the decade.
3.6
Sentencing for drug offences
Tables 3.21 and 3.22 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving drug
offences resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000.
In 2000, a total of 710 drug offenders were imprisoned, the highest number recorded in the
decade. The proportion of cases involving drug offences resulting in a custodial sentence has
generally been a little greater in the second half of the decade, with the 2000 figure (10%)
being the highest recorded in the decade. Trends in the proportion of drug cases resulting in
a custodial sentence is, to some extent, due to changes in the seriousness of the drug offences
which resulted in conviction over the decade. These are discussed later in this section.
51
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.21 Number of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each type
of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
532
1613
53
590
169
3659
151
0
55
544
1674
41
695
187
3084
183
1
102
497
1954
45
772
258
3863
206
0
129
563
1847
43
812
269
4018
168
0
170
466
1417
32
553
245
3351
178
1
134
530
1438
27
535
252
3234
154
0
151
639
1465
24
569
283
3523
155
0
159
613
1952
15
639
297
3376
191
2
228
672
1711
16
535
255
3554
164
2
219
710
1575
11
465
232
3393
179
2
278
Total
6822
6511
7724
7890
6377
6321
6817
7313
7128
6845
Table 3.22 Percentage of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
7.8
8.4
6.4
7.1
7.3
8.4
9.4
8.4
9.4
10.4
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
23.6
0.8
8.6
2.5
35.5
25.7
0.6
10.7
2.9
39.9
25.3
0.6
10.0
3.3
39.2
23.4
0.5
10.3
3.4
37.7
22.2
0.5
8.7
3.8
35.2
22.7
0.4
8.5
4.0
35.6
21.5
0.4
8.3
4.2
34.3
26.7
0.2
8.7
4.1
39.7
24.0
0.2
7.5
3.6
35.3
23.0
0.2
6.8
3.4
33.4
Monetary
53.6
47.4
50.0
50.9
52.5
51.2
51.7
46.2
49.9
49.6
2.2
0.0
0.8
3.0
2.8
0.0
1.6
4.4
2.7
0.0
1.7
4.3
2.1
0.0
2.2
4.3
2.8
0.0
2.1
4.9
2.4
0.0
2.4
4.8
2.3
0.0
2.3
4.6
2.6
0.0
3.1
5.8
2.3
0.0
3.1
5.4
2.6
0.0
4.1
6.7
Custodial
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal – Other
The use of periodic detention for drug offences has fluctuated between 22% and 27% of
cases over the decade with no clear trend. The use of community service for drug offence
cases peaked in 1992 at 11%, and has generally decreased since then. The 2000 figure (just
under 7%) is the lowest recorded in the decade. Supervision was used for a slowly increasing
proportion of drug cases between 1991 and 1997, but there has been a very small reversal in
this trend in the last three years.
In general, half the drug offenders convicted receive a monetary penalty. The proportion of
drug cases resulting in a monetary penalty as the most serious sentence has fluctuated
between 46% and 54% between 1991 and 2000 with no clear pattern.
In 2000, 4% of drug cases were convicted and discharged compared with less than 1% in
1991.
52
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
The number of cases involving drug offences with each level of offence seriousness and the
average seriousness of drug offences are presented in Table 3.23.
Table 3.23 Number of convicted cases involving drug offences with each level of
offence seriousness and average seriousness of drug offences, 1991 to 2000
Seriousness score
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0–1
>1 – 10
>10 – 50
>50 – 100
>100 – 500
>500
3205
1008
1756
0
728
125
2663
1051
1889
0
771
137
3279
1368
2242
0
726
109
3132
1477
2095
1
1077
108
2386
1225
1739
15
895
117
2284
1263
1701
3
928
142
2394
1382
1845
0
1059
137
2524
1603
1908
0
1154
124
2507
1559
1789
3
1137
133
2357
1499
1670
11
1148
160
34
39
30
36
39
44
43
40
41
45
Overall average
Note: The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are
calculated using the new scale.
The average seriousness of drug cases has fluctuated over the decade, but has been a little
higher in the last five years compared with earlier years in the decade. The 2000 figure (45)
was the highest recorded in the decade. Changes in the seriousness of the drug cases resulting
in conviction may be one factor associated with the changes in the proportion of drug cases
resulting in a custodial sentence outlined earlier, as the trends seen for each of these show a
reasonably similar pattern (see Figure 3.5).
Percentage of drug offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and
average seriousness of drug offences resulting in conviction, 1991 to
2000
% of cases resulting in
custodial sentence
12%
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Average seriousness
Figure 3.5
2000
Year
Custodial %
Average Seriousness
53
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The number of drug cases with a score of 10 or less (mainly possession or use of cannabis)
has fluctuated significantly over the decade, which has caused the average seriousness to
fluctuate as well. The number of convictions for the most serious drug offences (with scores
>500) was higher in 2000 than in any other year in the decade.
Tables 3.25 and 3.26 deal with the custodial sentencing of some of the individual drug
offences. Table 3.24 shows the actual number of cases on which Table 3.25 is based.
Table 3.24 Number of convicted cases involving each drug offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Use cannabis
Deal in cannabis
Other cannabis
Use other drug
Deal in other drug
Other drug
3479
2384
504
184
191
80
2992
2557
519
149
201
93
3717
2849
705
172
194
87
3642
3046
735
183
203
81
2759
2533
615
190
201
79
2688
2495
616
199
248
75
2836
2779
674
222
219
87
2912
2928
975
181
217
100
2836
2806
984
207
214
81
2615
2681
926
261
230
132
Table 3.25 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of drug offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Use cannabis
Deal in cannabis
Other cannabis
Use other drug
Deal in other drug
Other drug
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2
12
3
6
65
11
3
12
2
7
58
11
2
10
2
8
51
9
1
13
1
4
46
11
2
12
2
4
40
6
2
13
1
5
54
7
2
16
2
4
54
10
1
15
1
2
53
2
2
17
1
7
60
4
1
19
2
5
60
6
Table 3.25 shows that offenders are very rarely imprisoned for possession or use of drugs (of
any type), and the proportions resulting in a custodial sentence did not change very much
over the ten year period under examination.
The proportion of cases involving dealing in cannabis that resulted in a custodial sentence has
generally shown an increasing trend since 1993. In 2000, 19% of dealing in cannabis cases
were imprisoned, the highest proportion in the decade.
The proportion of cases involving dealing in drugs other than cannabis that resulted in a
custodial sentence decreased considerably between 1991 and 1995 from 65% to 40%. In the
next three years, just over half of such cases resulted in a custodial sentence, while the 1999
and 2000 figures were higher again at 60%.
54
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.26 shows that the average length of the custodial sentences imposed on offenders in
cases involving drugs have been greater in the last five years than in earlier years in the
decade, with the 2000 figure (17.6 months) being the highest recorded in the decade.
Table 3.26 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of drug
offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Use cannabis
Deal in cannabis
Other cannabis
1.6
10.4
2.3
1.5
11.2
1.3
1.4
10.0
3.9
1.5
12.2
3.8
1.2
13.9
3.9
1.1
12.8
2.9*
1.5
13.4
3.4
1.2
13.1
2.5
1.2
14.0
2.0*
1.0
14.2
2.4
Use other drug
Deal in other drug
Other drug
2.5
32.1
4.8*
1.7
29.7
3.8
1.8
32.7
7.0*
1.9*
30.4
12.1*
1.9*
28.5
3.3*
1.7*
34.0
7.3*
1.4*
34.8
3.3*
32.8
-
2.1
31.5
-
2.5
36.6
6.1*
Overall average
13.8
13.1
12.7
13.9
14.4
17.0
15.9
15.8
16.0
17.6
Note: The average custodial sentence length is not shown where less than five cases resulted in a custodial
sentence. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in a custodial sentence, the figure
shown is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small
number of cases.
Custodial sentences for dealing in cannabis have been slightly longer, on average, in the last
six years, with the 2000 figure being the highest recorded in the decade. Sentences for dealing
in drugs other than cannabis were also longer in 2000 than in any other year in the decade.
3.7
Sentencing for offences against the administration of
justice
This section presents information on the sentencing of all offences against the administration
of justice, then presents further information on the use of custodial sentences for some
individual offences against the administration of justice.
There are a number of types of breaches of sentences which are not recorded in the data used
for this report. Non-payment of a monetary penalty is a breach of a court-imposed sentence,
but a conviction does not result from the non-payment. As part of the procedure for the
enforcement of monetary penalties, people may be re-sentenced on the original charge for
which the monetary penalty was imposed. This re-sentencing is not recorded in the data.
People who have a suspended prison sentence activated due to a subsequent conviction are
not recorded in the data as serving a custodial sentence for the original offence. The
subsequent conviction is of course recorded in the data under the appropriate offence
categorisation. Offenders who are given a community-based sentence can have their
sentence reviewed and be re-sentenced on the original charge for which the community-based
sentence was imposed. This type of re-sentencing is not usually recorded in the data used for
this report. However, they can alternatively be charged with a breach, which is recorded in
the data and does appear as a conviction in the figures shown.
55
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Tables 3.27 and 3.28 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving
offences against the administration of justice resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000.
Table 3.27 Number of convicted cases involving offences against the administration
of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
880
1821
78
175
115
591
350
3
552
837
1983
68
179
174
590
421
1
626
848
2156
64
184
161
670
466
0
823
792
2237
44
183
200
768
370
3
909
734
2139
47
188
162
839
341
1
988
757
2240
35
151
202
684
291
0
991
797
2281
23
170
247
795
316
4
823
850
2594
43
180
280
718
361
2
852
804
2725
22
206
316
801
375
3
856
731
2848
11
172
272
793
437
6
940
Total
4565
4879
5372
5506
5439
5351
5456
5880
6108
6210
Table 3.28 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against the administration
of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence Type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
19.3
17.2
15.8
14.4
13.5
14.1
14.6
14.5
13.2
11.8
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
39.9
1.7
3.8
2.5
48.0
40.6
1.4
3.7
3.6
49.3
40.1
1.2
3.4
3.0
47.7
40.6
0.8
3.3
3.6
48.4
39.3
0.9
3.5
3.0
46.6
41.9
0.7
2.8
3.8
49.1
41.8
0.4
3.1
4.5
49.9
44.1
0.7
3.1
4.8
52.7
44.6
0.4
3.4
5.2
53.5
45.9
0.2
2.8
4.4
53.2
Monetary
12.9
12.1
12.5
13.9
15.4
12.8
14.6
12.2
13.1
12.8
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal – Other
7.7
0.1
12.1
19.8
8.6
0.0
12.8
21.5
8.7
0.0
15.3
24.0
6.7
0.1
16.5
23.3
6.3
0.0
18.2
24.5
5.4
0.0
18.5
24.0
5.8
0.1
15.1
20.9
6.1
0.0
14.5
20.7
6.1
0.0
14.0
20.2
7.0
0.1
15.1
22.3
Table 3.28 shows that custodial sentences were imposed for a decreasing proportion of
offences against the administration of justice over the decade (from 19% in 1991 to 12% in
2000). Part of the reason for this change is changes in the number of convictions over the
decade for the various offences against justice (see Table 3.29).
The use of community-based sentences for offences against the administration of justice has
increased in the last five years from 47% in 1995 to 53% in 2000. There have been increases
in the use of both periodic detention and supervision for such offences.
56
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
The use of monetary penalties as the most serious sentence for cases involving offences
against the administration of justice has fluctuated between 12% and 15% with no clear
pattern since 1991.
In 1991, 12% of the cases involving an offence against justice were convicted and discharged,
but by 1996 the proportion had increased to 19%. In the last four years the proportion has
been between 14% and 15%.
Tables 3.30 and 3.31 deal with the custodial sentencing of individual offences against the
administration of justice. Table 3.29 shows the actual number of cases on which Table 3.30 is
based.
Table 3.29 Number of convicted cases involving each offence against the
administration of justice, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Breach periodic
2655
2905
3212
3399
3359
3396
3069
3315
3366
3525
detention
Breach supervision
231
257
298
332
331
263
300
273
284
248
Breach parole
126
168
236
156
98
92
69
98
98
107
Breach community
206
271
361
306
320
258
247
205
172
190
service
Failure to answer bail
517
447
445
438
516
514
573
534
618
625
Breach non-moltn/
136
178
213
236
231
280
589
887
1033
1011
protection order1
Escape custody
204
231
164
196
223
195
200
206
197
164
Obstruct/pervert
64
79
68
88
60
87
129
102
92
95
course of justice
Other
426
343
375
355
301
266
280
260
248
245
Note:
1
Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1995.
Table 3.30 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of
offence against the administration of justice, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Breach periodic
detention
Breach supervision
Breach parole
Breach community
service
Failure to answer bail
Breach non-moltn/
protection order
Escape custody
Obstruct/pervert
course of justice
Other
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
22
19
19
17
16
15
16
15
14
12
1
25
0
1
20
0
1
22
1
0
15
0
0
14
0
0
20
0
0
20
0
0
17
0
0
12
0
0
12
1
15
11
9
10
10
13
11
11
13
11
6
7
7
12
10
13
11
13
11
11
63
27
59
33
49
28
46
24
39
20
45
33
50
33
57
30
45
39
37
34
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
8
3
7
57
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.30 shows a downward trend through the decade in the proportion of cases resulting
in imprisonment for breaching the conditions of a periodic detention sentence. The
proportion has decreased from 22% in 1991 to 12% in 2000.
Breaching the conditions of a supervision sentence is not an imprisonable offence. The small
number of convictions for breaches of supervision that resulted in a custodial sentence from
1990 may have occurred because people who fail to comply with the conditions of their
supervision sentence can have their sentence reviewed and be re-sentenced to a custodial
sentence on the original offence for which supervision was imposed. This type of resentencing does not usually appear in the data used to produce this report, but a few people
may have appeared in the data as having received a custodial sentence for a breach of
supervision, rather than as a review of their original supervision sentence.
Breaching a community service sentence is also not an imprisonable offence. As was the case
with supervision, the small proportion of cases showing as having resulted in a custodial
sentence in 1993 and 2000 may be due to offenders having their original sentence reviewed
and having a custodial sentence imposed instead. This type of re-sentencing does not usually
appear in the data.
The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for breach of parole (i.e. breaching
the conditions of release from prison) has been lower in the last two years than in earlier years
in the decade. It should be noted that some people may be recalled to prison on their original
charge in place of having a breach offence laid against them, or in place of an imprisonment
sentence for the breach offence.
The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for failure to answer bail has
fluctuated between 9% and 13% since 1992. It should be noted that some people may be
remanded in custody for the remainder of the case and/or imprisoned for the original charge
they were given bail for, rather than imprisoned for failure to answer bail.
Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders when the Domestic Violence Act
1995 was introduced on 1 July 1996. A slightly greater proportion of cases involving breaches
of these orders has resulted in a custodial sentence since 1994 than in earlier years in the
decade.
Table 3.31 shows the average length of the custodial sentences (in months) imposed for a
selection of the offences against the administration of justice, as well as for all offences
against the administration of justice as a group.
The average length of the custodial sentences imposed in cases where the most serious
offence was an offence against the administration of justice has changed very little over the
decade.
Custodial sentences imposed for breaching a protection order were a little longer, on average,
in the period 1997 to 2000 than the custodial sentences imposed for breaching nonmolestation orders in earlier years. The maximum penalty for breaching a non-molestation
order was three months imprisonment, whereas the maximum penalty for breaching a
protection order is six months imprisonment. However, if a person contravenes a protection
58
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
order or fails to comply with a condition of a protection order, and the person has two other
convictions for similar breaches (including breaches of a non-molestation order) within the
three previous years, then a penalty of up to two years imprisonment may be imposed.
Table 3.31 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
offence against the administration of justice, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Breach periodic
detention
Breach supervision
Breach parole
Breach community
service
Failure to answer bail
Breach non-moltn/
protection order
Escape custody
Obstruct/pervert
course of justice
Other
Overall average
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
-
1.7
-
1.7
-
1.6
-
1.9
-
1.5
-
1.6
-
1.5
-
1.3
-
1.6
-
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.2
3.7
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.1
-
2.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.0
3.4
2.9
3.3
3.3
4.4
9.0
4.3
6.6
4.8
8.2
4.0
10.7
4.5
12.9
5.3
9.1
4.9
9.0
6.5
12.4
4.5
9.8
5.4
10.3
5.0
3.7
6.8
5.2
2.8
5.1
12.5
5.0
3.1*
7.0
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.9
Note: The average custodial sentence length is not shown where less than five cases resulted in a custodial
sentence. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in a custodial sentence, the figure
shown is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small
number of cases.
3.8
Sentencing for offences against good order
This section presents information on the sentencing of all offences against good order, then
presents further information on the use of custodial sentences for some individual offences
against good order.
Tables 3.32 and 3.33 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving
offences against good order resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000.
The proportion of cases involving offences against good order that resulted in a custodial
sentence remained between 2% and 3% between 1991 and 1998, but has decreased marginally
in the last two years to 1.7% in 2000.
The proportion of cases involving offences against good order resulting in a communitybased sentence has fluctuated over the decade, with the 2000 figure (just under 13%) being
the lowest recorded in the decade. The use of periodic detention has decreased over the
decade for offences against good order.
59
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.32 Number of convicted cases involving offences against good order
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
102
573
25
116
120
2095
644
5
331
106
563
18
188
140
1819
605
4
331
129
595
21
186
142
2647
611
6
442
133
575
24
188
152
3014
572
2
547
141
500
17
157
189
3648
491
1
637
153
502
12
148
169
3721
687
1
726
141
553
7
169
158
3677
610
4
764
153
611
3
167
159
3564
696
4
1014
128
678
10
222
181
3919
731
9
980
125
588
4
153
169
4356
820
3
1062
Total
4011
3774
4779
5207
5781
6119
6083
6371
6858
7280
Table 3.33 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against good order
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.7
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
14.3
0.6
2.9
3.0
20.8
14.9
0.5
5.0
3.7
24.1
12.5
0.4
3.9
3.0
19.8
11.0
0.5
3.6
2.9
18.0
8.6
0.3
2.7
3.3
14.9
8.2
0.2
2.4
2.8
13.6
9.1
0.1
2.8
2.6
14.6
9.6
0.0
2.6
2.5
14.8
9.9
0.1
3.2
2.6
15.9
8.1
0.1
2.1
2.3
12.6
Monetary
52.2
48.2
55.4
57.9
63.1
60.8
60.4
55.9
57.1
59.8
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal – Other
16.1
0.1
8.3
24.4
16.0
0.1
8.8
24.9
12.8
0.1
9.2
22.2
11.0
0.0
10.5
21.5
8.5
0.0
11.0
19.5
11.2
0.0
11.9
23.1
10.0
0.1
12.6
22.7
10.9
0.1
15.9
26.9
10.7
0.1
14.3
25.1
11.3
0.0
14.6
25.9
Custodial
The majority of cases involving an offence against good order result in a monetary penalty,
with 60% of cases being so sentenced in 2000. However, the proportion of cases resulting in
a monetary penalty as the most serious sentence has fluctuated significantly through the
decade.
The proportion of cases involving an offence against good order that were convicted and
discharged increased from 8% of cases in 1991 to 16% of cases in 1998. In the last two years
14% to 15% of such cases were convicted and discharged.
Tables 3.35 and 3.36 deal with the custodial sentencing of some of the offences against good
order. Table 3.34 shows the actual number of cases on which Table 3.35 is based.
60
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.34 Number of convicted cases involving each offence against good order,
1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Riot
Unlawful assembly
Possess offensive weapon
Offensive language
Disorderly behaviour
Trespassing
Other
6
24
661
365
1532
1194
229
2
28
599
324
1550
1080
191
2
24
708
350
2217
1324
154
0
33
728
388
2587
1315
156
1
54
663
393
3089
1429
152
8
23
671
378
3380
1530
129
5
54
692
358
3307
1488
179
2
26
769
362
3586
1477
149
2
16
775
421
3938
1573
133
17
16
705
387
4411
1617
127
Table 3.35 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of offence against good order, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Riot
100*
88*
40*
65
Unlawful assembly
13
36
25
45
30
43
11
19
13
13
Possess offensive weapon
8
10
9
8
9
9
9
10
7
8
Offensive language
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Disorderly behaviour
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Trespassing
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
Other
0
1
1
2
0
3
2
1
1
2
Note: The percentage of cases resulting in a custodial sentence is not shown where less than five cases resulted
in conviction. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in conviction, the percentage shown
is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small number
of cases.
Cases involving “disorderly behaviour” rarely result in a prison sentence. Some offences
included in this category are non-imprisonable.
Table 3.36 shows that the length of the custodial sentences imposed for good order offences
as a group has tended to fluctuate from year to year, with the 2000 figure being slightly higher
than the figures in earlier years.
61
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.36 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
offence against good order, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Riot
Unlawful assembly
Possess offensive weapon
Offensive language
Disorderly behaviour
Trespassing
Other
8.4*
5.4
1.6
-
4.1
4.7
1.6*
1.5
-
7.0*
5.1
1.8
1.8
-
6.7
7.0
1.8
1.9
-
4.0
4.7
1.4*
1.8
-
14.9*
3.0
5.0
1.5
2.0
-
3.3*
4.1
1.5
1.7
-
2.2*
5.2
1.1
1.8
-
5.9
1.3
1.7
-
14.5
5.5
1.7*
2.4
-
Overall average
4.4
3.5
3.8
4.8
3.3
3.7
2.9
3.4
3.8
4.9
Note: The average custodial sentence length is not shown where less than five cases resulted in a custodial
sentence. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in a custodial sentence, the figure
shown is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small
number of cases.
3.9
Sentencing for traffic offences
Tables 3.37 and 3.38 show the number and percentage respectively of cases involving traffic
offences resulting in each sentence from 1991 to 2000.
Table 3.37 Number of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
1943
1830
1663
1350
1422
1675
1725
1788
1788
1582
Periodic detention
9812
8562
8080
7226
7014
6970
6852
7347
6724
5396
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Total
330
336
295
174
167
169
97
91
59
47
5290
5338
5020
4648
4478
4078
3829
4190
3628
3088
638
580
757
837
922
1009
982
961
779
697
35434
29779
26662
26451
29619
29422
27381
27992
27662
28205
94
103
115
84
57
56
45
56
85
70
807
836
814
734
746
746
747
921
1032
1059
1260
1496
1161
1158
1185
1012
952
1246
1420
2290
55608
48860
44567
42662
45610
45137
42610
44592
43177
42434
The use of imprisonment for traffic offences has not changed much over the decade, with 3%
to 4% of traffic cases resulting in a custodial sentence each year. Despite only a small
proportion of traffic offences resulting in a custodial sentence, a reasonably large number of
people are imprisoned for traffic offending each year due to the very large number of
convictions for these offences. In 2000, there were 1,582 traffic cases that resulted in a
custodial sentence.
62
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.38 Percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in
each type of sentence, 1991 to 20001
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.2
3.1
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.7
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
17.6
0.6
9.5
1.1
28.9
17.5
0.7
10.9
1.2
30.3
18.1
0.7
11.3
1.7
31.8
16.9
0.4
10.9
2.0
30.2
15.4
0.4
9.8
2.0
27.6
15.4
0.4
9.0
2.2
27.1
16.1
0.2
9.0
2.3
27.6
16.5
0.2
9.4
2.2
28.2
15.6
0.1
8.4
1.8
25.9
12.7
0.1
7.3
1.6
21.7
Monetary
63.7
60.9
59.8
62.0
64.9
65.2
64.3
62.8
64.1
66.5
Deferment
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
Other
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.5
Conviction & discharge
2.3
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.8
3.3
5.4
Subtotal – Other
3.9
5.0
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.0
4.1
5.0
5.9
8.1
Note:
1
Although driving disqualifcations are not often imposed as the most serious sentence in traffic cases, the
majority of traffic cases result in such a sentence. For example, in 2000, 66% of traffic cases resulted in
a driving disqualification as any of the sentences imposed in the case.
The number of community-based sentences imposed for serious traffic offences has
fluctuated significantly from year to year, partly due to changes in the number of convictions
for serious traffic offences. The proportion of traffic cases resulting in a community-based
sentence in 2000 (22%) was the lowest recorded in the decade.
Periodic detention accounted for 13% of the sentences imposed on convicted traffic cases in
2000, compared with 15% to 18% in previous years in the decade.
The number and proportion of cases involving a traffic offence resulting in a community
programme has shown a downward trend since 1992. Only 0.1% of traffic cases in 2000
resulted in a community programme.
In 1993, 11% of traffic cases resulted in community service, but the proportion has decreased
since then to 7% in 2000.
Throughout the ten year period, a monetary penalty was by far the most likely outcome of a
conviction for cases involving a traffic offence. In 2000, 66% of traffic cases resulted in a
monetary penalty, the highest figure recorded in the decade. Part of the increase in the
proportion of traffic cases resulting in a monetary penalty in the last two years was large
increases in convictions for “failing to comply with a prohibition of an enforcement officer”
(which was discussed in section 2.11), with a subsequent large increase in the number of cases
resulting in a fine.
Tables 3.40 and 3.41 deal with the custodial sentencing of some of the more serious traffic
offences. Table 3.39 shows the actual number of cases that Table 3.40 is based on.
63
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.39 Number of convicted cases involving each traffic offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Driving causing death
or injury
Driving with excess
alcohol
Driving while
disqualified
Reckless/dangerous
driving
Careless driving
1143
1091
1091
1074
1144
1064
1040
1093
1069
987
25718
20703
19644
18597
20969
20993
20282
20421
19589
18930
9682
9043
8221
7863
7730
8160
7861
8605
7547
5755
1657
1416
1316
1377
1559
1578
1633
1790
1862
1616
Other traffic
9904
9703
8557
8485
9073
8208
7011
7695
6915
6275
7504
6904
5738
5266
5135
5134
4783
4988
6195
8871
Table 3.40 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of traffic offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Driving causing death
or injury
Driving with excess
alcohol
Driving while
disqualified
Reckless/dangerous
Driving
Careless driving
Other traffic
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
15
15
14
12
13
14
15
14
14
15
2
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Only a small proportion of cases involving driving causing death or injury resulted in a
custodial sentence in each year over the ten year period, with the proportion remaining
around 6% from 1994 – a slightly lower level than in the period 1991 to 1993.
In the period 1991 to 1998, 1% to 2% of driving with excess alcohol resulted in a custodial
sentence. The 1999 and 2000 figures (both 3%) were slightly higher than this level. This may
be related to the legislative change in maximum penalty for repeat drunk driving which is
outlined below.
The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for driving while disqualified is not
large (between 12% and 15% over the ten year period). However, the large number of cases
resulting in conviction for this offence means a sizeable number of offenders are imprisoned
each year for driving while disqualified. In 2000, 866 cases of this type resulted in
imprisonment. This is the lowest number of driving while disqualified offenders imprisoned
in the decade. This result is not surprising given the large drop in the number of convictions
for this offence in 2000.
The proportion of cases involving reckless or dangerous driving resulting in a custodial
sentence has remained between 2% and 4% through the decade.
64
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.41 shows that the average length of custodial sentences imposed for all traffic offence
cases has increased in the last four years after a period of stability up to 1996. Traffic cases
resulted in custodial sentences of about 5 months, on average, between 1991 and 1996, but by
2000 the average had increased to 7 months.
Table 3.41 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
traffic offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Driving causing death
or injury
Driving with excess
alcohol
Driving while
disqualified
Reckless/dangerous
driving
Careless driving
8.5
11.9
10.3
11.9
11.6
11.7
15.5
12.7
13.1
16.9
2.1
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
4.0
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.9
6.4
6.6
6.9
7.6
2.1
2.9
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.2
1.9
1.7
3.5
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other traffic
6.3*
5.5*
3.1*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Overall average
4.9
5.2
4.9
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.4
5.6
6.1
7.0
Note: The average custodial sentence length is not shown where less than five cases resulted in a custodial
sentence. Where at least five, but fewer than ten cases resulted in a custodial sentence, the figure
shown is marked with an * to signify that it must be treated with caution as it is calculated from a small
number of cases.
The Land Transport Act 1998 changed the penalties for some traffic offences from 1 March
1999. Maximum prison sentences and maximum fines were changed for many offences.
Some of these changes are discussed below.
Maximum prison sentences did not change under the 1998 Act for driving offences involving
the death or injury of another person, or for reckless/dangerous driving.
The custodial sentences imposed in cases involving driving causing death or injury tend to
fluctuate from year to year but have generally shown an upward trend over the decade. In
2000, the average custodial sentence imposed was 16.9 months – double that in 1991
(8.5 months).
Before the Land Transport Act 1998, the maximum penalty for driving with excess alcohol
(excluding cases resulting in death and injury) was three months imprisonment regardless of
the number of previous occasions the person had been convicted of the offence. Now,
people convicted of driving with excess alcohol for the third or subsequent time can be
imprisoned for up to two years, while first or second time offenders can still only be
imprisoned for up to three months.
Not surprisingly, the average length of custodial sentences awarded in driving with excess
alcohol cases increased in both 1999 and 2000. The average sentence in 2000 was 5.6 months
- almost three times the average in the period 1991 to 1998 (2.1 months).
65
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Under the Land Transport Act 1998, the same penalty structure as that described above for
driving with excess alcohol exists for driving while disqualified. Prior to the legislative
change, the maximum penalty for a first time driving while disqualified offender was three
months imprisonment, and for all repeat offenders the maximum penalty was five years
imprisonment.
Despite the maximum penalty decreasing from five years to two years imprisonment for a
third or subsequent driving while disqualified offence, the average length of custodial
sentences awarded for such offences increased in both 1999 and 2000, and the 2000 figure
was in fact the highest recorded in the decade. However, this increase may be partly artificial.
In cases where a drunk driver is also found to be a disqualified driver, and is convicted on
both offences, there has been a shift in the sentences imposed in the last two years, with large
increases in the sentences imposed for the drunk driving offence. This has resulted in a shift
in the major offence in some cases from driving while disqualified to driving with excess
alcohol. If the remaining cases that still have driving while disqualified as the most serious
offence are more serious cases, on average, then it would be expected that the average
sentence imposed would also be longer.
Between 1991 and 1998, the length of the custodial sentences imposed in reckless or
dangerous driving cases averaged around two months, but in the last two years, sentences for
such offences have averaged just over three months.
3.10 Sentencing for miscellaneous offences
Table 3.42 shows that miscellaneous offence cases rarely result in imprisonment or
community-based sentences. This is not surprising given that the majority of the offences in
this category are non-imprisonable.
Table 3.42 Number of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting
in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Total
66
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
70
73
107
97
77
82
84
97
66
86
185
216
198
176
164
153
164
241
190
182
14
21
19
4
10
7
3
2
2
2
70
90
81
94
107
105
117
123
137
88
101
69
87
68
78
94
87
69
91
74
5791
6221
8297
9841
8751
9457
4111
3603
3576
2412
87
99
96
98
96
89
84
90
102
61
4
1
0
2
5
3
2
1
3
0
678
851
918
979
872
822
453
533
430
247
7000
7641
9803
11359
10160
10812
5105
4759
4597
3152
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.43 Percentage of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences
resulting in each type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.6
2.0
1.4
2.7
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Subtotal – Community
2.6
0.2
1.0
1.4
5.3
2.8
0.3
1.2
0.9
5.2
2.0
0.2
0.8
0.9
3.9
1.5
0.0
0.8
0.6
3.0
1.6
0.1
1.1
0.8
3.5
1.4
0.1
1.0
0.9
3.3
3.2
0.1
2.3
1.7
7.3
5.1
0.0
2.6
1.4
9.1
4.1
0.0
3.0
2.0
9.1
5.8
0.1
2.8
2.3
11.0
Monetary
82.7
81.4
84.6
86.6
86.1
87.5
80.5
75.7
77.8
76.5
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
Subtotal – Other
1.2
0.1
9.7
11.0
1.3
0.0
11.1
12.4
1.0
0.0
9.4
10.3
0.9
0.0
8.6
9.5
0.9
0.0
8.6
9.6
0.8
0.0
7.6
8.5
1.6
0.0
8.9
10.6
1.9
0.0
11.2
13.1
2.2
0.1
9.4
11.6
1.9
0.0
7.8
9.8
Throughout the ten year period, a monetary penalty was by far the most likely outcome of a
conviction for cases involving a miscellaneous offence. A monetary penalty was the most
serious sentence imposed in just over three-quarters (77%) of the miscellaneous offence cases
in 2000. As discussed previously, the lower number and proportion of cases resulting in a
monetary penalty from 1997 is mainly due to the offence of failing to register a dog becoming
an infringement offence. This resulted in an artificial increase in the proportion of
miscellaneous offences that resulted in custodial or community-based sentences from 1997.
Tables 3.45 and 3.46 deal with the custodial sentencing of some of the individual offences in
the miscellaneous category. Table 3.44 shows the actual number of cases that Table 3.45 is
based on.
Table 3.44 Number of convicted cases involving each miscellaneous offence, 1991
to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Arms Act
Dog Control Act
Tax Acts
Liquor-related
Fisheries Act
Other
470
3804
316
586
348
1476
456
4386
573
497
267
1462
515
5660
1105
791
302
1430
468
6575
1507
975
302
1532
424
5701
1417
725
179
1714
411
6419
990
711
155
2126
410
1433
597
785
99
1781
445
771
551
1010
150
1832
451
485
432
977
197
2055
363
346
505
156
264
1518
Between 10% and 16% of the cases involving offences under the Arms Act resulted in a
custodial sentence over the decade, with the 2000 figure being the highest recorded (see Table
3.45). The most frequently imprisoned individual offences in 2000 were: unlawful possession
of a pistol or restricted weapon (section 50), and unlawfully carrying or possessing firearms,
airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives (section 45).
67
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 3.45 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type
of miscellaneous offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
Arms Act
Dog Control Act
Tax Acts
Liquor-related
Fisheries Act
Other
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
11
11
15
14
10
13
13
14
10
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
The “other” miscellaneous offences that resulted in imprisonment in 2000 included the
following: doing an indecent act or obscenely exposing oneself in a public place, doing an
indecent act with intent to insult, and offences under the Telecommunications Act 1987,
Passports Act 1992, Medicines Act 1981, Accident Insurance Act 1998, and Films, Videos,
and Publications Classification Act 1993.
Offences under the Arms Act received custodial sentences of nearly 11 months, on average,
in 2000 (see Table 3.46). The average length of the custodial sentences imposed for such
offences has fluctuated over the decade, with the 2000 figure being the highest recorded.
Table 3.46 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of
miscellaneous offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Arms Act
Dog Control Act
Tax Acts
Liquor-related
Fisheries Act
Other
6.7
8.4
7.4
7.7
6.5
9.4
10.0
8.3
9.4
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8
5.2
4.8
7.2
5.7
5.3
6.9
5.8
9.3
5.8
Overall average
6.7
7.3
6.7
7.5
6.1
8.0
8.8
7.3
9.3
9.3
Note: The average custodial sentence length is not shown when less than ten cases resulted in a custodial
sentence.
3.11 Sentences imposed in each region in 2000 for all offences
Table 3.47 shows the most serious sentence imposed for all cases finalised in each region in
2000. The regions correspond to the location of Community Probation Service Centres
around the country. The figures for each region include all convicted cases finalised in all of
the courts serviced by each Community Probation Service Centre.
68
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.47 Most serious sentence imposed for all convicted cases finalised in each
region in 2000
Region1
Kaitaia
Kaikohe*
Whangarei*
North Shore
Waitakere
Auckland*
Otahuhu/Manukau*
Papakura
Pukekohe
Tauranga*
Whakatane
Hamilton*
Te Kuiti
Rotorua*
Tokoroa
Taupo
New Plymouth*
Hawera
Wanganui*
Taihape
Palmerston North*
Levin
Masterton
Hastings
Napier*
Gisborne*
Porirua
Lower Hutt
Upper Hutt
Wellington*
Blenheim*
Nelson*
Greymouth*
Christchurch*
Rangiora
Timaru*
Dunedin*
Alexandra
Gore
Invercargill*
Custodial
No.
45
107
281
179
216
862
389
234
50
284
133
826
60
231
36
60
313
88
198
9
262
66
69
194
222
146
108
111
53
355
86
138
41
948
21
86
214
7
18
185
%
8
9
9
4
6
8
6
7
6
9
8
12
10
9
4
6
14
12
12
4
11
9
5
7
10
7
5
5
6
10
8
6
6
12
4
5
8
2
3
8
Communitybased
No.
%
146
27
328
28
893
29
1107
23
1226
33
2518
23
1981
33
1288
39
310
36
915
29
636
37
2033
29
229
37
767
31
274
32
240
25
781
35
306
41
627
39
60
25
688
29
262
37
438
33
999
36
768
36
864
44
872
38
762
37
323
35
1107
30
372
34
748
35
206
31
2428
31
166
29
502
27
819
32
58
19
162
27
598
27
Monetary
No.
275
565
1570
3026
1654
5588
2995
1334
406
1691
779
3469
289
1198
460
582
1006
308
619
160
1193
301
677
1145
916
698
1036
964
451
1734
525
1098
377
3790
328
1088
1233
216
381
1221
%
52
49
52
63
45
52
49
41
47
53
46
49
47
49
54
60
45
41
39
66
50
42
51
42
42
35
45
47
48
48
48
51
57
49
57
59
48
72
63
55
Other
No.
30
85
156
202
300
643
217
156
43
136
76
294
16
110
35
34
58
22
69
7
120
49
64
193
137
112
129
107
60
230
44
90
20
270
23
111
116
8
27
126
%
6
7
5
4
8
6
4
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
5
7
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
6
4
4
3
3
4
6
5
3
4
6
Conviction &
discharge
No.
%
36
7
79
7
137
5
261
5
284
8
1105
10
502
8
249
8
60
7
150
5
74
4
405
6
25
4
136
6
48
6
58
6
79
4
31
4
84
5
8
3
130
5
36
5
89
7
213
8
120
6
157
8
143
6
93
5
48
5
208
6
65
6
93
4
23
3
290
4
34
6
72
4
168
7
10
3
18
3
104
5
Total
No.
532
1164
3037
4775
3680
10716
6084
3261
869
3176
1698
7027
619
2442
853
974
2237
755
1597
244
2393
714
1337
2744
2163
1977
2288
2037
935
3634
1092
2167
667
7726
572
1859
2550
299
606
2234
%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Notes:
1
The regions in this table are based on the location of Community Probation Service Centres. Each centre services
one or more courts, and the figures for all such courts were included in each region’s figures.
2
The figures in this table are case-based.
3
The regions marked with an * have a High Court and/or hold District Court jury trials. Some types of cases must
be tried in a High Court, and in regions where the court(s) do not hold jury trials, if the defendant pleads “not
guilty” and elects a jury trial, then the case will be transferred to another court which does hold such trials. For this
reason, some of the more serious offences which were committed in regions such as Levin will actually appear in
other regions’ figures. This may contribute to sentencing differences between regions.
69
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
It should be noted that differences in the types of offences resulting in conviction in each
region (see Table 2.15) are likely to be a factor contributing to differences in the sentences
imposed in each region. Also, the availability of Corrections facilities and services (e.g.
periodic detention centres or programmes such as those to treat drug or alcohol related
problems) within regions can affect which sentences are imposed. It should also be noted
that not all regions have a High Court or hold District Court jury trials. Some cases must be
tried in the High Court, and in regions where the court(s) do not hold jury trials, if the
defendant pleads “not guilty” and elects a jury trial, then the case will be transferred to
another court which does hold such trials. This may contribute to sentencing differences
between regions.
The proportion of all convicted cases that resulted in a custodial sentence in each region in
2000 ranged from 2% in Alexandra to 14% in New Plymouth.
Community-based sentences were imposed in as few as 19% of the cases in Alexandra, and as
many as 44% of the cases in Gisborne. The proportions for the other regions fell between
these figures.
Monetary penalties were imposed as the most serious sentence for just over a third (35%) of
cases in Gisborne, while in Alexandra nearly three-quarters (72%) of cases resulted in a
monetary penalty.
Ten percent of cases sentenced in Auckland in 2000 were convicted and discharged. The
proportions in the other regions were lower than this, with the lowest figure (3%) occurring
in Taihape, Greymouth, Alexandra, and Gore.
3.12 Gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders given each sentence
in 2000
This section of the report presents information on the gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders
who received each type of sentence in 2000.
Only 8% of cases resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000 involved female offenders (see
Table 3.48).
Female offenders accounted for a much greater proportion of the community-based
sentences imposed in 2000 than was the case for custodial sentences. Over a third (37%) of
the community service cases, and 21% of the supervision cases and community programme
cases in 2000 involved a female offender. Twelve percent of cases that resulted in periodic
detention in 2000 involved female offenders.
Forty-six percent of the cases involving female offenders in 2000 resulted in a monetary
penalty, while for male offenders, the proportion was slightly higher at 50%. Cases involving
male offenders were more likely to result in prison or periodic detention, and less likely to
result in community service, than was the case for female offenders.
70
Sentencing for all offences
_____________________________________________________________
Table 3.48 Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious
sentence imposed and gender of the offender
Most serious sentence
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
7264
16269
162
4467
3185
39253
2731
928
4714
667
2163
42
2661
847
7422
865
198
1147
0
4
0
7
0
200
1
1
12
7931
18436
204
7135
4032
46875
3597
1127
5873
Total
78973
16012
225
95210
Note: 524 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
Mäori offenders accounted for over half (53%) of the cases resulting in imprisonment in 2000
(for which the ethnicity of the offender was available), while a further 39% involved
Europeans, and 8% involved Pacific peoples (see Table 3.49).
Table 3.49 Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious
sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender1
Most serious sentence
European
Mäori
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
3026
7201
41
2660
1665
20129
1598
424
1966
4117
8829
149
2662
1766
12538
1510
378
2277
Pacific
peoples
617
1540
12
645
435
3070
305
67
548
Total
38710
34226
7239
Other2
Unknown
Total
70
225
2
147
73
1108
82
11
113
101
641
0
1021
93
10030
102
247
969
7931
18436
204
7135
4032
46875
3597
1127
5873
1831
13204
95210
Note:
1 524 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
2 It should be noted that for 79% of such cases, the person’s ethnicity was recorded in the Law
Enforcement System as either Asian or Indian. For the remaining 21% of cases, ethnicity was recorded
just as “Other”.
Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the cases resulting in a community programme in 2000, and
for which the ethnicity of the offender was available, involved Mäori offenders. For the other
community-based sentences, the proportions involving Mäori offenders were: periodic
detention (50%), community service (44%), and supervision (45%).
71
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Fifty-two percent of cases involving European offenders in 2000 resulted in a monetary
penalty. For Mäori and Pacific peoples, the proportions given a monetary penalty were much
lower at 37% and 42% respectively.
Cases involving offenders in their twenties accounted for 42% of the cases which resulted in a
custodial sentence in 2000, with a further 15% of cases involving teenage offenders (see Table
3.50). (It should be noted that only 62 of the 1,192 cases identified as involving a teenager
and which resulted in a custodial sentence, involved 14 to 16 year olds. The rest of these
cases involved 17 to 19 year olds.) Only 15% of the offenders who were given a custodial
sentence in 2000 were aged 40 or more.
Table 3.50 Total number of cases resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious
sentence imposed and age of the offender
Most serious sentence
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Unknown
Total
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Monetary
Deferment
Other
Conviction & discharge
62
20
1
8
25
332
10
26
76
1130
3160
45
1736
770
8831
568
259
1015
1820
4756
48
1430
783
10744
607
185
1368
1507
3452
29
1005
707
7321
589
158
1006
2233
4740
58
1629
1114
10301
1087
271
1385
1177
2268
22
1308
623
8838
722
228
939
2
40
1
19
10
508
14
0
84
7931
18436
204
7135
4032
46875
3597
1127
5873
Total
560
17514 21741 15774 22818 16125
678
95210
Note: 524 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
Offenders aged under 25 years accounted for 43% of the cases resulting in periodic detention,
46% of the cases resulting in a community programme, 45% of the cases resulting in
community service and 39% of the cases resulting in supervision in 2000.
Over half the cases involving 14 to 16 year olds and those aged at least 40 resulted in a
monetary penalty. For offenders in their twenties and thirties, the proportion resulting in a
monetary penalty was a little under a half.
See Appendix 4 for a cross-tabulated breakdown of the ethnicity, age, and gender of
offenders receiving each type of sentence for all offences in 2000. Appendix 4 also contains
information on the number of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, controlling
for gender, ethnicity, and age separately, for each of the years 1991 to 2000.
72
Custodial sentences and remands
4.1
Introduction
The custodial sentences in New Zealand are: life imprisonment, preventive detention,
imprisonment, and corrective training. Life imprisonment and preventive detention are both
indeterminate sentences where the offender is not eligible for parole until he or she has
served 10 years in custody. For both sentences, a minimum non-parole period longer than 10
years can be imposed, and for a life imprisonment sentence imposed for murder involving
home invasion, a non-parole period of at least 13 years must be imposed. Life imprisonment
is the mandatory sentence for both murder and treason, and the maximum penalty (although
rarely used) for a small number of other offences. Preventive detention is available for repeat
sexual and violent offenders, but can be imposed on any offender aged at least 21 who is
convicted of sexual violation. Imprisonment sentences are determinate sentences that can be
imposed at the discretion of the court up to a maximum period expressed in legislation.
Corrective training is a three month custodial sentence with a rigorous regime for young
people aged 16 to 19. It should be noted that as from 1 October 1999 some offenders can
serve part of their prison sentences by way of home detention. The courts, however, cannot
directly sentence offenders to home detention. Rather, they can grant the offender leave to
apply to a District Prisons Board for release to home detention once the offender has entered
prison. Information is presented in chapter 9 on the use of home detention in 2000.
Information is presented in this chapter on the types of offences resulting in custodial
sentences and the lengths of these sentences. As well as this, information is given on the
average number of males and females in prison at any one time over the decade, and on the
number of cases involving a remand in custody in 2000.
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 amended the principal Act so that courts can now
impose a community-based sentence cumulative on a sentence of imprisonment of 12
months or less. Information is presented on the combined use of imprisonment and
community-based sentences since the amendment.
This chapter also provides information on the age, gender, and ethnicity of offenders in all
cases resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000.
4.2
Types of offences resulting in custodial sentences
The total number of custodial sentences imposed peaked in 1998 at 8,255 before decreasing
in the last two years to 7,931 in 2000 (see Table 4.1).
73
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 4.1
Total number of cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of
offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
Violent
1746
1857
2184
2142
2176
2225
2230
2225
2180
2132
+22%
118
141
146
127
109
121
89
100
83
86
-27%
2348
2417
2415
2157
2121
2244
2397
2429
2456
2479
+6%
532
544
497
563
466
530
639
613
672
710
+33%
Other against
persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
880
837
848
792
734
757
797
850
804
731
-17%
Good order
102
106
129
133
141
153
141
153
128
125
+23%
1943
1830
1663
1350
1422
1675
1725
1788
1788
1582
-19%
70
73
107
97
77
82
84
97
66
86
+23%
7739
7805
7989
7361
7246
7787
8102
8255
8177
7931
+2%
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Table 4.2
Percentage of cases resulting in a custodial sentence involving each type
of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
22.6
1.5
30.3
6.9
11.4
1.3
25.1
0.9
23.8
1.8
31.0
7.0
10.7
1.4
23.4
0.9
27.3
1.8
30.2
6.2
10.6
1.6
20.8
1.3
29.1
1.7
29.3
7.6
10.8
1.8
18.3
1.3
30.0
1.5
29.3
6.4
10.1
1.9
19.6
1.1
28.6
1.6
28.8
6.8
9.7
2.0
21.5
1.1
27.5
1.1
29.6
7.9
9.8
1.7
21.3
1.0
27.0
1.2
29.4
7.4
10.3
1.9
21.7
1.2
26.7
1.0
30.0
8.2
9.8
1.6
21.9
0.8
26.9
1.1
31.3
9.0
9.2
1.6
19.9
1.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Suspended prison sentences are likely to have affected the number of custodial sentences
imposed after their introduction in late 1993. Such sentences may have contributed to the
drop in prison sentences seen in 1994 and 1995 in Table 4.1. The figures presented in this
report for custodial sentences do not include people who had their suspended sentence
activated due to a reconviction, as data on activated sentences are not readily available.
However, imprisonment sentences imposed for “reconviction” offences are included in the
data.
Table 4.1 shows that the largest proportional increase in the number of custodial sentences
imposed over the decade occurred for drug offences (33%). In contrast, the number of
custodial sentences imposed for offences against justice in 2000 was the lowest recorded in
the decade. While the number of custodial sentences imposed in 2000 for violent offences
was 22% greater than the figure in 1991, the 2000 figure was the lowest recorded since 1992.
The number of custodial sentences imposed in 2000 for traffic offences was the lowest
recorded since 1995. Violent offences and property offences both accounted for over a
quarter of the cases resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000, while traffic offences accounted
for a fifth of such cases (see Table 4.2).
74
Custodial sentences and remands
_______________________________________________________________
4.3
Custodial sentence lengths imposed
Table 4.3 shows the total number of custodial sentences imposed of various lengths, and the
average custodial sentence length imposed over the period 1991 to 2000.
Table 4.3
Total number of custodial sentences imposed of various lengths, and
average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), 1991 to 20001
Custodial sentence
length imposed
Corrective training
2
<= 3 months
>3 to 6 months
>6 to 12 months
>1 to 2 years
>2 to 3 years
>3 to 5 years
>5 to 7 years
>7 to 10 years
>10 years
Life
Preventive detention
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
620
2467
1649
1615
705
272
238
93
46
4
23
7
543
2490
1748
1534
733
298
235
113
58
10
35
8
536
2567
1725
1579
767
289
279
128
76
12
25
6
440
2283
1503
1462
840
298
269
128
89
15
23
11
483
2262
1366
1396
869
311
267
145
92
15
28
12
470
2482
1366
1557
956
348
337
115
97
18
29
12
424
2562
1451
1585
1097
381
322
131
80
22
37
10
369
2641
1494
1546
1165
428
338
128
90
23
24
9
350
2422
1591
1571
1174
445
346
140
75
22
23
18
225
1991
1646
1604
1349
475
368
105
106
20
29
13
Total
7739
7805
7989
7361
7246
7787
8102
8255
8177
7931
Overall average3
10.2
10.8
11.2
12.4
12.8
12.8
12.7
12.9
13.3
14.2
Notes:
1 The figures given in this table on the length of custodial sentences relate to the longest individual sentence
imposed in a case, and do not take into account cumulative prison sentences. For cases involving multiple
charges, it is often not clear from the data used for this report exactly which sentences are cumulative and
which are concurrent, so that the actual total length of sentence imposed can be calculated.
2 Excludes corrective training.
3 The average length of custodial sentences is calculated using all discretionary sentences (including
preventive detention), but does not include sentences of life imprisonment which are mandatory. See the
notes to Table 3.9 for information on how preventive detention was included in the average figures.
The number of imprisonment sentences imposed of more than one year has continued to
increase through the decade, while the number of imprisonment sentences imposed of one
year or less has been lower in the last seven years than in earlier years in the decade. It is not
surprising then that the average custodial sentence length imposed (including preventive
detention) has increased over the decade from 10.2 months in 1991 to 14.2 months in 2000.
The number of corrective training sentences imposed has shown a decreasing trend over the
decade, with the 2000 figure (225) being less than half the number in 1991 (620). Such
sentences represented 8% of the custodial sentences imposed in 1991, but only 3% of
custodial sentences imposed in 2000. Much of the decrease in the use of corrective training
has been independent of changes in the number of young offenders (aged 16 to 19) that were
convicted. In particular, in the period 1992 to 1999, there was generally an upward trend in
the number of convicted young offenders, while the use of corrective training decreased.
75
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The number of preventive detention sentences imposed in 1999 (18) and 2000 (13) were a
little higher than in previous years in the decade.
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 changed the legislation with regard to judges
taking time spent on remand in custody into account when imposing a custodial sentence.
When the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was first introduced, judges were not required to take
time spent on remand into account when awarding a custodial sentence (s.81). They were,
however, required to specify the period spent on remand on the warrant of commitment, and
this period was counted as time served towards the sentence imposed. The legislation was
changed on 1 August 1987 so that judges were obliged to take into account time spent on
remand when awarding sentences. The latest amendment to the Criminal Justice Act (from
1 September 1993) means that, as was the case before 1 August 1987, judges no longer have
to take time spent on remand in custody into account when imposing custodial sentences.
The period spent on remand is, however, to be counted as time served towards the imposed
sentence. The difference between the procedure immediately after the Criminal Justice Act
1985 came into effect and now is that responsibility for the calculation of the time spent on
remand has passed from courts to penal institutions. The latest change outlined above may
have caused an “artificial” increase in the length of awarded prison sentences from 1994, as
time spent on remand was no longer taken into account by judges when imposing prison
sentences.
The initial impact of suspended sentences of imprisonment when they were introduced in late
1993 may also have contributed to an increase in the length of prison sentences from 1994.
Spier (1998) estimates that the majority of prison sentences replaced by suspended sentences
are for terms of less than six months. The suspension of these shorter prison sentences is
likely to have contributed to a slightly higher average custodial sentence length from 1994.
4.4
Prison inmate numbers
Increases in both the number of cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and in the length of
custodial sentences imposed over the decade, have caused the prison population to increase.
However, amendments to the Criminal Justice Act in late 1993 also had a significant impact
on the number of sentenced inmates after that year (see Table 4.4). Changes in this Act
included eligibility for parole after serving one-third, rather than half, of the imposed sentence
for people sentenced to more than one year’s imprisonment. (This change excluded people
sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment for a “serious violent offence”. Such
people still must serve two-thirds of the imposed sentence, unless sentenced to more than 15
years imprisonment, in which case they become eligible for parole after serving 10 years.)
When the new legislation came into force, the one-third parole provision also applied to
existing inmates so that they were not disadvantaged. This resulted in a 10% drop in
sentenced inmate numbers between August and November 1993, as a number of inmates
who had already passed their one-third date were released. Suspended prison sentences will
have also contributed to the lower number of inmates in 1994.
The number of female sentenced inmates in 2000 (240) was the highest recorded in the
decade. During 2000, there was an average of 4,735 sentenced male inmates in prison at any
one time, a slightly lower figure than in the previous year. However, the 2000 figure was still
76
Custodial sentences and remands
_______________________________________________________________
the second highest number recorded in the decade, and an increase of 31% on the number in
1991 (3,611). (It should be noted that these figures include people who had their suspended
prison sentences activated, as the data used to produce the information in Table 4.4 is from a
different source to the rest of the data used in this report.)
Table 4.4
Sentenced inmates
Remand inmates
Annual average daily prison inmate numbers, 1991 to 2000
Male
Female
Total2
Male
Female
Total2
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
3611
141
3752
417
13
430
3702
132
3834
430
14
444
3902
148
4049
469
13
483
3690
133
3822
536
16
552
3842
144
3986
492
15
506
4057
156
4212
504
19
523
4399
187
4586
546
18
564
4593
207
4800
646
26
672
4751
202
4953
681
30
711
4735
240
4975
734
33
767
Total2
4182 4278 4532 4375 4492 4735 5150 5471 5665 5742
Notes:
1
This table is calculated from figures supplied by the Department of Corrections, not from Law
Enforcement System data. The figures include all offenders in custody, including people who had their
suspended prison sentence activated.
2
Figures may not always add to the total because of rounding.
The average daily number of male prisoners in custody on remand was higher in 2000 than in
any other year in the decade. The 2000 figure (734) was 76% greater than the figure for 1991
(417). The average daily number of females remanded in custody in 2000 (33) was also higher
than in any other year in the decade.
4.5
Custodial remands
Table 4.5 shows all cases finalised during 2000 involving an offender who was remanded in
custody at some stage during the hearing of the case. Cases completed in one day have been
excluded from the figures shown, as custodial remands are not generally relevant to these
cases.
Nine percent of all cases finalised in 2000 involved offenders who were remanded in custody
at some stage during the hearing of the case. Cases involving a violent offence were the most
likely to include a custodial remand, while cases involving an offence against good order, a
traffic offence, or a miscellaneous offence were least likely to include a custodial remand.
Table 4.5 shows that just over half (52%) of the cases involving a custodial remand in 2000
finally resulted in a custodial sentence. Eighteen percent of offenders remanded in custody
were not convicted, while others (30%) received non-custodial sentences. Cases involving
offenders remanded in custody as a result of a violent, property, drug, or traffic offence were
most likely to result in a custodial sentence, with just over 50% of these cases so sentenced.
Cases involving offenders remanded in custody as the result of an offence against good order
were the least likely to result in a custodial sentence. Of the 2,612 cases involving a custodial
77
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
remand resulting in a conviction and a non-custodial sentence, 77% resulted in a communitybased sentence.
Table 4.5
All cases involving a remand in custody, by type of offence and outcome
of case, 2000
No. of cases
involving a
custodial
remand
Custodial
remand cases
as a % of all
cases
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
2750
118
3030
662
796
271
1006
123
19.3
6.4
12.8
9.0
11.1
3.3
3.1
3.6
Overall
8756
8.9
Offence type
2053
87
2586
531
621
210
959
92
No. custodial
remand cases
awarded a
custodial
sentence
1445
46
1686
358
305
66
579
42
% of custodial
remand cases
awarded a
custodial
sentence
52.5
39.0
55.6
54.1
38.3
24.4
57.6
34.1
7139
4527
51.7
No. of
custodial
remand cases
convicted
The estimated amount of time that defendants spent in custodial remand4 varied over the last
eight years, as shown in Table 4.6.
The total number of cases involving a period of custodial remand was almost 1,000 (16%)
greater in 2000 than in 1993. The proportion of cases involving relatively short periods of
custodial remand has decreased during the last eight years, while the proportion of cases
involving relatively long periods of custodial remand has increased during this period.
Consequently, the overall average amount of time spent in custodial remand has increased by
almost ten days (24%) over the last eight years (from 40.6 days in 1993 to 50.4 days in 2000).
Many cases involve a mixture of custodial remand and bail (or remand at large), rather than
remand in custody throughout the whole pre-trial and pre-sentence period. Figure 4.1
summarises, for cases that involved a remand in custody in 2000, the proportion of each
defendant’s entire case that was spent in custodial remand. Only the minority (19%) of
defendants who had a period in custodial remand in 2000 spent their whole case remanded in
custody.
4 Information has recently become available on the estimated length of time defendants spent in custodial
remand in the period 1993 to 2000. This information was produced by Christopher Clark, a Research Adviser in
the Ministry of Justice. The definition of a case used to produce this information is different to that used in the
rest of the report (see the note to Table 4.6).
78
Custodial sentences and remands
_______________________________________________________________
Table 4.6
Estimated total number of cases involving a period of remand in custody
of various lengths, and average custodial remand period (in days), 1993 to
20001
Time in custodial remand
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<= 7 days
>7 to 14 days
>14 to 30 days
>1 to 2 months
>2 to 6 months
>6 to 12 months
>1 year
1929
1155
1155
772
680
239
58
1975
1041
1345
805
866
289
54
1830
1100
1274
772
832
280
84
1871
1242
1368
905
928
263
80
1880
1111
1590
1040
958
294
50
1910
1103
1654
1313
1167
274
72
1623
994
1620
1275
1142
311
73
1483
1010
1484
1321
1260
359
54
Total
5988
6375
6172
6657
6923
7493
7038
6971
Overall average
40.6
43.4
45.4
43.8
43.3
44.7
49.5
50.4
Note:
1
The definition of a case used for this table is different to the definition of a case used in the rest of the
report. The difference is that a charge with a start date on, or between the first and last court hearing dates
of another charge, against the same offender, is grouped into the same case, as opposed to only the charges
with the same first or last court hearing date being grouped together.
Figure 4.1
Percentage of entire case spent in custodial remand for all cases
involving a remand in custody in 2000
All of case
76 - 99%
0 - 25%
51 - 75%
26 - 50%
Almost half (48%) of the defendants who had some time in custodial remand spent only onequarter or less of their case in custodial remand. Of these cases, almost half spent all of their
time in custodial remand during the last quarter of their case (for example, while awaiting the
sentencing hearing), while just over one-quarter spent all of their time in custodial remand
during the first quarter of their case (for example, while information relevant to the bail
decision was collected).
79
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Just under one-fifth (17%) of defendants spent between one-quarter and half of their case in
2000 in custodial remand. The remaining 16% of defendants spent between half and up to,
but not including, the full amount of their case in custodial remand. The average proportion
of a case spent in custodial remand in 2000 was around two-fifths (41%) of the case.
4.6
Community-based sentences imposed cumulative to
custodial sentences
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 amended the principal Act so that courts could
impose a community-based sentence cumulative on a sentence of imprisonment of 12
months or less, provided that the duration of the community-based sentence does not exceed
12 months, and the total duration of the combined sentence does not exceed the term of
imprisonment that would otherwise be appropriate for that offence.
In 2000, 1,172 cases had a community-based sentence imposed cumulative to a custodial
sentence (see Table 4.7). These cases represent 15% of all cases resulting in a custodial
sentence in 2000. Supervision was the cumulative sentence in 97% of cases. In the first three
years after this amendment to the Criminal Justice Act, the number and proportion of
community-based sentences imposed cumulative to a custodial sentence increased. However,
since then the proportion of custodial sentences with a cumulative community-based
sentence has remained between 14% and 16%.
Table 4.7
Total number of cases resulting in both a custodial and a communitybased sentence, 1993 to 2000
Sentence type
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
4
1
0
46
16
12
1
689
16
24
1
908
45
21
1
1135
42
19
2
1105
50
13
5
1216
38
11
2
1212
28
6
0
1138
Total
51
718
949
1202
1168
1284
1263
1172
For the 1,138 cases where both a custodial sentence and a supervision sentence were imposed
in 2000, the average length of the custodial sentences was 6.3 months and the average length
of the supervision sentences was 9.2 months.
4.7
Age, gender, and ethnicity of offenders sent to prison in
2000
Table 4.8 presents information on the age, gender, and ethnicity of offenders in all cases
resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000.
80
Custodial sentences and remands
_______________________________________________________________
Table 4.8
Age, gender and ethnicity of offenders in all cases resulting in a custodial
sentence in 2000
Age & gender
European
Mäori
Pacific
peoples
Other
Unknown
Total
14-16
Male
Female
17-19
Male
Female
17
0
29
5
7
4
0
0
0
0
53
9
345
21
613
55
80
7
6
0
3
0
1047
83
20-24
Male
Female
580
40
896
90
178
5
13
1
15
2
1682
138
25-29
Male
Female
509
32
765
65
104
7
11
1
11
2
1400
107
30-39
Male
Female
806
68
1016
139
135
11
19
2
27
10
2003
230
40+
Male
Female
566
42
400
43
74
5
17
0
21
9
1078
99
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2823
203
3719
398
578
39
66
4
78
23
7264
667
Unknown age
Male
Female
Total (All ages)
Male
Female
Most (92%) of the cases resulting in a prison sentence in 2000 involved a male offender. Just
over half (52%) of these males, for whom ethnicity was available, were Mäori, 39% were
European, and 8% were Pacific peoples. Forty-one percent of the Mäori men sent to prison
in 2000 were aged under 25. Forty-six percent of the male Pacific peoples sent to prison in
2000 were aged under 25, compared with 33% of European men.
Only 8% of all cases resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000 involved a female offender.
Nearly two-thirds (62%) of these female offenders, for whom ethnicity was available, were
Mäori, 32% were European and 6% were Pacific peoples. Thirty-eight percent of the female
Mäori were aged under 25, compared with 30% of the female Europeans, and 41% of the
female Pacific peoples.
Further information on the demographic, social, and criminal history characteristics of prison
inmates (both sentenced and remand) in New Zealand is available from the Census of Prison
Inmates 1999, Rich (2000).
81
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
82
Community-based sentences
5.1
Introduction
The community-based sentences in New Zealand are: periodic detention, community service,
community programme, and supervision. Periodic detention involves an offender reporting
to a work centre for at least one day a week for up to 10 hours. A periodic detention warden
supervises the offender in unpaid work. Periodic detention can be imposed for a period not
exceeding 12 months. Community service involves an offender doing between 20 and 200
hours unpaid work for a community group. A sponsor from the community group supervises
the offender. Community care was renamed “community programme” from 1 September
1993 by the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 and involves an offender being placed in
the care of an appropriate group or individual, and participating in a programme for a period
not exceeding 12 months. Supervision can be imposed for a period of between six months
and two years. The offender is under the supervision of a probation officer and must report
to the probation officer, as and when required to do so. Additional restrictions may be
imposed on the offender by the court. These restrictions typically relate to the offender’s
work, education or training, residence, or associates.
Information is presented in this chapter on the types of offences resulting in each of the
community-based sentences. Information on the lengths of the sentences imposed for each
of the community-based sentences is also presented.
The only two community-based sentences that can be imposed concurrently are periodic
detention and supervision. When both of these sentences are imposed together, only the
periodic detention sentence is usually shown in the tables in this report, as information is
presented only on the most serious sentence imposed on a case. This chapter includes
information on the number of cases resulting in both periodic detention and supervision.
5.2
Periodic detention
Table 5.1 shows that the total number of periodic detention sentences imposed showed a
decreasing trend between 1991 and 1996, before increasing in the next two years, then
decreasing again in 1999 and 2000. The 2000 figure was the lowest recorded in the decade,
and was 18% lower than the figure in 1991. The largest proportional decrease in the use of
periodic detention over the decade occurred for traffic offences (45%) - with 4,400 fewer
sentences imposed in 2000 than in 1991. In contrast, the number of periodic detention
sentences imposed for offences against justice increased by 56% over the decade.
83
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Traffic offences (29%) and property offences (27%) accounted for the majority of periodic
detention sentences imposed in 2000 (see Table 5.2). Violent offences have accounted for
13% to 15% of the periodic detention sentences imposed since 1994, compared with only 8%
in 1991. Offences against justice comprised 15% of the periodic detention sentences
imposed in 2000, compared with 8% in 1991. In contrast, traffic offences have accounted for
a decreasing proportion of periodic detention sentences through the decade. In 1991, traffic
offences accounted for 44% of such sentences, but by 2000 the proportion had fallen to 29%.
Table 5.1
Total number of cases resulting in periodic detention as the most serious
sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
Violent
1822
1956
2395
2937
2822
2695
2593
2763
2630
2588
+42%
Other against
persons
Property
231
263
285
270
274
243
237
272
253
195
-16%
6491
6485
6402
5509
5107
4875
5365
5560
5570
5064
-22%
Drug
1613
1674
1954
1847
1417
1438
1465
1952
1711
1575
-2%
Against justice
1821
1983
2156
2237
2139
2240
2281
2594
2725
2848
+56%
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Table 5.2
573
563
595
575
500
502
553
611
678
588
+3%
9812
8562
8080
7226
7014
6970
6852
7347
6724
5396
-45%
185
216
198
176
164
153
164
241
190
182
-2%
22548
21702
22065
20777
19437
19116
19510
21340
20481
18436
-18%
Percentage of cases resulting in periodic detention as the most serious
sentence involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
8.1
1.0
28.8
7.2
8.1
2.5
43.5
0.8
9.0
1.2
29.9
7.7
9.1
2.6
39.5
1.0
10.9
1.3
29.0
8.9
9.8
2.7
36.6
0.9
14.1
1.3
26.5
8.9
10.8
2.8
34.8
0.8
14.5
1.4
26.3
7.3
11.0
2.6
36.1
0.8
14.1
1.3
25.5
7.5
11.7
2.6
36.5
0.8
13.3
1.2
27.5
7.5
11.7
2.8
35.1
0.8
12.9
1.3
26.1
9.1
12.2
2.9
34.4
1.1
12.8
1.2
27.2
8.4
13.3
3.3
32.8
0.9
14.0
1.1
27.5
8.5
15.4
3.2
29.3
1.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Periodic detention sentences can be imposed for a term not exceeding 12 months. Table 5.3
shows that the majority of periodic detention sentences are for terms of four months or less.
The average length of periodic detention sentences imposed has decreased a little over the
decade from 4.5 months in 1991 to 4.0 months in 2000. The number of sentences of more
than six months has decreased significantly over the decade (from 3,112 in 1991 to 1,185 in
2000).
84
Community-based sentences
_______________________________________________________________
Table 5.3
Number of periodic detention sentences imposed of various lengths, and
average length of periodic detention sentences (in months), 1991 to 20001
Sentence length
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<=2 months
>2 to 3 months
>3 to 4 months
>4 to 5 months
>5 to 6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
3361
4958
4544
2648
3925
2735
377
3511
4741
4606
2469
3595
2457
323
3772
4803
4765
2348
3658
2389
330
3715
4614
4556
2338
3471
1885
198
3081
4290
4219
2458
3466
1791
132
3039
4266
4246
2503
3257
1690
115
3102
4297
4198
2539
3542
1724
108
3895
4814
4603
2604
3724
1618
82
3604
4570
4393
2532
3697
1594
91
3443
4175
4029
2343
3261
1153
32
22548
21702
22065
20777
19437
19116
19510
21340
20481
18436
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
Total
Overall average
Note:
1 Only periodic detention sentences imposed as the most serious sentence are included in this table.
5.3
Community programme
Community care was renamed “community programme” from 1 September 1993. This
sentence continues to be used less and less by the courts. Table 5.4 shows that most
community programme sentences are imposed for either violent, property or traffic offences.
Table 5.4
Total number of cases resulting in a community programme as the most
serious sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
Violent
185
237
232
326
338
231
134
116
85
56
-70%
13
10
7
12
15
4
6
2
3
2
-
425
433
375
272
254
218
136
107
90
71
-83%
53
41
45
43
32
27
24
15
16
11
-79%
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
78
68
64
44
47
35
23
43
22
11
-86%
Good order
25
18
21
24
17
12
7
3
10
4
-
330
336
295
174
167
169
97
91
59
47
-86%
14
21
19
4
10
7
3
2
2
2
-
1123
1164
1058
899
880
703
430
379
287
204
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
-82%
Note: An overall percentage change figure has not been shown where the number of cases is very small.
Violent offences have accounted for a greater proportion, and traffic offences and property
offences a lesser proportion, of such sentences since 1994 (see Table 5.5).
85
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 5.5
Percentage of cases resulting in a community programme as the most
serious sentence involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
16.5
1.2
37.8
4.7
6.9
2.2
29.4
1.2
20.4
0.9
37.2
3.5
5.8
1.5
28.9
1.8
21.9
0.7
35.4
4.3
6.0
2.0
27.9
1.8
36.3
1.3
30.3
4.8
4.9
2.7
19.4
0.4
38.4
1.7
28.9
3.6
5.3
1.9
19.0
1.1
32.9
0.6
31.0
3.8
5.0
1.7
24.0
1.0
31.2
1.4
31.6
5.6
5.3
1.6
22.6
0.7
30.6
0.5
28.2
4.0
11.3
0.8
24.0
0.5
29.6
1.0
31.4
5.6
7.7
3.5
20.6
0.7
27.5
1.0
34.8
5.4
5.4
2.0
23.0
1.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Community programme sentences can be imposed for a term not exceeding 12 months. If
the offender is required to undergo a programme on a residential basis, then this cannot be
for any period or periods exceeding an aggregate of six months. Table 5.6 shows that the
majority of community programme sentences imposed are for exactly six months. The
average length of community programme sentences imposed has been between seven months
and eight months throughout the decade.
Table 5.6
Number of community programme sentences imposed of various lengths,
and average length of community programme sentences (in months), 1991
to 20001
Sentence length
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<6 months
6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
109
620
122
272
109
669
149
237
89
583
161
225
87
473
172
167
80
436
192
172
51
327
177
148
34
222
90
84
28
201
68
82
22
138
56
71
14
103
40
47
1123
1164
1058
899
880
703
430
379
287
204
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.9
7.8
Total
Overall average
Note:
1 Only community programme sentences imposed as the most serious sentence are included in this table.
5.4
Community service
The number of community service cases imposed has fluctuated over the decade, but has
generally shown a downward trend. In 2000, there were 7,135 community service sentences
imposed, the lowest number recorded in the decade, and 22% less than the number imposed
in 1991 (9,196).
86
Community-based sentences
_______________________________________________________________
Table 5.7
Total number of cases resulting in community service as the most serious
sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Violent
Other against persons
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
364
486
586
734
695
624
617
609
655
566
+55%
74
85
100
112
81
87
74
82
83
60
-19%
2517
2704
2802
2635
2366
2302
2267
2535
2760
2543
+1%
Drug
590
695
772
812
553
535
569
639
535
465
-21%
Against justice
175
179
184
183
188
151
170
180
206
172
-2%
Good order
116
188
186
188
157
148
169
167
222
153
+32%
5290
5338
5020
4648
4478
4078
3829
4190
3628
3088
-42%
70
90
81
94
107
105
117
123
137
88
+26%
9196
9765
9731
9406
8625
8030
7812
8525
8226
7135
-22%
Property
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Table 5.8
Percentage of cases resulting in community service as the most serious
sentence involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
4.0
0.8
27.4
6.4
1.9
1.3
57.5
0.8
5.0
0.9
27.7
7.1
1.8
1.9
54.7
0.9
6.0
1.0
28.8
7.9
1.9
1.9
51.6
0.8
7.8
1.2
28.0
8.6
1.9
2.0
49.4
1.0
8.1
0.9
27.4
6.4
2.2
1.8
51.9
1.2
7.8
1.1
28.7
6.7
1.9
1.8
50.8
1.3
7.9
0.9
29.0
7.3
2.2
2.2
49.0
1.5
7.1
1.0
29.7
7.5
2.1
2.0
49.1
1.4
8.0
1.0
33.6
6.5
2.5
2.7
44.1
1.7
7.9
0.8
35.6
6.5
2.4
2.1
43.3
1.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
In 1991, traffic offences accounted for 58% of the community service sentences imposed.
There has generally been a slowly decreasing trend in this proportion through the decade,
with the 2000 figure being 43%. The next largest category in 2000 was property offences,
which accounted for 36% of community service sentences.
Community service sentences can be imposed for between 20 and 200 hours. Table 5.9
shows that the most frequently imposed community service sentences are for periods of
between 60 and 100 hours. The average length of community service sentences imposed
decreased from 95 hours in 1991 to 86 hours in 1999, and was only slightly higher in 2000 (87
hours).
87
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 5.9
Number of community service sentences imposed of various lengths, and
average length of community service sentences (in hours), 1991 to 20001
Sentence length
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
<=30 hours
>30 to 40 hours
>40 to 50 hours
>50 to 60 hours
>60 to 80 hours
>80 to 100 hours
>100 to 120 hours
>120 to 150 hours
>150 to 200 hours
512
614
787
780
1953
1771
751
1058
970
734
671
874
865
1961
1993
748
1061
858
745
813
974
893
1858
1904
673
1047
824
728
801
1026
846
1887
1743
648
947
780
694
822
970
830
1692
1483
588
826
720
638
679
915
715
1544
1492
512
776
759
649
691
956
721
1462
1381
504
759
689
767
815
1092
888
1601
1442
474
776
670
787
858
1055
792
1434
1267
443
790
800
605
738
889
650
1262
1225
417
719
630
Total
9196
9765
9731
9406
8625
8030
7812
8525
8226
7135
Overall average
94.6
91.0
89.2
88.2
86.8
88.8
87.3
84.3
85.8
86.6
Notes:
1 Only community service sentences imposed as the most serious sentence are included in this table.
5.5
Supervision
Table 5.10 shows that the number of cases resulting in supervision increased rapidly for
violent offences between 1991 and 1995. Part of the increased use of supervision for violent
offences in this period was due to very large increases in convictions for male assaults female,
which result in supervision more frequently than other types of offences. The number of
supervision sentences imposed for violent offences has decreased since 1995, as have
convictions for male assaults female.
Table 5.10 Total number of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious
sentence, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
498
630
1040
1841
1987
1871
1829
1770
1663
1389
+179%
28
38
61
65
96
85
71
82
65
67
+139%
1341
1285
1433
1545
1487
1484
1380
1386
1200
1132
-16%
169
187
258
269
245
252
283
297
255
232
+37%
Against justice
115
174
161
200
162
202
247
280
316
272
+137%
Good order
120
140
142
152
189
169
158
159
181
169
+41%
Traffic
638
580
757
837
922
1009
982
961
779
697
+9%
Miscellaneous
101
69
87
68
78
94
87
69
91
74
-27%
3010
3103
3939
4977
5166
5166
5037
5004
4550
4032
+34%
Total
88
Community-based sentences
_______________________________________________________________
Table 5.11
Percentage of cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence
involving each type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
16.5
0.9
44.6
5.6
3.8
4.0
21.2
3.4
20.3
1.2
41.4
6.0
5.6
4.5
18.7
2.2
26.4
1.5
36.4
6.5
4.1
3.6
19.2
2.2
37.0
1.3
31.0
5.4
4.0
3.1
16.8
1.4
38.5
1.9
28.8
4.7
3.1
3.7
17.8
1.5
36.2
1.6
28.7
4.9
3.9
3.3
19.5
1.8
36.3
1.4
27.4
5.6
4.9
3.1
19.5
1.7
35.4
1.6
27.7
5.9
5.6
3.2
19.2
1.4
36.5
1.4
26.4
5.6
6.9
4.0
17.1
2.0
34.4
1.7
28.1
5.8
6.7
4.2
17.3
1.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Property offences accounted for 45% of the cases resulting in supervision as the most serious
sentence in 1991, but by 1995 they accounted for only 29% of supervision sentences. Since
1996, property offences have accounted for 26% to 29% of supervision cases each year. In
contrast, violent offences accounted for 17% of the supervision sentences imposed in 1991,
but by 1995 the proportion had more than doubled to 38%. Since 1996, 34% to 37% of
supervision sentences have been for violent offences. Seven percent of supervision sentences
imposed in 1999 and 2000 were for offences against justice. This is a slightly greater
proportion than in previous years in the decade.
Supervision sentences must be for a term of between six months and two years. Table 5.12
shows that in 2000, 33% of the supervision sentences imposed were for more than six
months and up to nine months, whereas in 1991, only 12% of supervision sentences imposed
were of this length. In contrast, sentences of more than nine months and up to 12 months
accounted for 47% of supervision sentences imposed in 1991, but only 29% to 31% of
sentences imposed in the second half of the decade. Not surprisingly then, the average length
of supervision sentences imposed has decreased over the decade.
Table 5.12 Number of supervision sentences imposed of various lengths, and
average length of supervision sentences (in months), 1991 to 20001
Sentence length
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
>12 to 18 months
>18 to 24 months
875
374
1416
215
130
1025
479
1311
172
116
1450
714
1455
185
135
1902
1137
1612
191
135
1947
1287
1582
196
154
1797
1411
1594
225
139
1727
1488
1488
195
139
1693
1492
1524
207
88
1571
1392
1331
170
86
1148
1341
1268
178
97
Total
3010
3103
3939
4977
5166
5166
5037
5004
4550
4032
Overall average
10.8
10.3
9.9
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.8
Notes:
1 Only supervision sentences imposed as the most serious sentence are included in this table.
89
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
In addition to the 4,032 cases resulting in supervision as the most serious sentence in 2000,
Chapter 4 showed that there were 1,172 cases in 2000 resulting in a supervision sentence
cumulative to a custodial sentence. There were also 3,032 cases in 2000 that resulted in a
supervision sentence in conjunction with a periodic detention sentence (see Table 5.13). Such
cases appear in the figures of periodic detention as the most serious sentence, as this has a
higher ranking than supervision in terms of sentence seriousness. The number of cases
resulting in both periodic detention and supervision increased in the first half of the decade,
remained relatively stable for the next four years, before decreasing in 2000 to the lowest level
recorded since 1993.
Table 5.13 Total number of cases resulting in a supervision sentence in
conjunction with periodic detention, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
567
21
791
128
95
44
889
26
726
28
642
162
84
42
694
26
901
29
678
177
93
38
813
37
1308
29
762
193
92
45
736
19
1233
38
813
208
107
47
850
39
1163
30
762
206
101
53
890
23
1098
33
860
212
129
45
864
26
1106
32
845
309
157
47
931
31
1026
27
796
267
163
57
892
30
966
30
744
243
138
45
841
25
2561
2404
2766
3184
3335
3228
3267
3458
3258
3032
Violent offences and property offences accounted for 32% and 25% respectively of the cases
resulting in both periodic detention and supervision in 2000. In 1991, only 22% of cases
where both periodic detention and supervision were imposed involved violent offences, while
the figure for property offences was 31%.
90
Monetary penalties
6.1
Introduction
Fines can be imposed for nearly every offence for an amount up to a maximum specified in
legislation. For imprisonable offences for which no fine is prescribed, the court may impose
a fine of any amount, except where this is expressly disallowed. Where no maximum fine is
prescribed, the fine imposed must not exceed $4,000 if imposed by a District Court Judge,
and $400 if imposed by a Justice of the Peace or Community Magistrate5. There is no limit
on the amount of fines in the High Court. For many offences a fine is the only available
sanction to the court.
The Criminal Justice Act 1985 replaced the old compensation order (frequently referred to as
restitution) with the new sentence of reparation. When first introduced, section 11 of the Act
established a presumption in favour of reparation: “In every case where an offender is
convicted of an offence for which a sentence to make reparation may be imposed, the court
shall impose such a sentence (whether by itself or in conjunction with any other sentence or
order) unless it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate to do so”. Under section 22 the
court could sentence an offender to make reparation when the court was satisfied that any act
or omission that constituted the offence caused any loss of or damage to any property of
another person. A 1986 amendment to this section of the Act authorised Courts to sentence
the offender to reparation when the Court was “satisfied that any other persons suffered any
loss of or damage to property through or by means of the offence ...”.
The statute was further amended in 1987 to provide that the reparation sentence may also be
imposed where the Court is satisfied that any other person suffered emotional harm through
or by means of the offence.
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 strengthened the wording of section 11 of the
principal Act so that “The court shall consider imposing a sentence of reparation in every
case, and, subject to section 22 of this Act, shall impose such a sentence unless it is satisfied
that it would be clearly inappropriate to do so”.
Other changes to legislation in 1993 made it clear that partial reparation could be ordered
where the offender has insufficient means to pay the full amount of reparation initially
assessed by the court as appropriate, and that if reparation and a fine are both being
considered as sentences and the offender has insufficient means to pay both, then reparation
is to be given priority.
5 However, where a person is found guilty on indictment in a District Court, or pleads guilty after committal to a
District Court for trial, a judge may fine up to a maximum of $10,000 where no maximum is prescribed by
statute.
91
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Section 12 of the Act was also amended to allow the courts to take into account any offer of
compensation, whether financial or by means of the performance of any work or service, by
or on behalf of the offender to the victim. Prior to this amendment “compensation” would
generally have been taken to mean only financial compensation.
This chapter presents detailed information on the use of fines6 and reparation. Information is
given on the total number of fines and reparation sentences imposed in the last decade, the
types of offences they are imposed for, and on the amounts imposed. Both these sentences
can be imposed either alone, or in combination with other sentences. Therefore, information
is presented on the use of fines and reparation with other sentences.
It should be noted that it is not possible to identify from the data whether reparation was
imposed as the result of property damage or loss, or as the result of emotional harm. It is
also not possible to detect whether reparation sentences were imposed for part or the full
amount of the victim’s financial loss. Finally, using data from the Case Monitoring Subsystem
of the Law Enforcement System it is not possible to determine whether sentences of
reparation or fines were actually paid.
Section 28 of the Criminal Justice Act specifies that all or part of a fine may be paid as
compensation to victims of offences occasioning physical or emotional harm, provided the
offence was unprovoked. Information is presented in this chapter on the number of orders
made for part payment of fines to victims.
Given that every fine and reparation sentence imposed is payable by the offender (i.e. they are
never imposed concurrently) the information presented in this chapter is charge-based rather
than case-based.
6.2
Use of fines
The fine is the most commonly imposed sentence. Table 6.1 shows that the total number of
fines imposed in the last decade has decreased from a little over 65,000 in 1991 to around
55,000 in the last three years. Part of this decrease is due to a decrease in convictions over
the decade for traffic offences (which often result in a fine). The much lower number of
fines in the period 1997 to 2000 compared to previous years was partly due to the offence of
“failing to register a dog” becoming an infringement offence.
In 2000, 32% of all charges resulting in conviction had a fine imposed (see Table 6.2). Over
half the traffic offences (55%) and “miscellaneous” offences (58%) resulting in conviction in
2000 had a fine imposed.
6 Only court imposed fines are included in this chapter. That is, fines resulting from the issue of an
infringement notice (for speeding or parking offences etc.) are not included in the data. It should also be noted
that court costs have not been included in the figures presented on monetary penalties.
92
Monetary penalties
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.1
Total number of convicted charges resulting in a fine, by type of
offence, 1991 to 20001
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
1679
633
5755
4849
792
2491
40639
8365
1588
541
4836
4198
783
2129
33575
9854
2142
642
4907
5256
890
3044
29861
14244
2639
679
4937
5639
1071
3518
29732
14461
2920
903
5177
4689
1211
4211
33435
12633
2845
974
4932
4564
1053
4316
33220
13052
2731
788
4531
5034
1199
4256
31149
6588
2645
785
4439
4825
1051
4084
30979
6120
2445
813
4723
5103
1148
4547
30498
5825
2579
878
4720
4790
1110
4970
31340
4577
Total
65203
57504
60986
62676
65179
64956
56276
54928
55102
54964
Note:
1 Table includes all charges resulting in a fine, either as the primary or secondary sentence.
Table 6.2
Percentage of all convicted charges resulting in a fine, by type of
offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
17.5
24.5
10.5
42.0
7.5
38.3
51.1
73.4
14.8
20.1
8.4
36.7
7.1
34.0
48.8
71.1
16.4
21.6
8.6
39.7
7.3
40.9
48.0
72.4
16.7
21.1
8.6
39.7
8.2
42.1
50.0
76.3
17.5
25.8
9.1
39.8
9.0
45.4
52.2
76.1
17.2
27.2
8.7
39.4
7.6
44.3
52.6
75.8
17.4
24.2
8.4
38.7
8.1
42.9
51.5
66.3
16.4
22.3
8.3
34.1
6.7
38.7
49.8
59.5
16.0
23.5
9.2
36.4
7.5
41.1
51.9
60.3
17.6
25.1
9.4
35.1
7.2
42.8
54.9
57.9
Total
35.0
31.6
32.4
32.9
33.9
33.8
31.1
29.6
30.8
31.6
Table 6.3 presents information on the amounts of fines imposed over the last decade. Over
$20 million in fines have been imposed in the courts in each of the last ten years. The median
fine imposed in both 1999 and 2000 was $300. This is higher than in previous years in the
decade when the median fine was between $200 and $250.
The number of fines imposed for amounts of $100 or less has more than halved over the
decade from 15,788 in 1991 to 5,957 in 2000. In contrast, the number of fines imposed for
more than $250 and up to $500 was higher in 2000 than in any previous year in the decade.
Tables 6.4 and 6.5 show that the majority of fines (63% in 2000) are imposed with no other
penalty. A little under a third (32%) of the charges that resulted in a fine in 2000 also had a
driving disqualification imposed.
Custodial and community-based sentences are not often imposed in conjunction with fines,
while about 3% of charges fined also had reparation imposed throughout the decade.
93
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.3
Amounts of fines imposed, 1991 to 2000
Year
<=
$100
>$100
to $250
>$250
to $500
>$500
to $1000
>$1000
to $5000
>$5000
Total
number
Median
amount1
Total
amount
1991
No.
(%)
15788
(24.2)
20924
(32.1)
13412
(20.6)
12504
(19.2)
2534
(3.9)
41
(0.1)
65203
(100.0)
$250
$24,562,714
1992
No.
(%)
15849
(27.6)
18373
(32.0)
11580
(20.1)
9742
(16.9)
1913
(3.3)
47
(0.1)
57504
(100.0)
$200
$20,683,232
1993
No.
(%)
18112
(29.7)
19522
(32.0)
12242
(20.1)
9055
(14.8)
1909
(3.1)
146
(0.2)
60986
(100.0)
$200
$21,750,122
1994
No.
(%)
17984
(28.7)
19834
(31.6)
13117
(20.9)
9340
(14.9)
2320
(3.7)
81
(0.1)
62676
(100.0)
$200
$22,772,478
1995
No.
(%)
16600
(25.5)
20810
(31.9)
14557
(22.3)
11177
(17.1)
1920
(2.9)
115
(0.2)
65179
(100.0)
$205
$24,259,029
1996
No.
(%)
16338
(25.2)
20989
(32.3)
14701
(22.6)
10847
(16.7)
1935
(3.0)
146
(0.2)
64956
(100.0)
$200
$26,071,649
1997
No.
(%)
10513
(18.7)
19112
(34.0)
14484
(25.7)
10340
(18.4)
1683
(3.0)
144
(0.3)
56276
(100.0)
$250
$23,068,918
1998
No.
(%)
9252
(16.8)
18822
(34.3)
15209
(27.7)
9998
(18.2)
1462
(2.7)
185
(0.3)
54928
(100.0)
$250
$22,531,583
1999
No.
(%)
7638
(13.9)
18589
(33.7)
17450
(31.7)
9758
(17.7)
1554
(2.8)
113
(0.2)
55102
(100.0)
$300
$23,711,661
2000
No.
(%)
5957
(10.8)
18204
(33.1)
19004
(34.6)
10105
(18.4)
1577
(2.9)
117
(0.2)
54964
(100.0)
$300
$23,465,754
Note:
1 The median is the middle value when numbers are arranged from smallest to largest. This statistical
representation of the “average value” is not affected to the same degree as the mean by a small number of
very small or very large values.
Table 6.4
Other sentences imposed with fines, 1991 to 20001
Sentence type
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
14
13
9
35
30
20
18
7
20
19
217
173
222
278
217
199
185
204
185
204
14
15
14
18
23
19
5
0
4
1
82
81
84
82
91
81
120
89
66
55
Supervision
373
289
393
518
619
637
526
472
484
392
Reparation
1745
1609
1689
1849
2230
2107
1869
1815
1909
1945
Deferment
13
7
13
23
29
62
70
46
68
56
22880
17465
15796
16087
19079
19450
18704
18456
17935
17735
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Fine only
39865
37852
42766
43786
42860
42381
34779
33839
34431
34557
Total
65203
57504
60986
62676
65179
64956
56276
54928
55102
54964
Driving disqualification
Other
Notes:
1 If more than one other sentence was imposed in conjunction with a fine, then only the most serious of
the other sentences is shown in this table.
94
Monetary penalties
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.5
Percentage of fines imposed with other sentences, 1991 to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Reparation
Deferment
Driving disqualification
Other
Fine only
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.6
2.7
0.0
35.1
0.0
61.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
2.8
0.0
30.4
0.0
65.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.6
2.8
0.0
25.9
0.0
70.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.8
3.0
0.0
25.7
0.0
69.9
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.9
3.4
0.0
29.3
0.0
65.8
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
1.0
3.2
0.1
29.9
0.0
65.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.9
3.3
0.1
33.2
0.0
61.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.9
3.3
0.1
33.6
0.0
61.6
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.9
3.5
0.1
32.5
0.0
62.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.7
3.5
0.1
32.3
0.0
62.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 6.6 shows that in 2000 there were 1,951 charges where a fine was imposed and all or
part of the fine was awarded to the victim under section 28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
This is the highest number of orders made in the decade. The majority of such orders (53%
in 2000) are for violent offences, with “minor” assaults, “serious” assaults (including
“domestic” assaults), indecent assaults, and “grievous” assaults being the most frequent
violent offences resulting in a section 28 order.
Table 6.6
Number of convicted charges resulting in an order for all or part of the
fine to be paid to the victim, by type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
589
10
28
0
8
17
264
122
518
10
23
0
1
22
270
179
684
10
25
0
6
31
271
129
900
25
51
1
7
40
302
186
962
52
74
0
15
38
379
282
951
46
74
0
8
30
353
301
921
28
65
0
18
44
365
239
946
32
89
0
18
46
413
219
875
37
89
0
13
56
386
191
1025
32
111
0
19
72
469
223
1038
1023
1156
1512
1802
1763
1680
1763
1647
1951
Nearly a quarter (24%) of section 28 orders in 2000 involved traffic offences, with driving
causing injury accounting for the vast majority of these offences.
Offences in the “miscellaneous” category accounted for 11% of section 28 orders made in
2000. The most frequent offences in this category were offences under the Health and Safety
in Employment Act 1992, offences under the Dog Control Act 1996 (mostly relating to dogs
attacking persons or animals, or rushing at vehicles), and offences under the Animals
Protection Act 1960 (generally relating to ill-treatment of animals).
95
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
No information is available on the proportion or amounts of fines that were ordered as
compensation.
6.3
Use of reparation for all offences
The reparation sentence was examined in depth about four years after it was first introduced.
The findings of that investigation were presented in Galaway and Spier (1992). Sections 6.3
and 6.4 present information on the use of reparation over the period 1991 to 2000, and in
particular, examine whether the amendments to the Criminal Justice Act in late 1993 (which
were discussed in section 6.1) had an effect on the use of reparation in subsequent years.
Reparation can be imposed on an offender when a victim has suffered property damage,
property loss or emotional harm through or by means of a criminal offence. Tables 6.7 and
6.8 show that property offences are the most likely to result in a reparation sentence, with
20% of such charges resulting in a reparation sentence in 2000. The proportions for the
other offence types were very much lower, with violent offences (3%) being the next highest
category in 2000.
Table 6.7
Total number of convicted charges resulting in reparation1, by type of
offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
228
35
10606
5
14
91
554
170
255
24
11208
4
49
129
545
177
424
30
11325
6
36
133
529
173
488
50
12851
15
15
95
617
232
517
45
13544
5
30
119
682
258
528
48
11381
21
25
131
678
298
540
43
11149
5
38
100
698
311
604
44
11210
13
49
114
836
326
515
33
10464
11
44
134
824
362
491
50
10006
11
46
109
810
169
Total
11703
12391
12656
14363
15200
13110
12884
13196
12387
11692
Notes:
1
2
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 which came in to force on 1 September 1993 changed some of
the provisions relating to reparation. The time periods before and after these changes are marked by a
dotted line on this and subsequent tables.
Table includes all charges resulting in reparation, either as the primary or secondary sentence.
It should be noted that Galaway and Spier found that, in the time period covered by their
study, around 41% of property offences and 96% of offences against the person (i.e. either
violent offences or other offences against the person) resulting in conviction involved no
financial loss to the victim. Therefore, for these charges, reparation for property damage or
loss could not be imposed (although it could still be imposed for emotional harm suffered
through or by means of the offence). Also, Spier (1997) reported the results of some research
by Patricia Knaggs of the Ministry of Justice into reasons for non-use of reparation for
property offences. The reasons most commonly cited by judges for not imposing reparation
were that the loss had been made good or the property was recovered, or that there was no
96
Monetary penalties
_______________________________________________________________
victim loss or an insignificant (i.e. minimal) loss. Information on whether there was a
financial loss to the victim is not available in the current data.
Table 6.8
Percentage of all convicted charges resulting in reparation, by type of
offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
2.4
1.4
19.4
0.0
0.1
1.4
0.7
1.5
2.4
0.9
19.5
0.0
0.4
2.1
0.8
1.3
3.2
1.0
19.8
0.0
0.3
1.8
0.9
0.9
3.1
1.6
22.4
0.1
0.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
3.1
1.3
23.8
0.0
0.2
1.3
1.1
1.6
3.2
1.3
20.1
0.2
0.2
1.3
1.1
1.7
3.4
1.3
20.8
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.2
3.1
3.7
1.3
21.0
0.1
0.3
1.1
1.3
3.2
3.4
1.0
20.4
0.1
0.3
1.2
1.4
3.7
3.4
1.4
20.0
0.1
0.3
0.9
1.4
2.1
6.3
6.8
6.7
7.5
7.9
6.8
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.7
Total
One individual category of non-property offence did result in reparation for a significantly
greater proportion of charges than for the major non-property offence categories indicated in
the table above. Sixteen percent of driving causing death or injury offences resulted in
reparation in 2000.
Table 6.9 shows the number of reparation sentences of various dollar amounts imposed in
the last ten years. The majority of reparation sentences are for $250 or less. In 1995, 61% of
reparation sentences were for $250 or less, but the proportion has decreased in recent years to
51% in 2000. This is reflected in the median reparation sentence imposed which has
increased from $174 in 1995 to $250 in both 1999 and 2000. The 1999 and 2000 figures are
higher than in any other years in the ten year period under examination.
The total amount of reparation imposed increased between 1991 and 1993 (from $9.2 million
to $12.5 million) and has remained between $12 million and $13 million each year since then.
There is a huge range in the amounts of individual reparation sentences. The smallest
amount of reparation imposed in 2000 was 80 cents and the largest amount imposed was
$153,430.
Property offences accounted for 83% of the total amount of financial reparation imposed in
2000 ($10.2 million of the total $12.4 million).
97
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.9
Amounts imposed for all offences resulting in reparation, 1991 to 2000
Year
<=
$100
>$100
to $250
>$250
to $500
>$500
to $1000
>$1000
to $5000
>$5000
Total
number
Median
amount1
Total
amount
1991
No.
(%)
4358
(37.2)
2693
(23.0)
1719
(14.7)
1204
(10.3)
1387
(11.9)
342
(2.9)
11703
(100.0)
$176
$9,186,251
1992
No.
(%)
4711
(38.0)
2878
(23.2)
1796
(14.5)
1202
(9.7)
1421
(11.5)
383
(3.1)
12391
(100.0)
$170
$9,965,076
1993
No.
(%)
4519
(35.7)
2845
(22.5)
1877
(14.8)
1397
(11.0)
1580
(12.5)
438
(3.5)
12656
(100.0)
$197
$12,487,869
1994
No.
(%)
5235
(36.4)
3419
(23.8)
2043
(14.2)
1435
(10.0)
1783
(12.4)
448
(3.1)
14363
(100.0)
$180
$12,914,037
1995
No.
(%)
5577
(36.7)
3693
(24.3)
2304
(15.2)
1454
(9.6)
1729
(11.4)
443
(2.9)
15200
(100.0)
$174
$12,211,449
1996
No.
(%)
4426
(33.8)
3107
(23.7)
2017
(15.4)
1487
(11.3)
1651
(12.6)
422
(3.2)
13110
(100.0)
$200
$13,074,663
1997
No.
(%)
4064
(31.5)
2947
(22.9)
2122
(16.5)
1497
(11.6)
1848
(14.3)
406
(3.2)
12884
(100.0)
$218
$11,827,120
1998
No.
(%)
4216
(31.9)
2894
(21.9)
2225
(16.9)
1612
(12.2)
1814
(13.7)
435
(3.3)
13196
(100.0)
$216
$12,303,367
1999
No.
(%)
3836
(31.0)
2552
(20.6)
2160
(17.4)
1605
(13.0)
1834
(14.8)
400
(3.2)
12387
(100.0)
$250
$12,737,578
2000
No.
(%)
3520
(30.1)
2457
(21.0)
2016
(17.2)
1528
(13.1)
1782
(15.2)
389
(3.3)
11692
(100.0)
$250
$12,390,813
Note:
1 The median is the middle value when numbers are arranged from smallest to largest. This statistical
representation of the “average value” is not affected to the same degree as the mean by a small number of
very small or very large values.
Reparation is not usually imposed as the only sentence - this was the case for only 19% of the
reparation sentences imposed in 2000 (see Tables 6.10 and 6.11). Half of the reparation
sentences in 2000 also had a community-based sentence imposed, with reparation being most
commonly imposed in conjunction with periodic detention. The proportion of charges that
had reparation imposed and which also received a community-based sentence has decreased
from 63% in 1991 to 50% in 2000. In 2000, 8% of reparation sentences were imposed in
conjunction with custodial sentences, compared with only 2% of sentences in 1991.
98
Monetary penalties
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.10 Other sentences imposed with reparation, 1991 to 20001
Sentence type
1991
Custodial
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
250
406
736
636
736
576
947
698
929
947
4279
4105
4426
4593
5069
3908
4373
4282
3934
3559
342
458
311
278
224
200
111
129
77
63
Community service
1577
1847
1698
1880
1917
1638
1559
1539
1483
1316
Supervision
1160
1133
1108
1844
1806
1711
1134
1461
1069
938
Fine
Periodic detention
Community programme
1745
1609
1689
1849
2230
2107
1869
1815
1909
1945
Deferment
288
378
297
537
520
496
415
368
382
490
Driving disqualification
107
134
116
149
152
147
144
201
197
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1955
2321
2275
2597
2546
2327
2332
2703
2407
2273
11703
12391
12656
14363
15200
13110
12884
13196
12387
11692
Other
Reparation only
Total
Notes:
1 If more than one other sentence was imposed in conjunction with reparation, then only the most serious
of the other sentences is shown in this table.
Table 6.11
Percentage of reparation sentences imposed with other sentences, 1991
to 2000
Sentence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Custodial
Periodic detention
Community programme
Community service
Supervision
Fine
Deferment
Driving disqualification
Other
Reparation only
2.1
36.6
2.9
13.5
9.9
14.9
2.5
0.9
0.0
16.7
3.3
33.1
3.7
14.9
9.1
13.0
3.1
1.1
0.0
18.7
5.8
35.0
2.5
13.4
8.8
13.3
2.3
0.9
0.0
18.0
4.4
32.0
1.9
13.1
12.8
12.9
3.7
1.0
0.0
18.1
4.8
33.3
1.5
12.6
11.9
14.7
3.4
1.0
0.0
16.8
4.4
29.8
1.5
12.5
13.1
16.1
3.8
1.1
0.0
17.7
7.4
33.9
0.9
12.1
8.8
14.5
3.2
1.1
0.0
18.1
5.3
32.4
1.0
11.7
11.1
13.8
2.8
1.5
0.0
20.5
7.5
31.8
0.6
12.0
8.6
15.4
3.1
1.6
0.0
19.4
8.1
30.4
0.5
11.3
8.0
16.6
4.2
1.4
0.0
19.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
6.4
Use of reparation for property offences
In this section, the use of reparation is examined in detail for individual property offences to
see if the proportion of such offences resulting in reparation has changed over the last
decade, and in particular since the 1993 legislative amendments (described in section 6.1).
The proportion of charges resulting in reparation for the other major offence groups are too
small to allow a meaningful analysis of trends in the use of reparation.
Tables 6.12 and 6.13 show the number and percentage respectively of convictions for each
individual property offence that resulted in a reparation sentence for each of the years 1991 to
2000. In each year in the decade, over half the convictions involving wilful damage resulted
99
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
in a reparation sentence. For burglary and theft, around one in five convicted charges have
resulted in reparation in recent years.
Table 6.12 Number of convicted property charges resulting in a sentence of
reparation, by type of property offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Burglary
Theft
Receiving stolen
property
Motor vehicle
conversion
Fraud
Arson
Wilful damage
Other property
1515
2028
269
1542
2178
286
1635
2286
360
1494
2243
302
1429
2296
285
1367
2286
275
1487
2476
306
1370
2594
313
1327
2556
347
1346
2692
316
337
333
321
392
369
362
369
337
290
313
3917
27
2095
418
4415
27
2070
357
3930
35
2359
399
5252
31
2710
427
5783
40
2969
373
3982
49
2817
243
3415
57
2791
248
3248
60
3023
265
2590
33
2968
353
2007
50
3007
275
10606
11208
11325
12851
13544
11381
11149
11210
10464
10006
Total
Table 6.13 Percentage of convicted property charges resulting in a sentence of
reparation, by type of property offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Burglary
Theft
Receiving stolen
property
Motor vehicle
conversion
Fraud
Arson
Wilful damage
Other property
19.2
14.0
8.3
21.2
14.8
8.0
22.2
14.8
8.8
21.7
16.5
8.7
21.3
18.0
9.1
20.5
17.1
8.7
22.1
18.7
9.9
21.5
18.8
9.3
22.3
18.6
11.6
21.2
20.1
10.5
10.0
11.6
12.6
14.7
13.1
12.8
13.2
13.3
11.9
14.3
21.9
18.8
56.6
10.4
20.6
17.0
57.3
9.3
20.2
18.6
57.5
9.8
24.2
16.2
55.5
10.6
26.3
20.9
57.3
8.8
18.7
29.7
58.2
5.6
18.3
28.8
58.1
5.9
19.0
19.2
59.4
5.6
17.2
15.8
57.6
6.3
13.7
29.2
57.4
5.4
Total
19.4
19.5
19.8
22.4
23.8
20.1
20.8
21.0
20.4
20.0
There were small increases in 1994 and 1995 in the use of reparation for all property offences.
These increases coincided with amendments to the Criminal Justice Act in late 1993 which,
amongst other changes, strengthened the direction to the courts to consider imposing
reparation in all cases unless it would be clearly inappropriate to do so. However, in
subsequent years, the use of reparation has been only marginally higher than the level before
1994.
100
Monetary penalties
_______________________________________________________________
For burglary, the use of reparation has not changed much since 1992.
There was a sustained increase in the use of reparation for theft offences after 1993. In 1993,
15% of theft offences resulted in reparation, but by 2000 the proportion had increased to
20%.
There was little change in the use of reparation for receiving stolen property between 1993
and 1996, with 9% of such offences resulting in reparation each year. However, in three of
the next four years, the proportion was between 10% and 12%.
Since 1993, 13% to 15% of motor vehicle conversion convictions have resulted in reparation
each year (except 1999). In 1991 and 1992, the proportions were a little lower at 10% and
12% respectively.
Reparation use for fraud increased in both 1994 and 1995, but has generally decreased since
then. The 2000 figure for fraud (14%) is the lowest recorded in the decade.
The use of reparation for arson has fluctuated over the decade with no clear pattern.
In each year in the decade, over half the wilful damage convictions have resulted in
reparation, with the proportion fluctuating being between 56% and 59% annually.
In the period 1991 to 1995, 9% to 11% of convictions for “other property” offences resulted
in reparation. However, since then, the proportion has been between 5% and 6%.
Tables 6.14 and 6.15 show the number and proportion of convictions for property offences
resulting in a sentence of reparation in each region for each of the years 1991 to 2000.
In 2000, 10% of the property offences in North Shore resulted in reparation, compared with
more than 40% of the property offences in Pukekohe, Rangiora, Dunedin, and Alexandra
resulting in reparation. The proportions for the other regions fell between these figures.
There were only two regions (Napier and Christchurch) in which the proportion of property
charges resulting in reparation was sustained at a higher level in each year in the period 1994
to 2000 (i.e. after the amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1985) compared with the period
before the amendment. There were a number of other regions where the proportion of
property charges resulting in reparation was higher in five or six, but not all, of the seven
years in the period 1994 to 2000, compared to the period before the amendment.
101
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.14 Number of convictions for property offences resulting in reparation in
each region, 1991 to 2000
Region
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Kaitaia
104
59
63
94
60
50
34
63
59
Kaikohe
82
89
62
100
121
57
68
122
209
Whangarei
299
266
277
385
402
282
393
417
314
North Shore
323
251
208
211
187
239
236
271
250
Waitakere
301
427
458
351
387
328
268
324
268
Auckland
1094
948
953
906
904
897
924
913
768
Otahuhu/Manukau
465
297
492
583
436
449
486
384
351
Papakura
243
170
225
317
376
285
257
255
271
Pukekohe
139
83
95
133
68
127
107
128
71
Tauranga
216
348
203
334
483
333
232
255
287
Whakatane
167
110
177
219
294
149
143
160
157
Hamilton
720
927
934
915
910
761
643
702
685
Te Kuiti
67
44
61
81
85
49
65
67
62
Rotorua
233
298
252
326
272
274
231
295
279
Tokoroa
113
79
84
106
101
105
102
74
102
Taupo
54
60
66
77
87
93
116
119
80
New Plymouth
239
295
347
387
509
228
435
395
387
Hawera
96
110
162
190
153
137
118
141
134
Wanganui
287
246
395
414
245
228
292
265
205
Taihape
52
47
12
59
13
28
22
27
29
Palmerston North
251
431
296
305
419
338
341
409
418
Levin
88
86
81
161
153
109
98
78
88
Masterton
356
239
227
190
193
240
212
173
178
Hastings
320
454
343
314
272
254
285
353
216
Napier
260
277
206
284
449
364
314
267
255
Gisborne
163
203
255
256
242
208
202
207
173
Porirua
211
260
253
321
567
380
288
291
181
Lower Hutt
330
434
413
315
250
288
238
225
225
Upper Hutt
147
183
186
145
121
133
73
104
107
Wellington
590
647
579
872
580
495
573
521
571
Blenheim
81
76
60
119
190
131
101
136
158
Nelson
213
182
206
202
228
265
254
171
275
Greymouth
145
112
96
94
92
88
128
105
80
Christchurch
970
1044
1165
1431
1906
1197
1206
1129
1043
Rangiora
52
127
63
183
58
68
61
66
58
Timaru
320
270
352
332
353
326
291
335
391
Dunedin
447
599
551
589
731
737
680
706
545
Alexandra
29
12
41
42
69
17
40
24
27
Gore
51
63
29
72
67
46
73
59
71
Invercargill
288
355
397
436
511
598
519
474
436
Notes:
1 The regions in this table are based on the location of Community Probation Service Centres. Each
services one or more courts, and the figures for all such courts were included in each region’s figures.
102
2000
70
126
323
207
241
784
346
295
150
281
148
708
70
205
126
84
272
79
157
26
356
76
150
278
237
192
231
180
91
520
127
249
89
936
85
302
578
36
100
495
centre
Monetary penalties
_______________________________________________________________
Table 6.15 Percentage of convictions for property offences resulting in reparation in
each region, 1991 to 2000
Region
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Kaitaia
32.2
33.5
25.7
42.9
26.7
22.9
21.3
35.0
29.8
Kaikohe
29.4
21.5
21.2
33.6
27.5
20.7
22.9
27.2
33.4
Whangarei
16.8
22.3
23.1
28.1
21.1
18.5
24.0
24.1
19.9
North Shore
20.7
14.5
12.0
15.1
12.8
13.5
11.1
13.6
14.2
Waitakere
21.3
22.9
20.6
18.9
21.7
22.0
18.2
18.5
15.9
Auckland
14.6
12.8
12.9
11.9
13.0
11.4
13.1
14.2
11.4
Otahuhu/Manukau
17.5
11.3
14.6
18.7
14.3
14.6
17.1
15.5
13.0
Papakura
22.2
15.3
17.1
19.1
24.5
18.0
17.3
17.4
14.5
Pukekohe
28.4
16.7
20.5
25.2
19.8
21.9
26.4
14.6
17.5
Tauranga
15.6
26.0
18.3
24.0
27.2
19.5
16.3
15.2
20.3
Whakatane
25.3
18.8
19.1
31.2
30.9
22.2
19.7
14.6
21.7
Hamilton
17.3
18.4
17.7
19.4
19.8
14.9
16.5
15.8
15.8
Te Kuiti
21.2
16.2
21.1
24.5
27.4
23.2
18.4
20.6
28.8
Rotorua
15.4
22.3
17.9
24.6
21.6
18.2
16.8
24.0
21.6
Tokoroa
19.9
17.8
20.0
24.9
21.1
21.4
21.3
18.3
27.0
Taupo
12.8
12.0
18.8
27.5
19.0
23.7
25.5
27.1
18.3
New Plymouth
22.9
21.7
36.6
33.7
35.0
19.9
38.2
31.7
31.3
Hawera
26.7
23.2
28.3
54.8
40.8
27.2
32.6
35.3
38.2
Wanganui
27.5
25.5
35.3
27.8
25.7
18.6
31.9
24.5
23.1
Taihape
46.4
35.6
20.7
65.6
25.0
52.8
47.8
31.8
33.0
Palmerston North
16.6
24.9
15.0
17.3
26.8
23.1
18.6
25.5
25.2
Levin
19.0
22.7
16.3
33.5
36.3
25.3
26.8
19.8
24.9
Masterton
39.6
25.8
23.2
20.1
36.3
33.5
31.0
34.7
34.0
Hastings
25.6
30.2
28.5
21.6
24.2
20.6
21.5
29.1
17.9
Napier
23.3
21.9
20.5
25.4
39.4
31.4
23.3
24.3
23.7
Gisborne
20.0
17.2
22.9
26.2
28.6
21.5
21.8
18.8
24.9
Porirua
16.3
25.4
20.4
32.9
41.1
31.1
24.9
31.7
18.5
Lower Hutt
20.1
25.2
23.0
20.4
22.3
23.8
21.3
21.8
23.2
Upper Hutt
31.1
28.6
35.8
23.4
24.5
26.5
19.6
22.8
29.8
Wellington
18.8
19.2
20.5
32.6
22.2
17.6
22.3
22.5
30.6
Blenheim
30.6
17.8
14.2
22.2
44.9
28.8
21.6
28.3
30.6
Nelson
18.4
17.7
22.7
21.1
21.7
22.6
20.6
16.7
23.2
Greymouth
36.8
26.1
24.8
29.8
24.8
27.8
37.4
29.3
31.1
Christchurch
15.1
14.3
17.8
21.5
23.8
19.5
19.1
18.9
18.2
Rangiora
29.9
51.8
41.2
53.2
29.9
27.9
26.2
31.0
35.2
Timaru
27.0
20.4
29.0
27.2
37.4
31.4
26.4
32.5
36.4
Dunedin
25.4
32.4
27.3
26.9
33.0
37.8
34.4
33.4
28.3
Alexandra
49.2
16.9
38.3
45.2
62.7
21.8
42.1
27.9
36.0
Gore
39.5
38.4
17.5
32.4
29.0
27.9
42.0
30.6
44.1
Invercargill
15.4
26.3
26.9
21.7
28.5
29.5
38.2
33.6
29.7
Notes:
1 The regions in this table are based on the location of Community Probation Service Centres. Each
services one or more courts, and the figures for all such courts were included in each region’s figures.
2000
34.5
31.6
26.9
10.1
15.6
10.5
12.7
18.1
40.7
15.3
21.3
19.5
24.6
19.1
27.9
15.9
27.3
26.6
18.5
30.6
22.4
24.8
29.1
21.9
25.2
22.8
20.7
17.0
25.1
20.5
20.9
21.6
28.9
19.1
47.2
33.8
40.4
42.9
33.2
37.0
centre
103
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
104
Court statistics on young offenders
7.1
Introduction
Children (i.e. those aged under 14) and young people (i.e. those aged 14 to 16 inclusive) who
offend are dealt with by the criminal justice system differently from older people. Children
and young people are dealt with under the provisions of the Children, Young Persons, and
Their Families Act 1989 (CYP&F Act). As it relates to youth justice, the CYP&F Act
indicates that “...unless the public interest requires otherwise, criminal proceedings should not
be instituted against a child or young person if there is an alternative means of dealing with
the matter” (s.208). The legislation provides that in most cases where a young person is
arrested and brought before the Youth Court, the court must adjourn the proceedings until a
family group conference has been held (s.246). The family group conference is required to
recommend to the court whether the young person should be dealt with by the court or in
some other way (s.258(d)). Where a young person is not arrested, proceedings may not be
instituted unless a family group conference has been held (s.245). In these cases, the young
person will only appear in court if the family group conference recommends that the matter
be dealt with by the courts (s.258(b)) or if the enforcement officer (usually a police officer)
disagrees with the recommendations of the conference (s.263(1)(b), s.264(2)). The CYP&F
Act, therefore, places an emphasis on diverting young people from formal prosecution
processes in court, and using the family group conference as a means of making decisions
about young offenders.
It should be noted that a child under the age of 10 cannot be prosecuted for any offence.
Children aged 10 to 13 can only be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. When a child
aged 10 to 13 commits any other type of offence, the offending will be dealt with under the
Care and Protection provisions of the CYP&F Act (as opposed to the Youth Justice
provisions), if the number, nature, or magnitude of the offence(s) give serious concern for the
well-being of the child.
The focus of this chapter is to examine trends in the number of cases involving young people
coming before the courts, the outcome of those cases, and the type and seriousness of the
offences involved in proved cases. Information is also provided on the gender, age and
ethnicity of young people coming before the courts. As the majority of cases, and in
particular the less serious cases, involving young people are not dealt with by formal
proceedings in court, the court statistics presented in this chapter do not give an accurate
picture of overall trends in offending by young people.
As discussed above, most young offenders who are apprehended are not prosecuted in formal
court proceedings. For example, some young offenders are cautioned or warned, and others
go directly to a family group conference without a formal court appearance. Therefore,
before discussing statistics on the young people who had at least one appearance in the Youth
105
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Court, information is presented on the number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the
Police over the last decade (section 7.2). These figures do give an indication of trends in
offending by young people.
The jurisdiction of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 relates to a
defendant’s age at the time of committing an offence, rather than the age at the finalisation of
proceedings. The date of offence, which allows an offender’s age at the time of committing
an offence to be calculated, is not available in the data used to produce the information in this
report for 1991. Therefore, historical information on all cases eligible to be heard before the
Youth Court is not available. However, as an approximation to this, all cases involving
persons aged between 14 and 16 years at the time when their cases were finalised, and all
cases involving 17 to 19 year olds at the time when their cases were finalised that had the first
court appearance in the Youth Court were included in the court statistic tables (sections 7.3 to
7.6). It was assumed that offenders aged between 17 and 19 when the case was finalised, who
had their first appearance in the Youth Court, must have done so because they were aged 16
years or less when they offended. Data for 2000 show that of the 779 cases involving 17 to
19 year olds that had the first appearance in the Youth Court, 736 (94%) involved people who
were aged 14 to 16 at the time they offended. It should be noted that in cases where a young
person is charged jointly with a person who is not a young person, it is at the discretion of the
Youth Court as to whether both offenders will be dealt with in the Youth Court or elsewhere.
Cases involving traffic offences that are not punishable by imprisonment are not usually dealt
with under the provisions of the CYP&F Act and, for this reason, such cases have been
excluded from the court statistics given.
7.2
Number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the Police
Table 7.1 shows the number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the Police over the last
decade for each offence type. These offence types differ from those used elsewhere in the
report. (See the notes to Table 7.1 for further details.) It should be noted that people who
are apprehended for more than one offence are counted once for each offence.
There was an increasing trend in apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds by the Police in the first
half of the decade, but the number has remained between 30,000 and 31,000 each year since
then. The 2000 figure for total apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds was 40% greater than the
figure in 1991. Apprehensions of adult offenders (i.e. those aged at least 17 years) showed a
reasonably similar trend over the decade. Total apprehensions of adults increased
considerably between 1991 and 1994, dropped a little in 1996, then generally remained
between 150,000 and 152,000 in subsequent years. The 2000 figure for adults was 31%
greater than the figure in 1991.
The number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended for violent offences increased significantly
between 1991 and 1995, remained fairly stable in the next three years, then increased in both
1999 and 2000 to the highest figure recorded in the decade (3,384). The 2000 figure is double
the figure in 1991 (1,681). Apprehensions of adult offenders for violent offences generally
showed a similar trend to that for young offenders. The number of offenders aged at least 17
that were apprehended for violent offences increased significantly between 1991 and 1994,
106
Court statistics on young offenders
__________________________________________________________________
remained relatively stable in the next five years, before increasing in 2000 to the highest figure
recorded in the decade. The 2000 figure for adults was 85% greater than the figure in 1991.
Table 7.1
Number of offenders aged 14 to 16 apprehended by the Police for nontraffic offences, by type of offence, 1991 to 20001
Offence type2
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Overall %
change
Violence3
1681
1813
2447
2881
3139
3195
3156
3137
3233
3384
+101%
148
113
158
157
121
163
149
157
105
144
-3%
Sexual4
Drugs/anti-social5
2487
2244
2995
3357
3616
3965
4481
4672
4619
4189
+68%
14440
15529
17323
17271
18089
18094
16280
15762
15530
15957
+11%
Property abuse7
1687
1708
2023
1884
2153
2193
2556
2260
2494
2295
+36%
Property damage8
1670
1676
2109
2642
2694
2977
3432
2837
3468
3772
+126%
244
263
324
487
577
684
973
1174
1216
1583
+549%
22357
23346
27379
28679
30389
31271
31027
29999
30665
31324
+40%
Dishonesty6
Administrative9
Total
Notes:
1
Source: New Zealand Police. The figures in this table do not refer to distinct offenders. People who are apprehended
for more than one offence are counted once for each offence. Also, for some offences more than one person may be
apprehended.
2
The offence types reported in this table differ from those used elsewhere in the report, as the data were obtained from
a different source. The most frequent offences included in each category are described below.
3
All violent offences excluding sexual offences.
4
Includes rape, unlawful sexual connection, attempted sexual violation, indecent assault, incest, doing an indecent act,
unlawful sexual intercourse, and attempted unlawful sexual intercourse.
5
Includes all drug offences, obstructing or resisting police officers, disorderly behaviour, language offences, “family”
offences, and Sale of Liquor Act offences.
6
Burglary, vehicle conversion, theft, receiving stolen property, and fraud.
7
Includes trespassing, breaches of Telecommunications Act, and various firearms offences.
8
Includes arson and wilful damage.
9
Includes offences against justice (e.g. failure to answer bail or escaping custody), immigration offences, and various bylaw breaches.
Trends in apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds and adults for drug or anti-social offences
showed fairly similar trends over the decade, although the increase in apprehensions over the
decade was greater for the younger offenders (87% compared with 45%). Apprehensions for
these offences for both young people and adults have decreased in the last two years.
The majority (51%) of apprehensions involving 14 to 16 year olds in 2000 were for
dishonesty offences. The number of apprehensions for dishonesty offences involving 14 to
16 year olds increased between 1991 and 1996, before decreasing in the next three years, then
increasing a little in 2000. The 2000 figure was 11% greater than the figure in 1991. The
number of apprehensions for dishonesty offences involving adult offenders showed an
increasing trend between 1990 and 1995, then dropped sharply in the next four years, before
increasing a little in 2000. The 2000 figure was 6% lower than the figure in 1991.
Property abuse apprehensions increased by 36% over the decade for 14 to 16 year olds, while
the increase was slightly larger for adults (45%).
107
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds for property damage offences increased by 126% over
the decade, with the 2000 figure being the highest recorded in the decade. The 2000 figure
for adult offenders was also the highest recorded in the decade, but the increase over the
decade for adult offenders was much lower at 57%.
The increase in apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds for “administrative” offences over the
decade (549%) was much greater than that for adult offenders (81%). It is likely that at least
part of the large increase in apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds for such offences in the
second half of the decade was due to a greater focus by the Police on compliance with bail
conditions. There may also have been a greater focus (including changes in recording
procedures) by the Police with regard to young people absconding from Department of
Child, Youth and Family Services residences (including family homes) when the young person
was remanded into the custody of the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth
and Family Services under section 238(1)(d) of the CYP&F Act.
7.3
Outcomes of prosecutions of young people
Table 7.2 shows the outcomes of cases prosecuted in court involving young persons for all
offences except non-imprisonable traffic offences.
Table 7.2
Outcomes of cases prosecuted involving young people for all offences
except non-imprisonable traffic offences, 1991 to 2000
Outcome
Convicted1
2
S.19 discharge
Youth court proved3
Not proved4
Other5
Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
254
217
245
255
267
293
340
302
279
253
Overall %
change
0%
9
1
4
5
3
3
9
4
7
7
962
789
825
837
1034
1067
1295
1253
1339
1326
+38%
-
1508
1467
1743
1906
2200
2023
1998
2093
2289
2425
+61%
2
0
0
3
7
15
3
3
7
13
2735
2474
2817
3006
3511
3401
3645
3655
3921
4024
+47%
Notes:
1
Convicted in the District or High Court.
2
Discharge without conviction under section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, after the offender is found guilty or
pleads guilty.
3
Cases finalised in the Youth Court that were proven. These cases are not recorded as convictions.
4
Cases that were withdrawn, dismissed, discharged, struck out, not proceeded with, or acquitted. Note that a case
having a “not proved” outcome does not necessarily mean that the offender was found “not guilty”. It may be that
at a family group conference the young person admitted the charge and an agreed resolution of the case was reached,
so the case was withdrawn in the Youth Court.
5
Includes cases where there was a stay of proceedings. Also includes cases where the person was found to be under
disability or was acquitted on account of insanity, and an order was made under section 115 of the Criminal Justice
Act 1985.
There has generally been an increasing trend throughout the decade in the number of cases
involving young people. In 2000, there were 4,024 cases involving young people that came
before the courts, 47% more than the number in 1991 (2,735).
108
Court statistics on young offenders
__________________________________________________________________
Proved cases, where a young offender pleads guilty or is found to be guilty in formal court
proceedings, result in one of three outcomes: a conviction in the District or High Court (after
the case is transferred for trial or sentencing), a “proved” outcome in the Youth Court, or
very occasionally a s.19 discharge. The proportion of cases involving young people that
resulted in conviction was between 8% and 9% between 1991 and 1998, but decreased
slightly to 6% in 2000. The proportion of all cases involving young offenders that were
“proved” in the Youth Court dropped from 35% in 1991 to 28% in 1994, before increasing
to 36% in 1997. In the last three years, 33% to 34% of cases have resulted in such an
outcome.
The number of cases involving young people that had a “not proved” outcome increased by
61% over the decade. In 2000, 60% of cases prosecuted against young offenders were
recorded as “not proved”. It should be noted that many of the cases coming to court would
be referred to a family group conference and be resolved there. The cases would then be
withdrawn or dismissed. Although there was no formal outcome in the court to record it,
guilt may have been acknowledged at the family group conference.
Table 7.3 shows the gender, ethnicity, and age of the young people dealt with in the courts in
2000.
Table 7.3
Gender, ethnicity, and age of young people involved in cases finalised in
2000, by outcome of prosecutions
Proved1
No.
%
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Ethnicity
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Total2
Age
14 years
15 years
16 years
17-19 years3
Total
Not proved
No.
%
Total
No.
%
1365
221
1586
86.1
13.9
100.0
1984
441
2425
81.8
18.2
100.0
3349
662
4011
83.5
16.5
100.0
530
876
126
21
1553
34.1
56.4
8.1
1.4
100.0
936
1188
217
48
2389
39.2
49.7
9.1
2.0
100.0
1466
2064
343
69
3942
37.2
52.4
8.7
1.8
100.0
136
414
719
317
1586
8.6
26.1
45.3
20.0
100.0
230
673
1060
462
2425
9.5
27.8
43.7
19.1
100.0
366
1087
1779
779
4011
9.1
27.1
44.4
19.4
100.0
Notes:
1
Proved cases in this and subsequent tables in this chapter refer to cases that resulted in a conviction in the
District or High Court, resulted in a section 19 discharge, or were proved in the Youth Court.
2
The ethnicity of the young person was not available for 33 proved cases and 36 “not proved” cases.
3
Offenders aged 17 to 19 at the time of sentencing who had their first court appearance for the case in the
Youth Court. For 736 (94%) of these people, the young person was aged 14 to 16 when they offended.
4
Thirteen cases resulting in an outcome of “other” were not included in this table.
109
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Males accounted for 83% of the cases involving young people finalised in 2000. Over half
(52%) of the cases dealt with in 2000, for which the ethnicity of the young person was
known, involved Mäori, a further 37% involved Europeans, and 9% involved Pacific peoples.
Sixteen year olds accounted for the largest proportion (44%) of cases involving an appearance
in the Youth Court in 2000. People aged 14 years accounted for only 9% of the cases
involving young people dealt with in 2000, while 17 to 19 year olds (at the time of sentencing)
accounted for 19% of the cases.
7.4
Types and seriousness of cases that were proved
Tables 7.4 and 7.5 show the number and percentage of proved cases against young people
that involved offences of various types over the period 1991 to 2000.
Violent offences have accounted for about a quarter of the proved cases involving young
people in each year since 1993. The number of proved cases involving a violent offence
more than doubled between 1991 and 1998 (from 210 to 456). However, in the last two
years, the number has been lower than this (390 in 1999 and 403 in 2000). Earlier, Table 7.1
showed that the number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended for violent offences increased
significantly between 1991 and 1995, remained fairly stable in the next three years, then
increased again in 1999 and 2000 to the highest figure recorded in the decade.
The number of aggravated robbery cases proved against young offenders increased
considerably between 1991 and 1997 (from 42 to 145), and has generally remained fairly
stable at the higher level since then. The number of (non-aggravated) robberies has been
higher in each year since 1993 compared to the first two years in the decade. The number of
“grievous” or “serious” assaults proved against young offenders increased significantly
between 1992 and 1996 (from 56 to 141), and has generally remained fairly stable at the
higher level since then.
The proportion of proved cases involving property offences decreased from 62% in 1991 to
49% in 1998. In the last two years 56% of proved cases involving young offenders involved
property offences. Burglaries have accounted for over half of the proved property offences
throughout the decade.
The number of proved cases involving offences against justice has been greater in the last
four years compared to earlier years in the decade. The vast majority of the increase occurred
for escaping from custody offences. This finding may be due to a greater focus in recent
years by the Police with regard to young people absconding from Department of Child,
Youth and Family Services residences (including family homes) when the young person was
remanded into the custody of the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth and
Family Services under section 238(1)(d) of the CYP&F Act.
Imprisonable traffic offences have accounted for 8% to 12% of the proved cases involving
young offenders over the decade. The proportion has generally been lower in the period
1994 to 2000, than in the first three years in the decade.
110
Court statistics on young offenders
__________________________________________________________________
Table 7.4
Number of proved cases involving young offenders, by type of offence,
1991 to 2000
Offence type
Overall %
change
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
3
8
1
3
3
3
5
3
0
1
Violent sexual
23
17
22
27
36
38
27
28
35
22
-4%
Aggravated robbery
42
74
76
88
115
94
145
151
134
145
+245%
Homicide1
2
-
Robbery
28
27
43
53
48
53
54
63
51
45
+61%
Grievous/serious assault3
68
56
77
80
106
141
141
140
119
136
+100%
Minor assault4
29
32
26
26
30
31
29
29
23
27
-7%
Other violent
Subtotal – Violent
Other against persons
Burglary
Theft
17
18
18
26
24
36
27
42
28
27
+59%
210
232
263
303
362
396
428
456
390
403
+92%
10
6
11
7
10
16
15
19
16
13
+30%
431
330
331
327
406
390
451
395
477
491
+14%
56
63
57
52
63
70
76
93
112
110
+96%
142
112
89
97
115
137
156
111
145
115
-19%
Arson
20
15
26
27
13
21
21
25
12
33
+65%
Wilful damage
24
13
28
26
26
31
35
27
36
37
+54%
M/V conversion5
Other property
Subtotal – Property
85
58
79
53
93
82
118
107
125
96
+13%
758
591
610
582
716
731
857
758
907
882
+16%
Drug
26
11
13
20
12
15
20
20
36
30
+15%
Against justice
21
19
23
40
31
44
68
81
53
63
+200%
Good order
42
29
20
23
34
35
42
40
51
39
-7%
Drive E.B.A6
94
68
63
73
69
65
100
81
83
77
-18%
Drive while disqualified
19
17
21
12
13
14
27
20
17
12
-37%
Reckless/danger. driving7
18
16
14
10
23
17
28
25
29
27
+50%
Other imp. traffic8
15
7
13
7
12
13
23
13
11
19
+27%
Subtotal – Traffic
146
108
111
102
117
109
178
139
140
135
-8%
12
11
23
20
22
17
36
46
32
21
+75%
1225
1007
1074
1097
1304
1363
1644
1559
1625
1586
+29%
Miscellaneous
Total
Notes:
1
Murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder.
2
Sexual violation, attempted sexual violation, and indecent assault.
3
“Grievous” and “serious” assaults, including assaults by males on females, and assaults on children. See the
notes to Table 2.7 for a list of offences included in the grievous and serious assault categories.
4
Mainly common assault under the Summary Offences Act 1981.
5
Motor vehicle conversion.
6
Drive with an excess blood or breath alcohol level, or refuse to supply a blood specimen.
7
Reckless or dangerous driving. In previous editions of this report these offences were included in the “other
imprisonable traffic” offence figures.
8
Other imprisonable traffic offences.
111
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 7.5
Percentage of all proved cases involving young offenders involving each
type of offence, 1991 to 2000
Offence type
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Imprisonable traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
17.1
0.8
61.9
2.1
1.7
3.4
11.9
1.0
23.0
0.6
58.7
1.1
1.9
2.9
10.7
1.1
24.5
1.0
56.8
1.2
2.1
1.9
10.3
2.1
27.6
0.6
53.1
1.8
3.6
2.1
9.3
1.8
27.8
0.8
54.9
0.9
2.4
2.6
9.0
1.7
29.1
1.2
53.6
1.1
3.2
2.6
8.0
1.2
26.0
0.9
52.1
1.2
4.1
2.6
10.8
2.2
29.2
1.2
48.6
1.3
5.2
2.6
8.9
3.0
24.0
1.0
55.8
2.2
3.3
3.1
8.6
2.0
25.4
0.8
55.6
1.9
4.0
2.5
8.5
1.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 7.6 shows the number of proved cases involving young offenders with each level of
offence seriousness and the average seriousness of these offences for each of the years 1991
to 2000. The table includes all cases proven in the Youth, District or High Court against
young offenders.
Table 7.6
Number of proved cases involving young offenders with each level of
offence seriousness and average seriousness of offences, 1991 to 2000
Seriousness score
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
0–1
>1 – 10
>10 – 50
>50 – 100
>100 – 500
>500
71
268
248
233
332
73
35
212
213
185
252
110
64
211
194
176
319
110
69
195
183
187
339
124
65
244
229
206
390
170
64
223
264
245
400
167
94
313
317
265
450
205
83
289
275
280
426
206
82
308
316
275
466
178
79
296
265
279
480
187
Overall average
143
192
187
205
225
213
207
211
186
194
Note:
The seriousness of offence scale was updated in 2000. The figures for each year in this table are calculated using
the new scale.
The average seriousness of proved cases involving young offenders increased significantly
between 1991 and 1995 (from 143 to 225), before decreasing to 186 in 1999. In 2000, the
average seriousness was 194. The second most serious group of offences (with seriousness
scores of >100 to 500) have continued to increase in number since 1992, while the most
serious offences (with seriousness scores of >500) more than doubled in number in the first
half of the decade, and has remained at a higher level since then.
112
Court statistics on young offenders
__________________________________________________________________
7.5
Sentencing of young offenders
Some of the sentences that can be imposed in the Youth Court once a charge against a young
offender has been proved differ from those that the District or High Court can impose. The
Youth Court cannot impose the Criminal Justice Act community-based sentences (periodic
detention, community programme, community service, and supervision by a probation
officer) or imprisonment sentences (corrective training for 16 to 19 year olds, and other
imprisonment); these sentences can only be imposed in the District or High Court.
The Youth Court can, however, make an order placing a young person under the supervision
of the Chief Executive of the Department administering the CYP&F Act (currently the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services), or under the supervision of any other
specified organisation for a period not exceeding six months. The Youth Court can also
make a supervision with activity order, which requires the offender to undertake a specified
activity or programme for a period of up to three months. Under the CYP&F Act, a
supervision with residence order can be made placing a young person in the custody of the
Chief Executive of the Department administering the Act for a period of three months.
A community work order can also be made, such that the young person undertakes work in
the interests of the community for between 20 and 200 hours.
Young offenders can be transferred to the District Court for sentencing once a case has been
proved. For certain offences, young offenders may, after a preliminary hearing in the Youth
Court, be tried in the District Court or High Court. If a case is finalised in the District or
High Court then any of the full range of penalties available to these courts can be imposed on
the young person.
Tables 7.7 and 7.8 show the number and percentage of proved cases involving young
offenders resulting in each sentence over the period 1991 to 2000. Only the most serious
sentence imposed in each case is shown in the tables.
As described earlier, an imprisonment sentence or an adult community-based sentence can
only be imposed on a young person if the person was transferred to the District or High
Court for trial or sentencing.
Up until 1995, the majority of young people who were imprisoned were given corrective
training (a brief custodial sentence with a rigorous regime for young people aged 16 to 19). In
the period 1997 to 2000, other imprisonment sentences were used more frequently than
corrective training. The proportion of proved cases that resulted in any type of custodial
sentence remained between 8% and 9% between 1991 and 1998, but dropped to 6% in 2000.
The proportion of cases involving young offenders resulting in an adult community-based
sentence has been slightly lower in the last four years than in earlier years in the decade, with
the 2000 figure (just under 7%) being the lowest recorded in the decade.
113
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 7.7
Number of proved cases involving young offenders resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence
Corrective training
Other imprisonment
Adult community1
Supervision order2
Community work
Monetary
Driving disqualification
Deferment3
Other
Admonished4
Discharged5
Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
62
37
119
427
111
122
69
152
1
102
23
64
26
92
347
132
107
40
129
0
63
7
55
27
108
370
117
141
56
95
0
78
27
62
39
105
403
92
149
60
96
0
52
39
60
43
121
446
124
183
73
96
1
137
20
61
61
139
467
101
208
61
107
0
137
21
51
92
131
554
116
269
113
104
0
155
59
43
76
118
571
98
233
84
88
0
223
25
49
56
118
597
107
211
78
112
0
262
35
19
77
106
612
101
218
67
100
0
256
30
1225
1007
1074
1097
1304
1363
1644
1559
1625
1586
Notes:
1
Adult community-based sentence (periodic detention, community programme, community service, or
supervision).
2
Order placing the young person under the supervision of the Chief Executive of the Department
administering the CYP&F Act.
3
To come up for sentence if called upon, or a suspended prison sentence.
4
Where a case is proved, the Youth Court Judge can admonish (reprimand) the young person.
5
Includes cases where the offender was convicted and discharged under s.20, or discharged under s.19
of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
Table 7.8
Percentage of proved cases involving young offenders resulting in each
type of sentence, 1991 to 2000
Sentence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Corrective training
Other imprisonment
Adult community
Supervision order
Community work
Monetary
Driving disqualification
Deferment
Other
Admonished
Discharged
5.1
3.0
9.7
34.9
9.1
10.0
5.6
12.4
0.1
8.3
1.9
6.4
2.6
9.1
34.5
13.1
10.6
4.0
12.8
0.0
6.3
0.7
5.1
2.5
10.1
34.5
10.9
13.1
5.2
8.8
0.0
7.3
2.5
5.7
3.6
9.6
36.7
8.4
13.6
5.5
8.8
0.0
4.7
3.6
4.6
3.3
9.3
34.2
9.5
14.0
5.6
7.4
0.1
10.5
1.5
4.5
4.5
10.2
34.3
7.4
15.3
4.5
7.9
0.0
10.1
1.5
3.1
5.6
8.0
33.7
7.1
16.4
6.9
6.3
0.0
9.4
3.6
2.8
4.9
7.6
36.6
6.3
14.9
5.4
5.6
0.0
14.3
1.6
3.0
3.4
7.3
36.7
6.6
13.0
4.8
6.9
0.0
16.1
2.2
1.2
4.9
6.7
38.6
6.4
13.7
4.2
6.3
0.0
16.1
1.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
The proportion of proved cases resulting in a Youth Court supervision order remained
relatively stable between 1991 and 1997 at just over a third of cases. The proportion has
increased a little in the last three years to 39% in 2000 – the highest figure recorded in the
114
Court statistics on young offenders
__________________________________________________________________
decade. Some of the cases resulting in a supervision order are supervision with activity orders
and some are supervision with residence orders. The data that indicates the type of sentence
imposed does not distinguish between these supervision orders. However, there is a free-text
field in the data that records additional information on the sentences imposed. While this
information needs to be treated with caution (as this field may not be completed in all cases),
it can be noted that for 18% (112) of the cases where a supervision order was made in 2000
the free-text field mentioned a residence order, and for 21% (128) of the cases where a
supervision order was made the free-text field mentioned an activity order.
A community work order was made for 6% of the cases in 2000. The proportion of proved
cases resulting in such an order peaked in 1992 at 13%, then decreased in subsequent years.
Since 1993, 13% to 16% of proved cases resulted in a monetary penalty – a slightly higher
proportion than in the first two years in the decade.
The proportion of proved cases resulting in a deferred sentence decreased from 13% of cases
in 1992 to 6% of cases in 1997, and has remained at this lower level since then.
Admonition involves the offender receiving a reprimand from a Youth Court Judge. The
proportion of proved cases resulting in an outcome of admonished, with no other sentence
being imposed, has been higher in the last three years than in earlier years in the decade. In
2000, 16% of proved cases resulted in such an outcome.
Section 258(e) of the CYP&F Act allows a family group conference to “consider how the
young person should be dealt with for [an] offence, and to recommend to the Court
accordingly.” Information on decisions of a family group conference is not recorded in the
data. It is likely that young offenders who had only a minor sentence imposed by the Court
undertook some particular action or activity as a result of a family group conference decision.
For example, it could be that a family group conference decided that a young person should
undertake some work as compensation to the victim of an offence, and the Court awarded a
deferred sentence, so that the offender could be brought back to Court if the work was not
completed.
7.6
Final court of sentencing
Eighty-four percent of the proved cases involving young offenders in 2000 were finalised in
the Youth Court – the highest proportion recorded in the decade. The remaining 16% of the
cases were nearly all finalised in the District Court, with only 11 of the 1,586 proved cases in
2000 being finalised in the High Court.
115
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 7.9
Percentage of proved cases involving young offenders that were finalised
in each court, 1991 to 2000
Final court
Youth Court
District/High Court
Total
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
79
21
78
22
77
23
76
24
79
21
78
22
79
21
80
20
82
18
84
16
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 7.10 shows the Court where proved cases were finalised in 2000, by the type of offence
involved. According to the Case Monitoring data, 58 of the 260 cases finalised in the District
or High Court were transferred for sentencing after the case was “proved” in the Youth
Court. All but one of the 58 cases transferred for sentencing resulted in a custodial or adult
community-based sentence. The remaining 202 cases were recorded as being “proved” in the
District or High Court, presumably as the result of a trial. Forty-four of these cases were
recorded as involving only one court appearance (i.e. there was no record in the data of an
initial appearance in the Youth Court).
Table 7.10 Court where proved cases involving young offenders were finalised in
2000, by type of offence
Offence type
Final Court
Youth Court
No.
%
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Imprisonable traffic1
Miscellaneous
Overall
District or High Court
No.
%
Total
No.
%
301
11
795
27
48
33
101
10
74.7
84.6
90.1
90.0
76.2
84.6
74.8
47.6
102
2
87
3
15
6
34
11
25.3
15.4
9.9
10.0
23.8
15.4
25.2
52.4
403
13
882
30
63
39
135
21
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1326
83.6
260
16.4
1586
100.0
Note:
1
Cases involving traffic offences which are not punishable by imprisonment are not usually dealt
with under the provisions of the CYP&F Act, and for this reason cases relating to nonimprisonable traffic offences have been excluded from the figures given.
Seventy-five percent of proved violent offences and 90% of proved property offences were
finalised in the Youth Court in 2000. All but three of the 30 proved drug offences were
finalised in the Youth Court.
The majority of the 21 “miscellaneous” offences in 2000 were finalised in the District Court,
with the vast majority of these convictions involving minors consuming alcohol in a public
place.
116
Trends in the use of bail and in
offending while on bail
by Barb Lash, Research Adviser, Ministry of Justice
8.1
Introduction
The Ministry of Justice published an extensive study of people on bail in 1994 and their
offending in Lash (1998b). After the publication of the report, the Ministry identified a need
to produce a regular series of statistics on offending while on bail so that changes may be
tracked over time. As a result, a new method for producing such statistics was developed and
the first results for the years 1993 to 1996 were presented in Spier (1999).
The latest available information on offending on bail is for 1998. In these statistics, an
offence committed while on bail is defined as a conviction for an offence committed while on
bail. Some court proceedings for offences committed while on bail were not finalised until
two years after the offence was committed. To allow for this, convictions for the two years
after 1998 (1999 and 2000) were included in the measurement of offending on bail.
Cases that were finalised in one day were excluded from the analysis in this chapter, as bail is
generally not relevant in these cases.
8.2
Those on bail and other types of remand
Bail is only one of several remand options available to the court. When a person appears in
court and is charged with an offence, the court case is not always decided at the first
appearance. Several hearings may be required before a final decision on the case is made, and
in the case of jury trials there is often a delay of several months before the trial takes place.
This means that several adjournments of the case may occur. When a court hearing is
adjourned the court has the following options for dealing with the defendant:
Remand at large:
A time and place for the next court hearing are specified, but no
conditions are imposed on the defendant;
Remand on bail:
The defendant is released, but has various conditions imposed;
Remand in custody: The defendant is kept in custody until the next court appearance.
117
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
In the Youth Court two other options are available:
Deliver into the custody of the Chief The defendant is kept in the custody of one
Executive of the Department administering of these agencies until the next court
the Children, Young Persons and Their appearance.
Family Act 1989, an Iwi Social Service, or a
Cultural Social Service:
Deliver into the custody of a parent or This is similar to remand at large. It is the
guardian:
responsibility of the parent or guardian to
ensure that the defendant appears at the next
court hearing.
For each year from 1993 to 1998 (except for 1994), just under half of the finalised cases
which did not start and finish on the same day involved a remand on bail. In 1994 just over
half of the cases finalised involved a remand on bail. Some of the cases will have been
remanded on bail throughout the case, and some will have also had other types of remand for
some of the case.
Table 8.1
Percentage of all cases prosecuted that involved a remand on bail1, by
major charge, 1993 to 1998
Major charge
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
77.3
65.4
61.5
58.5
58.5
45.8
31.3
13.2
78.7
62.6
61.1
59.4
61.6
44.4
31.6
12.4
79.1
57.6
60.0
56.5
61.5
38.8
31.3
13.7
77.6
56.0
58.9
53.4
59.6
36.1
30.4
12.1
76.7
53.4
60.4
52.1
61.1
36.8
32.1
16.6
76.0
55.0
59.6
53.2
63.3
36.1
31.2
21.3
Total
48.9
50.8
49.9
47.8
49.3
49.0
Note:
1
Excludes cases that were finalised in one day. Cases that were not remanded on bail were either remanded at large or
remanded in custody, or in the case of some young people remanded in the Youth Court, delivered into the custody of
the Chief Executive of the Department administering the Children, Young Persons and Their Family Act 1989, an Iwi
Social Service, a Cultural Social Service, or a parent or guardian.
The percentage of cases that were remanded on bail varied with the type of offence which the
person was charged with (see Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1). In 1998, 76% of cases where a
person was charged with a violent offence as the major charge, resulted in the person being
remanded on bail. Slightly less than a third of traffic cases involved a remand on bail.
118
Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 8.1
Percentage of all cases prosecuted that involved a remand on bail, by
major charge, 1998
Violent
Against justice
Property
Other against persons
Drug
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of all cases
The number of cases that involved a remand on bail has tended to increase from 40,129 in
1993 to 47,891 in 1998, although the number decreased slightly in 1996 (see Table 8.2).
Table 8.2
Major charge for which people were remanded on bail, 1993 to 1998
Major charge for which
on bail
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
1993
8688
841
13312
3068
3168
1835
8398
819
1994
11422
910
12961
3652
3499
2150
7948
766
1995
12512
987
13109
3179
3655
2230
8871
789
1996
11798
1008
13071
3190
3544
2317
8917
765
1997
11289
897
13690
3507
3954
2467
9482
793
1998
11236
988
13864
4006
4365
2637
9877
918
Overall %
change
+29%
+17%
+4%
+31%
+38%
+44%
+18%
+12%
Total
40129
43308
45332
44610
46079
47891
+19%
8.3
Offending while on bail
The proportion of people who offended while on bail changed very little between 1993 and
1998 (see Table 8.3 and Figure 8.2). The percentage increased slightly from 20% to 22%
between 1993 and 1995, before decreasing slightly from 21% in 1996 to 20% in 1998.
119
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 8.3 Number and percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail,
1993 to 1998
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Offended on bail
No.
%
8100
20.2
9154
21.1
10045
22.2
9531
21.4
9680
21.0
9657
20.2
Did not offend on bail
No.
%
32029
79.8
34154
78.9
35287
77.8
35079
78.6
36399
79.0
38234
79.8
Total on bail
No.
%
40129
100.0
43308
100.0
45332
100.0
44610
100.0
46079
100.0
47891
100.0
Figure 8.2
Percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail, 1993 to 1998
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Year
Offended on bail
Did not offend on bail
The percentage of cases where there was an offence committed while on bail varied with the
type of charge for which the person was on bail (see Table 8.4 and Figure 8.3). In 1998, those
on bail charged with a property offence or an offence against justice were the most likely to
offend while on bail (26% and 25% of cases respectively). Those on bail charged with a
miscellaneous offence were the least likely to offend while on bail (12% of cases). Sixteen
percent of the people on bail charged with a violent offence in 1998 committed an offence
while on bail.
The percentage of people on bail charged with an offence against justice that offended while
on bail was a little higher in the period 1995 to 1997 than in the two previous years, but in
1998 the percentage had decreased to just below the 1993 level (see Table 8.4). For people
on bail charged with violent offences, property offences or traffic offences, the percentage
120
Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
__________________________________________________________________
that offended while on bail was a little greater in each year in the period 1994 to 1997 than in
1993, but in 1998 the percentage had decreased slightly to approximately the 1993 level. For
people on bail charged with drug offences or offences against good order, the percentage that
offended while on bail in 1997 was slightly less than in the four previous years, but in 1998
the percentage had increased slightly to approximately the 1993 level.
Table 8.4
Percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail, by major
charge for which remanded on bail, 1993 to 1998
Major charge for which on bail
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
15.9
15.5
25.4
15.4
25.7
21.5
16.7
15.0
17.3
20.8
26.9
16.8
25.2
22.5
17.8
14.5
17.9
19.5
27.9
19.2
26.8
25.7
18.9
14.6
17.2
17.4
27.5
16.9
27.3
23.2
17.7
15.4
17.4
19.3
27.1
14.7
27.0
20.5
17.3
14.0
16.4
18.8
25.9
15.7
25.4
21.4
16.4
11.5
Total
20.2
21.1
22.2
21.4
21.0
20.2
Figure 8.3
Percentage of people on bail who offended while on bail, by major
charge for which remanded on bail, 1998
Property
Against justice
Good order
Other against persons
Traffic
Violent
Drug
Miscellaneous
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percentage
121
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
8.4
Nature of offending while on bail
In 1998, the most common offences committed while on bail were property offences (33%),
traffic offences (21%) and offences against justice (18%). Violent offences accounted for
12% of the offences committed while on bail in 1998 (see Table 8.6).
Table 8.5
Major offence committed while on bail, 1993 to 1998
Major offence committed on bail
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
953
138
2977
575
1270
444
1615
128
1233
173
3159
692
1440
541
1794
122
1490
169
3318
571
1647
625
2076
149
1230
157
3282
580
1612
613
1919
138
1198
146
3290
626
1792
556
1943
129
1166
149
3185
689
1776
581
1976
135
Total
8100
9154
10045
9531
9680
9657
Table 8.6
Major offence committed while on bail as a percentage of all cases
where an offence was committed on bail, 1993 to 1998
Major offence committed on bail
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
11.8
1.7
36.8
7.1
15.7
5.5
19.9
1.6
13.5
1.9
34.5
7.6
15.7
5.9
19.6
1.3
14.8
1.7
33.0
5.7
16.4
6.2
20.7
1.5
12.9
1.6
34.4
6.1
16.9
6.4
20.1
1.4
12.4
1.5
34.0
6.5
18.5
5.7
20.1
1.3
12.1
1.5
33.0
7.1
18.4
6.0
20.5
1.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 8.7 shows the major charge for which people were on bail and the types of offences
that were committed while on bail in 1998.
For the minority of people who offended while on bail, the major offence committed while
on bail was not the same type as the charge for which the person was on bail. However, for
five of the eight major offence groups, the greatest proportion of offences committed on bail
were the same type as the charge for which the person was on bail.
122
Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
__________________________________________________________________
In 1998, for people on bail charged with a violent offence, 5% committed another violent
offence while on bail, 3% committed a property offence, and 3% committed a traffic offence.
For people on bail charged with a property offence in 1998, the most common type of
offence committed while on bail was another property offence (14%). In 1998, for people on
bail charged with a drug offence, 6% committed another drug offence while on bail, 3%
committed a property offence, and 3% committed a traffic offence. In 1998, for people on
bail charged with an offence against justice, 12% committed another offence against justice
while on bail, and 6% committed a property offence. In 1998, for people on bail charged
with a traffic offence, 8% committed another traffic offence while on bail, 3% committed an
offence against justice, and 3% committed a property offence.
Table 8.7 Percentage of offences of each type committed while on bail, by major
charge for which remanded on bail in 1998
Major charge for
which on bail
Major offence committed while on bail
Drug Against Good
Traffic
justice
order
Violent
Other ag.
persons
Property
Misc.
No
offence
Total
Violent
Other against
persons
5.0
0.2
3.4
0.9
2.4
1.1
3.1
0.2
83.6
100.0
2.0
2.7
3.7
0.9
3.1
2.0
3.6
0.6
81.2
100.0
Property
1.9
0.3
14.3
1.1
Drug
1.3
0.3
3.1
5.6
3.6
1.2
3.1
0.3
74.1
100.0
1.8
0.6
2.8
0.2
84.3
100.0
Against justice
1.8
0.2
5.7
1.2
12.0
1.1
3.2
0.2
74.6
100.0
Good order
2.4
0.3
5.5
1.6
3.2
4.7
3.4
0.3
78.6
100.0
Traffic
1.2
0.2
2.5
0.9
2.7
0.6
8.2
0.2
83.6
100.0
Miscellaneous
1.1
0.2
2.5
1.3
2.1
0.7
2.0
1.7
88.5
100.0
Total
2.4
0.3
6.7
1.4
3.7
1.2
4.1
0.3
79.8
100.0
123
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
124
Use of home detention in 2000
9.1
Introduction
The Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1999 inserted provisions relating to home detention into
the principal Act from 1 October 19997. Home detention allows some offenders to serve part of
their prison sentences outside prison under electronic surveillance, and under intensive
supervision by Probation Officers. The offender wears a security device which continuously
omits a signal and triggers an alarm if the offender leaves the confines of the property which is
the site of his or her home detention.
Home detention was initially available in the major urban areas, and was expanded further
between July and October 2000 to cover most of the country. There are still a few smaller areas
(i.e. Te Kuiti, Taihape, and Alexandra) where home detention is not currently available.
There are two ways an offender can be released to serve their prison sentence by home
detention, and these will be referred to in this chapter as “front-end” home detention and “preparole” home detention. These are described in detail below.
This chapter presents information on the extent to which courts granted offenders leave to apply
for home detention in the 2000 calendar year, the number of people who were actually released
to home detention in 2000 after having been granted leave to apply (i.e. via the “front-end”), the
number of people released to home detention as a pre-parole option in 2000, and information on
the people who completed home detention in 2000.
9.1.1 “Front-end” home detention
Section 21D of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 specifies that if a court sentences an offender to a
term of imprisonment of not more than 2 years (including activated suspended prison
sentences), it must consider whether to grant the offender leave to apply to a District Prisons
Board for release to home detention. In considering whether to grant leave, the court must
consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any relevant matters in the victim impact
statement in that case.
An offender who is granted leave will usually go to prison, from where they can make an
application to a District Prisons Board for release to home detention in an area where a home
detention scheme is operated, and the Board must consider the application as soon as
practicable. However, under section 78(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, on imposing a
sentence of imprisonment, a Judge may, if he or she has granted leave and is satisfied there are
7 It should be noted that the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 provided a legal framework for a home
detention pilot to take place. The legislation provided for home detention as a parole programme only.
125
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
special reasons why the sentence should not commence immediately, defer the commencement
of the term of the sentence for a period not exceeding 1 month. In such cases, the offender can
apply to a District Prisons Board for release to home detention, and if a decision is made to
approve release to home detention before the deferred sentence commencement date, then the
offender will go onto home detention without spending any time within a prison.
9.1.2 “Pre-parole” home detention
Section 103A of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 specifies that an offender who is subject to a
determinate sentence of imprisonment of more than 2 years, and who is eligible to be released
on parole after the expiry of one-third of the sentence (i.e. is not serving a sentence for a serious
violent offence) may, at any time during the period commencing on the date that is 5 months
before the date the offender is eligible for release on parole and ending with the offender’s final
release date, apply to a District Prisons Board or the Parole Board (as the case may be) for
release to home detention in an area where a home detention scheme is operated. The Board
must consider the application as soon as practicable.
9.1.3 Determination of application for release to home detention
Section 103B of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 specifies provisions relating to the determination
of applications for release to home detention. When an offender has applied for release to home
detention - from either the front-end or pre-parole - the District Prisons Board or the Parole
Board (as the case may be) must request that a Probation Officer prepare a report on the
offender’s suitability for release to home detention.
The Board must consider: the general likelihood of the offender committing further offences
upon his or her release, the nature of the offence, the welfare of the offender and the likelihood
that his or her rehabilitation will be assisted by home detention, the safety and welfare of the
occupants of the residence, and any submissions made by victims of the offender. The Board
must be satisfied that: the offender is suitable for release to home detention, the occupants of the
residence to which the offender will be released understand the conditions of the offender’s
release to home detention and consent to the offender’s detention in that residence in
accordance with those conditions, and the offender has been made aware of and understands the
conditions that would apply on release to home detention and agrees to comply with them.
If the Board directs that an offender be released to serve his or her sentence by way of home
detention, it must consider requiring the offender to undergo a programme.
If the Board declines to direct that an offender be released to home detention, it may (on
application or of its own motion) from time to time reconsider its original decision on the
offender’s application for release to home detention.
9.1.4 Other provisions relating to home detention
Under section 21E(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, if an offender is convicted of an offence
while serving a sentence by way of home detention and the court imposes a sentence of
126
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
imprisonment, and that offence was committed before the commission of the offence to which
the home detention relates, the court may order that the sentence of imprisonment also be
served by way of home detention concurrently with the other sentence that is being served by
way of home detention, unless the aggregate term is more than two years. Under section 21E(1)
periodic detention can also be imposed concurrently with home detention if the offence was
committed before the offence leading to home detention.
Under section 21E(4), when an offender serving home detention is convicted of an imprisonable
offence (except where subsections (1) or (3) above apply), the court must order that the offender
be returned to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence, unless there are special
circumstances for ordering otherwise. If the conviction while serving home detention is for an
offence not punishable by imprisonment, the court may, but is not required to, order that the
offender be returned to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence.
For offenders on home detention with prison sentences of more than one year, under sections
97(2) and 100(2) the Parole Board or a District Prisons Board (as the case may be) must consider
releasing the offender on parole as soon as practicable after the offender becomes eligible for
parole, and at least once every three months thereafter.
Under section 103C, an offender who is serving a sentence by way of home detention is subject
to recall as if he or she had been released on parole. Also, an offender who is serving a sentence
by way of home detention may at any time apply to the District Prisons Board or Parole Board
that directed his or her release for a direction returning the offender to a penal institution.
9.2
Courts’ use of “front-end” leave to apply
Data are available from the Case Monitoring Subsystem of the Law Enforcement System (LES)
on the extent to which courts granted offenders leave to apply for home detention in the 2000
calendar year.
There were 6,590 cases in 2000 that resulted in prison sentences of two years or less. For 1,205
(18%) of these cases there was no information recorded on LES with regard to whether leave to
apply for home detention was granted8. Given this relatively high proportion of cases for which
information on leave to apply was not available, the statistics provided in this subsection need to
be treated with some caution.
For 1,602 (30%) of the 5,385 cases for which information was available, leave to apply for home
detention was granted by the court. Table 9.1 shows the extent to which leave to apply was
granted, according to the gender, ethnicity, and age of offenders, the types of offences
committed, the lengths of the prison sentences imposed, and the number of prior convictions
and prior prison sentences for offenders9.
8 It should be noted that data from the Department of Corrections revealed that 128 of these offenders had a home
detention hearing and so must have been granted leave to apply. However, it could not be determined if other
offenders had leave to apply granted, but did not have a hearing, so these data were excluded from the analysis.
9 Number of convicted cases and prison sentences imposed in the previous 20 years for each offender. Complete
histories of offending were not available.
127
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.1
Whether leave to apply for home detention was granted for prison sentences
of two years or less imposed in 2000
Granted leave to apply
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity1
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age2
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
<=1 month
>1 to 3 months
>3 to 6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
>12 to 18 months
>18 to 24 months
Number of prior
prison sentences
0
1
2-5
6+
Number of prior
convicted cases
0
1
2-5
6+
Overall
Not granted leave to
apply
Number Percentage
Number
Percentage
1383
219
28.2
44.8
3513
270
696
745
112
12
33.0
26.3
33.2
33.3
7
174
352
286
503
279
Number
Percentage
71.8
55.2
4896
489
100.0
100.0
1412
2084
225
24
67.0
73.7
66.8
66.7
2108
2829
337
36
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
35.0
26.9
26.9
27.2
31.9
35.8
13
472
958
767
1073
500
65.0
73.1
73.1
72.8
68.1
64.2
20
646
1310
1053
1576
779
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
301
15
469
218
88
5
490
16
28.4
30.6
26.2
45.1
16.4
5.6
37.1
25.4
757
34
1319
265
447
84
830
47
71.6
69.4
73.8
54.9
83.6
94.4
62.9
74.6
1058
49
1788
483
535
89
1320
63
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
54
251
452
284
210
238
113
12.9
22.6
32.7
35.9
34.8
30.7
36.6
363
858
930
506
393
537
196
87.1
77.4
67.3
64.1
65.2
69.3
63.4
417
1109
1382
790
603
775
309
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
656
318
436
192
40.9
32.3
25.0
18.3
948
665
1311
859
59.1
67.7
75.0
81.7
1604
983
1747
1051
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
157
89
336
1020
1602
57.9
43.0
32.6
26.3
29.7
114
118
695
2856
3783
42.1
57.0
67.4
73.7
70.3
271
207
1031
3876
5385
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1 Excludes 75 cases where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
2 Excludes 1 case where the age of the offender was not available.
128
Total
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Female offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment of two years or less were much more
likely than male offenders to be granted leave to apply for home detention (45% of cases
compared to 28% respectively). Even when controlling for other available variables10, females
were much more likely than males to be granted leave to apply for home detention.
Mäori offenders (26%) were slightly less likely than non-Mäori offenders (33%) to be granted
leave to apply for home detention. Even when controlling for other available variables, Mäori
were slightly less likely to be granted leave to apply for home detention than non-Mäori.
Offenders aged under 30 were granted leave to apply for home detention a little less often than
those aged 30 or more, and the difference was still significant when other variables were
controlled for.
Whether leave to apply was granted varied significantly by type of offence. Nearly half (45%) of
people imprisoned for two years or less for a drug offence and 37% of people imprisoned for a
traffic offence were granted leave to apply, whereas only 6% of those imprisoned for an offence
against good order (mostly possession of an offensive weapon and trespassing offences) and
16% of people imprisoned for an offence against justice were granted leave to apply. The extent
to which leave to apply was granted was significantly different for these four types of offences
compared to other offences, even when controlling for other available variables.
Very short prison sentences of one month or less rarely resulted in leave to apply for home
detention being granted (only 13% of cases), and only 23% of cases where more than one month
and up to 3 months were imposed were granted leave to apply. Generally around one-third of
the sentences of more than three months had leave to apply granted.
The more times an offender had been to prison previously, the less likely they were to be granted
leave to apply for home detention. Forty-one percent of the offenders who had not been
imprisoned in the 20 previous years were granted leave to apply, whereas only 18% of those who
had been imprisoned on more than five previous occasions were granted leave to apply. This
finding remained significant even when controlling for other variables.
The more times an offender had been convicted previously, the less likely they were to be
granted leave to apply for home detention, and this finding was still significant when controlling
for other available variables.
Not surprisingly, the availability of home detention in certain areas had some effect on whether
leave to apply was granted by the courts.
10 Tested using Logistic Regression technique in SAS. Information was included in the model on: gender, ethnicity,
age, type of offence, sentence length imposed, plea, number of prior convictions, number of prior prison sentences,
and the availability of home detention on a regional basis i.e. if home detention was available in the region for the
whole of 2000, part of 2000, or was not available at all. SAS is an integrated system of software produced by SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
129
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
9.3
Whether inmates had a home detention hearing
9.3.1 Whether “front-end” inmates had a hearing
Data were supplied to the Ministry of Justice from the Department of Corrections IOMS
Computer System on front-end inmates who had a home detention hearing before a District
Prisons Board in 2000. Data was not available on the number of inmates who applied to a
Board but did not have a hearing (e.g. because a Probation Officer found them to be unsuitable
for home detention, or the inmate did not wish to pursue home detention after being provided
with more information on what the scheme involves). Not all people who are granted leave to
apply by the court will necessarily apply to a Board for release to home detention.
The data revealed that 933 front-end inmates had a home detention hearing before a District
Prisons Board in 2000. Of these, 864 inmates were sentenced to imprisonment in 2000.
However, for consistency, only those inmates for whom it was known from LES data that leave
to apply was granted in 2000 were examined. Of the 1,602 inmates with leave to apply definitely
granted by the court, 731 (46%) had a home detention hearing in 2000. Some inmates may not
have had a hearing as their address was in an area where home detention was not available. On
average, inmates with leave to apply were in prison for just over a month (38 days) before having
a home detention hearing. The time to having a hearing ranged from 0 days to 199 days, with
the median being 29 days.
Table 9.2 shows whether inmates with leave to apply had a home detention hearing controlling
for gender, ethnicity, age, offence, sentence length imposed, and number of prior prison
sentences.
Female offenders who were granted leave to apply for home detention were considerably more
likely than males to have a home detention hearing (68% of inmates compared to 42%
respectively). Even when controlling for other available variables, females were considerably
more likely than males to have a home detention hearing11.
Whether or not an inmate has a hearing is not just a matter of eligibility – it is also a matter of
suitability, and a desire to take up the option. Church and Dunstan12 found in an evaluation of
the home detention pilot that “women inmates interviewed generally viewed home detention
more positively [than men] as it gave them another option for returning to their families earlier”.
They found that some of the reasons why male inmates might not consider home detention
were: it was seen as an “add-on” to their current sentence, that it was a tough (restrictive) option,
that the inmate had concerns about being confined to the house, they had no suitable family to
go to, it would be stressful for their family, it would create employment difficulties, and it would
lead to temptation to return to their old haunts.
11 Tested using Logistic Regression technique in SAS. Information was included in the model on: gender, ethnicity,
age, type of offence, sentence length imposed, number of prior convictions, and number of prior prison sentences.
12 Church, A. and Dunstan, S. (1997) Home Detention: The Evaluation of the Home Detention Pilot Programme, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
130
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.2
Whether front-end inmates sentenced in 2000 had a home detention hearing
in 2000
Had a home detention
hearing
Number Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity1
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age2
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
<=1 month
>1 to 3 months
>3 to 6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
>12 to 18 months
>18 to 24 months
Number of prior
prison sentences
0
1
2-5
6+
Overall
Did not have a home
detention hearing
Number Percentage
Total given leave to
apply in 2000
Number Percentage
583
148
42.2
67.6
800
71
57.8
32.4
1383
219
100.0
100.0
334
316
56
6
48.0
42.4
50.0
50.0
362
429
56
6
52.0
57.6
50.0
50.0
696
745
112
12
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
4
60
146
123
240
157
57.1
34.5
41.5
43.0
47.7
56.3
3
114
206
163
263
122
42.9
65.5
58.5
57.0
52.3
43.7
7
174
352
286
503
279
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
149
9
217
125
16
1
208
6
49.5
60.0
46.3
57.3
18.2
20.0
42.4
37.5
152
6
252
93
72
4
282
10
50.5
40.0
53.7
42.7
81.8
80.0
57.6
62.5
301
15
469
218
88
5
490
16
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8
49
184
134
124
167
65
14.8
19.5
40.7
47.2
59.0
70.2
57.5
46
202
268
150
86
71
48
85.2
80.5
59.3
52.8
41.0
29.8
42.5
54
251
452
284
210
238
113
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
348
133
176
74
731
53.0
41.8
40.4
38.5
45.6
308
185
260
118
871
47.0
58.2
59.6
61.5
54.4
656
318
436
192
1602
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. Excludes 37 cases where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
2. Excludes 1 case where the age of the offender was not available.
Mäori inmates (42%) were slightly less likely than non-Mäori inmates (48%) to have a home
detention hearing. Even when controlling for other available variables, Mäori were slightly less
likely to have a home detention hearing than non-Mäori.
131
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The likelihood of having a home detention hearing for those inmates granted leave to apply
increased with age, and the difference was still significant when other variables were controlled
for.
Whether a home detention hearing took place varied by type of offence. Over half (57%) of
those granted leave to apply for a drug offence and 50% and 46% of people granted leave to
apply for a violent offence or property offence respectively had a hearing, whereas only 18% of
those with leave to apply for an offence against justice had a hearing. Whether a hearing was
held was significantly different for those inmates sentenced for an offence against justice
compared to other offences, even when controlling for other available variables.
The likelihood of having a home detention hearing for those inmates granted leave to apply
increased with sentence length imposed for inmates with sentences of up to 18 months. For
those inmates with sentences of more than 18 months to two years, the likelihood of a hearing
was similar to that for inmates with sentences of more than nine months to 12 months. The
length of the prison sentence imposed appeared to be the variable most strongly associated with
whether or not a home detention hearing took place for inmates who had been granted leave to
apply by the courts.
The more times an offender had been imprisoned previously, the less likely they were to have a
home detention hearing, and this finding was significant when controlling for other variables.
9.3.2 Whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had a hearing
Data were supplied to the Ministry from the Department of Corrections IOMS Computer
System on inmates who were eligible to apply for release to home detention as a pre-parole
option in the 2000 calendar year. This includes inmates who became newly eligible to apply in
2000, as well as those who became eligible before 1 January 2000, and remained eligible to apply
in 2000. Data were also supplied on inmates who had a home detention hearing before a
District Prisons Board or the Parole Board in 2000. Data was not available on the number of
inmates who applied to a Board but did not have a hearing (e.g. because a Probation Officer
found them to be unsuitable for home detention, or the inmate did not wish to pursue home
detention after being provided with more information on what the scheme involves).
The data revealed 1,040 inmates who could have applied for pre-parole release to home
detention. Of these, 189 (18%) had a home detention hearing before a District Prisons Board or
the Parole Board in 2000 (see Table 9.3). Some inmates may not have had a hearing as their
address was in an area where home detention was not available.
Female “pre-parole” eligible inmates were considerably more likely than male inmates to have a
home detention hearing in 2000 (33% and 18% of inmates respectively). This finding held even
when controlling for other variables13.
13 Tested using Logistic Regression technique in SAS. Information was included in the model on: gender, ethnicity,
age, type of offence, sentence length imposed, and region where prison sentence was served.
132
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.3
Whether inmates who were “pre-parole” eligible had a home detention
hearing in 2000
Had a home detention
hearing
Number Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity1
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age2
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
>2 to 3 years
>3 to 4 years
>4 to 7 years
>7 years
Overall
Did not have a home
detention hearing
Number Percentage
Total eligible to apply
in 2000
Number Percentage
175
14
17.6
32.6
822
29
82.4
67.4
997
43
100.0
100.0
99
78
9
2
21.2
16.0
13.0
18.2
368
409
60
9
78.8
84.0
87.0
81.8
467
487
69
11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8
34
36
66
40
14.8
14.9
16.5
20.2
19.8
46
194
182
260
162
85.2
85.1
83.5
79.8
80.2
54
228
218
326
202
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
44
3
80
55
1
0
4
2
13.5
8.6
18.7
27.6
16.7
0.0
11.1
28.6
283
32
347
144
5
3
32
5
86.5
91.4
81.3
72.4
83.3
100.0
88.9
71.4
327
35
427
199
6
3
36
7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
119
47
22
1
189
20.2
19.9
14.1
1.7
18.2
470
189
134
58
851
79.8
80.1
85.9
98.3
81.8
589
236
156
59
1040
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. Excludes 6 cases where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
2. Excludes 12 cases where the age of the offender was not available.
European “pre-parole” eligible inmates (21%) had a home detention hearing in 2000 slightly
more often than Mäori (16%) and Pacific peoples (13%). However, when controlling for other
available variables, there were no differences between ethnic groups in whether a home
detention hearing occurred.
The likelihood of a hearing increased a little with the age of inmates, with 20% of those aged at
least 30 having a hearing, compared with 15% of those aged under 25. This finding held even
when controlling for other variables.
133
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Whether or not a home detention hearing took place varied by type of offence. Only looking at
the more common offences, over a quarter (28%) of inmates sentenced for a drug offence had a
hearing, whereas only 13% of inmates sentenced for a violent offence and 19% sentenced for a
property offence had a hearing. Whether or not a hearing was held was significantly different for
those inmates sentenced for drug and property offences compared to other offences, even when
controlling for other available variables.
The likelihood of a home detention hearing was lower for inmates with sentences over 4 years
compared with those with sentences of 4 years or less. In particular, those with sentences of
more than 7 years rarely had a home detention hearing before the Parole Board. This finding
held even when controlling for other available variables.
Table 9.4 shows that whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had a home detention hearing varied
significantly from prison to prison. Female inmates at Arohata Prison (42%) and male inmates
at Manawatu Prison, Dunedin Prison, and Invercargill Prison (all 38%) were the most likely to
have a home detention hearing, whereas only 5% of male inmates at Rimutaka Prison had a
hearing.
Table 9.4
Whether inmates who were “pre-parole” eligible had a home detention
hearing in 2000, by prison
Had a home detention
hearing
Number
Percent
Mens Prisons
Auckland
Auckland Central Remand
Mt Eden mens
Waikeria
Ohura
Rangipo/Tongariro
New Plymouth
Wanganui
Hawkes Bay
Manawatu
Rimutaka
Wellington
Christchurch
Rolleston
Dunedin
Invercargill
Womens Prisons
Mt Eden womens
Arohata
Christchurch womens
134
Did not have a home
detention hearing
Number
Percent
Total eligible to apply
in 2000
Number
Percent
9
2
10
17
6
12
3
11
22
19
4
4
19
20
5
12
9.8
15.4
21.3
14.0
26.1
11.5
16.7
19.6
20.0
38.0
5.4
21.1
13.3
24.4
38.5
37.5
83
11
37
104
17
92
15
45
88
31
70
15
124
62
8
20
90.2
84.6
78.7
86.0
73.9
88.5
83.3
80.4
80.0
62.0
94.6
78.9
86.7
75.6
61.5
62.5
92
13
47
121
23
104
18
56
110
50
74
19
143
82
13
32
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2
11
1
25.0
42.3
11.1
6
15
8
75.0
57.7
88.9
8
26
9
100.0
100.0
100.0
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Variation between prisons was noted in an evaluation of the home detention pilot programme.
Church and Dunstan14 found “District Prisons Boards took either: a proactive stance,
recommending inmates to be investigated for home detention; or a reactive stance, responding
to applications as they came before the Board”. They also found variation between prisons in
the amount of information that was provided to inmates about home detention.
9.4
Whether release to home detention was approved
9.4.1 Whether “front-end” inmates had release to home detention approved
Data were supplied to the Ministry from the Department of Corrections IOMS Computer
System on the outcomes of home detention hearings for front-end inmates before District
Prisons Boards in 2000.
The data revealed 933 front-end inmates who had a hearing before a District Prisons Board in
2000. Of these, 864 were inmates who were sentenced to imprisonment in 2000. However, for
consistency, only those 731 inmates who had a hearing and for whom it was known from LES
data that leave to apply was definitely granted in 2000 were examined. The result of the home
detention hearing was not recorded in the data for 45 of these 731 inmates.
For those inmates imprisoned in 2000 with leave to apply granted by the courts who had a
hearing, and for whom the result of the hearing was available, 392 (57%) had their release to
home detention approved, although 62 of these 392 inmates initially had home detention
declined or the decision deferred before having it approved. Over a third (38%) had home
detention declined, and for 5% the decision was deferred.
Female inmates sentenced in 2000 who had a home detention hearing in 2000 were considerably
more likely to have home detention approved by the District Prisons Board than male inmates
(73% compared with 53%). This finding was significant even when controlling for other
available variables15.
European inmates (65%) were more likely to have home detention approved than Mäori (51%)
and Pacific (40%) inmates who had a hearing. This finding was significant even when
controlling for other available variables.
The likelihood of having home detention approved for inmates having a hearing generally
increased with age, and the difference was still significant when other variables were controlled
for. Just under half (46%) of inmates aged 17 to 19 years had home detention approved,
compared with over 60% of inmates aged at least 30 years.
14 Ibid.
15 Tested using Logistic Regression technique in SAS. Information was included in the model on: gender, ethnicity,
age, type of offence, sentence length imposed, number of prior convictions, and number of prior prison sentences.
135
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.5
Outcome of home detention hearing for front-end inmates sentenced in
20001
Had home detention
approved
Number Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity3
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age4
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
<=1 month
>1 to 3 months
>3 to 6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
>12 to 18 months
>18 to 24 months
Number of prior
prison sentences
0
1
2-5
6+
Overall
Did not have home
detention approved2
Number Percentage
Total with leave to
apply who had a hearing
Number Percentage
291
101
53.2
72.7
256
38
46.8
27.3
547
139
100.0
100.0
207
149
20
0
64.7
51.0
40.0
0.0
113
143
30
5
35.3
49.0
60.0
100.0
320
292
50
5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
26
67
58
147
92
25.0
45.6
51.5
51.8
63.6
60.9
3
31
63
54
84
59
75.0
54.4
48.5
48.2
36.4
39.1
4
57
130
112
231
151
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
61
5
112
89
10
1
112
2
43.0
55.6
54.6
75.4
66.7
100.0
58.6
40.0
81
4
93
29
5
0
79
3
57.0
44.4
45.4
24.6
33.3
0.0
41.4
60.0
142
9
205
118
15
1
191
5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6
26
90
83
72
88
27
75.0
61.9
55.2
64.8
59.5
54.3
43.5
2
16
73
45
49
74
35
25.0
38.1
44.8
35.2
40.5
45.7
56.5
8
42
163
128
121
162
62
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
219
65
89
19
392
65.6
54.2
53.9
28.4
57.1
115
55
76
48
294
34.4
45.8
46.1
71.6
42.9
334
120
165
67
686
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. The table only includes inmates who had a hearing in 2000 and for whom it was known that leave to apply was
granted in 2000 by the courts. The table excludes 45 cases where the result of the hearing was not recorded in
the data.
2. Cases where release to home detention was declined or a decision deferred.
3. Excludes 19 cases where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
4. Excludes 1 case where the age of the offender was not available.
136
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Whether home detention was approved for front-end inmates who had a hearing varied by type
of offence. Only looking at the more common offences, three-quarters (75%) of inmates
sentenced for a drug offence who had a hearing had home detention approved, whereas for
violent offences the proportion was only 43%. These two offence types were significantly
different even when controlling for other available variables.
Inmates with sentences of more than one year and up to two years were a little less likely to have
home detention approved than inmates with shorter sentences. This finding was significant even
when controlling for other available variables.
The more times an offender had been to prison previously, the less likely they were to have
home detention approved, and this finding was significant even when controlling for other
available variables.
For all 1,557 inmates for whom it was known that they entered prison in 2000 with leave to
apply granted by the courts, and for whom the result of the home detention hearing was
available, 392 (25%) were approved for release to home detention in 2000 (see Table 9.6 and
Figure 9.1). People granted leave may, if special reasons exist, have their sentence
commencement date deferred (under section 78(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985) and can
potentially have home detention approved by a District Prisons Board without spending any
time in prison. It is not known how often this happened, but the number of cases is likely to be
small.
There was a clear difference between men and women: with 48% of the female inmates who
entered prison with leave to apply granted having home detention approved, compared to 22%
of the men. Even when controlling for other available variables, males coming to prison with
leave to apply granted by the courts were less than half as likely as females to be released to
home detention. Gender was in fact the most significant variable in the model.
European offenders were more likely than offenders of any other ethnic group to ultimately have
home detention approved. The difference remained significant when controlling for other
variables.
Older offenders who entered prison with leave to apply granted were more likely than younger
offenders to eventually be released to home detention, with the finding remaining significant
when controlling for other factors.
Drug offenders with leave to apply were significantly more likely to be released on home
detention than inmates imprisoned for any other type of offence.
The length of the prison sentence imposed had some impact on the likelihood of release to
home detention, with those inmates with shorter sentences being less likely than those with
longer sentences to be released to home detention.
The more times people had been imprisoned in the past, the less likely they were to be released
to home detention. The result remained significant when controlling for other variables.
137
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.6
Whether all front-end inmates sentenced in 2000 had release to home
detention approved in 20001
Had home detention
approved
Number Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity3
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age4
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
<=1 month
>1 to 3 months
>3 to 6 months
>6 to 9 months
>9 to 12 months
>12 to 18 months
>18 to 24 months
Number of prior
prison sentences
0
1
2-5
6+
Overall
Did not have home
detention approved2
Number Percentage
Total given leave to
apply in 2000
Number Percentage
291
101
21.6
48.1
1056
109
78.4
51.9
1347
210
100.0
100.0
207
149
20
0
30.4
20.7
18.9
0.0
475
572
86
11
69.6
79.3
81.1
100.0
682
721
106
11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
26
67
58
147
92
14.3
15.2
19.9
21.1
29.8
33.7
6
145
269
217
347
181
85.7
84.8
80.1
78.9
70.2
66.3
7
171
336
275
494
273
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
61
5
112
89
10
1
112
2
20.7
33.3
24.5
42.2
11.5
20.0
23.7
13.3
233
10
345
122
77
4
361
13
79.3
66.7
75.5
57.8
88.5
80.0
76.3
86.7
294
15
457
211
87
5
473
15
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6
26
90
83
72
88
27
11.1
10.7
20.9
29.9
34.8
37.8
24.5
48
218
341
195
135
145
83
88.9
89.3
79.1
70.1
65.2
62.2
75.5
54
244
431
278
207
233
110
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
219
65
89
19
392
34.1
21.3
20.9
10.3
25.2
423
240
336
166
1165
65.9
78.7
79.1
89.7
74.8
642
305
425
185
1557
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. Table excludes 45 cases where the result of the hearing was not recorded in the data.
2. Cases where release to home detention was declined or a decision deferred.
3. Excludes 37 cases where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
4. Excludes 1 case where the age of the offender was not available.
138
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Figure 9.1
Summary of “front-end” home detention in 2000
Prison sentence of two years or less
imposed
(6,590)
Prison sentence of two years or less imposed
and information recorded on LES regarding
whether leave to apply for home detention
was granted
(5,385)
30%
Leave to apply for home
detention granted by Courts
(1,602)
46%
Home detention hearing held in
prison
(731)
94%
Result of home detention hearing
recorded
(686)
57%
Release to home detention
approved
(392)
70%
Leave to apply for home
detention not granted by Courts
(3,783)
54%
Home detention hearing not held
in prison
(871)
6%
Result of home detention hearing
not recorded
(45)
43%
Release to home detention not
approved
(294)
Ÿ O verall, 7% of people with a prison
sentence of two years or less were
released via the "front-end" to home
detention.
Ÿ O verall, 25% of those granted leave to
apply were released to home detention.
139
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The data included information on the types of special conditions imposed on offenders who had
their release to home detention approved by a District Prisons Board. The data showed that
over three-quarters (78%) of the 392 front-end inmates whose release to home detention was
approved in 2000 were required to undergo a programme (of an unspecified nature). Nearly
two-thirds (64%) had special conditions relating to their residence, 27% had special conditions
relating to employment, 18% had special conditions relating to non-association with certain
people, and 2% had special conditions relating to finances.
9.4.2 Whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had release to home detention
approved
Data were supplied to the Ministry from the Department of Corrections IOMS Computer
System on the outcomes of home detention hearings for “pre-parole” eligible inmates before a
District Prisons Board or the Parole Board in 2000.
The data revealed 189 “pre-parole” eligible inmates who had a hearing in 2000. The result of the
home detention hearing was not recorded in the data for two inmates.
For those “pre-parole” eligible inmates for whom the result of the hearing was available, 87
(47%) had their release to home detention approved, although 24 of these 87 inmates initially
had home detention declined or the decision deferred before having it approved. The same
proportion (47%) had home detention declined, and for 7% the decision was deferred.
There was little difference between male and female “pre-parole” eligible inmates who had a
home detention hearing in 2000 as to whether release to home detention was approved (47%
and 43% respectively).16
European inmates (58%) were more likely to have home detention approved than Mäori and
Pacific inmates (both 33%) who had a hearing.
Older “pre-parole” eligible offenders were more likely than younger offenders to have home
detention approved. A little over a third (38%) of inmates aged under 30 years had home
detention approved, compared with 53% of inmates aged at least 30 years.
Whether home detention was approved for “pre-parole” eligible inmates who had a hearing
varied by type of offence. Only looking at the more common offences, over two-thirds (70%) of
inmates sentenced for a drug offence who had a hearing had home detention approved. For
violent and property offences the proportions were considerably lower at 30% and 36%
respectively.
Inmates with sentences of more than two years and up to three years were more likely to have
home detention approved than inmates with longer sentences.
16 The Logistic regression model that was fitted to the data was a poor fit, so did not allow for a multivariate
analysis of whether home detention was approved for inmates who had hearings.
140
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.7
Outcome of home detention hearing for “pre-parole” eligible inmates who
had a hearing in 20001
Had home detention
approved
Number Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity3
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age4
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
>2 to 3 years
>3 to 4 years
>4 to 7 years
>7 years
Overall
Did not have home
detention approved2
Number Percentage
Total eligible who had a
hearing
Number Percentage
81
6
46.8
42.9
92
8
53.2
57.1
173
14
100.0
100.0
56
26
3
1
57.7
33.3
33.3
50.0
41
52
6
1
42.3
66.7
66.7
50.0
97
78
9
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3
13
14
34
22
37.5
38.2
38.9
52.3
55.0
5
21
22
31
18
62.5
61.8
61.1
47.7
45.0
8
34
36
65
40
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
13
3
29
37
1
0
2
2
29.5
100.0
36.3
69.8
100.0
50.0
100.0
31
0
51
16
0
0
2
0
70.5
0.0
63.7
30.2
0.0
50.0
0.0
44
3
80
53
1
0
4
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
64
16
6
1
87
54.7
34.0
27.3
100.0
46.5
53
31
16
0
100
45.3
66.0
72.7
0.0
53.5
117
47
22
1
187
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. The table only includes inmates who had a home detention hearing in 2000. The table excludes 2 cases where
the result of the hearing was not recorded in the data.
2. Cases where release to home detention was declined or a decision deferred.
3. Excludes 1 case where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
4. Excludes 4 cases where the age of the offender was not available.
For all 1,038 inmates for whom it was known that they were eligible for parole in 2000, and for
whom the result of the home detention hearing was available, 87 (8%) were approved for preparole release to home detention in 2000 (see Table 9.8 and Figure 9.2).
A slightly higher proportion of female inmates (14%) who were eligible for parole had home
detention approved compared to males (8%)17.
17 The Logistic regression model that was fitted to the data was a poor fit, so did not allow for a multivariate
analysis of whether home detention was approved for inmates who had hearings.
141
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.8
Whether all “pre-parole” eligible offenders had release to home detention
approved in 20001
Had home detention
approved
Number Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity3
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
Age4
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Offence
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Sentence length
>2 to 3 years
>3 to 4 years
>4 to 7 years
>7 years
Overall
Did not have home
detention approved2
Number Percentage
Total eligible to apply
in 2000
Number Percentage
81
6
8.1
14.0
914
37
91.9
86.0
995
43
100.0
100.0
56
26
3
1
12.0
5.3
4.3
9.1
409
461
66
10
88.0
94.7
95.7
90.9
465
487
69
11
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3
13
14
34
22
5.6
5.7
6.4
10.5
10.9
51
215
204
291
180
94.4
94.3
93.6
89.5
89.1
54
228
218
325
202
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
13
3
29
37
1
0
2
2
4.0
8.6
6.8
18.8
16.7
0.0
5.6
28.6
314
32
398
160
5
3
34
5
96.0
91.4
93.2
81.2
83.3
100.0
94.4
71.4
327
35
427
197
6
3
36
7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
64
16
6
1
87
10.9
6.8
3.8
1.7
8.4
523
220
150
58
951
89.1
93.2
96.2
98.3
91.6
587
236
156
59
1038
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. Table excludes 2 cases where the result of the hearing was not recorded in the data.
2. Cases where release to home detention was declined or a decision deferred.
3. Excludes 6 cases where the ethnicity of the offender was not available.
4. Excludes 11 cases where the age of the offender was not available.
European offenders were more likely than “pre-parole” eligible offenders of any other ethnic
group to ultimately have home detention approved.
Older “pre-parole” eligible offenders were more likely than younger offenders to eventually be
released to home detention.
Only looking at the more common offences, drug offenders were significantly more likely to be
released on home detention than inmates imprisoned for violent, property, or traffic offences.
142
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Figure 9.2
Summary of “pre-parole” home detention in 2000
Prison sentence of more than two years and
offender eligible to apply for pre-parole
release to home detention
(1,040)
18%
Home detention hearing held
(189)
99%
Result of home detention hearing
recorded
(187)
47%
Release to home detention
approved
(87)
82%
Home detention hearing not held
(851)
1%
Result of home detention hearing
not recorded
(2)
53%
Release to home detention not
approved
(100)
Ÿ O verall, 8% of eligible people with a
prison sentence of more than two years
were released as a pre-parole option to
home detention.
The length of the prison sentence imposed had some impact on the likelihood of release to
home detention, with those “pre-parole” eligible inmates with shorter sentences being more
likely than those with longer sentences to be released to home detention.
Table 9.9 shows that whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had release to home detention
approved varied significantly from prison to prison. For the prisons where more than 20
inmates were eligible for consideration for release as a pre-parole option, male inmates at
Invercargill Prison (28%), Manawatu Prison (20%), and Mt Eden Mens Prison (19%) were the
most likely to have release to home detention approved, whereas no inmates at Ohura and only
2% of male inmates at Auckland Prison had release to home detention approved.
143
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 9.9
Whether all “pre-parole” eligible inmates had release to home detention
approved in 2000, by prison1
Had home detention
approved
Number
Percent
Mens Prisons
Auckland
Auckland Central Remand
Mt Eden mens
Waikeria
Ohura
Rangipo/Tongariro
New Plymouth
Wanganui
Hawkes Bay
Manawatu
Rimutaka
Wellington
Christchurch
Rolleston
Dunedin
Invercargill
Womens Prisons
Mt Eden womens
Arohata
Christchurch womens
Did not have home
detention approved2
Number
Percent
Total eligible to apply
in 2000
Number
Percent
2
1
9
11
0
6
2
3
5
10
3
1
7
10
2
9
2.2
7.7
19.1
9.1
0.0
5.8
11.1
5.4
4.6
20.0
4.1
5.3
4.9
12.2
15.4
28.1
90
12
38
110
23
98
16
53
103
40
71
18
136
72
11
23
97.8
92.3
80.9
90.9
100.0
94.2
88.9
94.6
95.4
80.0
95.9
94.7
95.1
87.8
84.6
71.9
92
13
47
121
23
104
18
56
108
50
74
19
143
82
13
32
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2
3
1
25.0
11.5
11.1
6
23
8
75.0
88.5
88.9
8
26
9
100.0
100.0
100.0
Notes:
1. Table excludes 2 cases where the result of the hearing was not recorded in the data.
2. Cases where release to home detention was declined or a decision deferred.
The data includes information on the types of special conditions imposed on offenders who had
their release to home detention approved by a District Prisons Board or the Parole Board. The
data showed that over three-quarters (78%) of the 87 “pre-parole” eligible inmates whose release
to home detention was approved in 2000 were required to undergo a programme (of an
unspecified nature). Most offenders (82%) had special conditions relating to their residence,
37% had special conditions relating to employment, 20% had special conditions relating to nonassociation with certain people, and 6% had special conditions relating to finances.
9.5
Home detention served
Data were supplied to the Ministry from the Department of Corrections IOMS Computer
System on all periods on home detention that ended in 2000. There are a number of reasons
why home detention will terminate. Offenders who enter prison with a sentence of one year or
less are required to serve half the sentence. If such an offender is granted leave to apply by the
court, and is subsequently released to home detention, their sentence will terminate when they
reach their half sentence date. For example, if an offender had a total sentence of one year
imposed, and they were released to home detention after spending two months in prison, their
home detention would end after a further four months as this would be six months after initially
144
Use of home detention in 2000
_______________________________________________________________
entering prison. Other offenders with sentences of more than one year can be released from
home detention by a District Prisons Board any time between their one-third and two-third
sentence dates. Home detention can also end if the offender is recalled to prison, the offender
seeks a direction for his or her return to prison, or if the home detention is cancelled by a
subsequent conviction.
9.5.1 “Front-end” home detention served
There were 297 “front-end” inmates who ended home detention in 2000. The reason for the
home detention ending is shown in Table 9.10.
Table 9.10 Reason for home detention ending in 2000 for “front-end” inmates
Reason for home detention ending
Number
Percentage
207
2
6
2
1
1
69.7
0.7
2.0
0.7
0.3
0.3
72
5
1
24.2
1.7
0.3
297
100.0
Prison sentence of one year or less
Released at half sentence date
Released before half sentence date1
Recalled to prison
Returned to prison
Cancelled by further conviction
Successfully appealed conviction
Prison sentence of more than one year to two years
Released by District Prisons Board
Recalled to prison
Returned to prison
Total
Note:
1. It was not clear from the data why the offenders ended home detention before their half sentence date.
For just over two-thirds (70%) of front-end offenders released on home detention in 2000, the
period on home detention ended because the offenders had total imposed sentences of one year
or less, and they reached their half sentence date at which there is mandatory release. These
inmates spent an average of 48 days in prison before being released to home detention. The
time spent in prison before release to home detention ranged from 2 days to 143 days, with the
median being 41 days. The offenders with total imposed sentences of one year or less spent a
further 68 days, on average, on home detention. The time spent on home detention ranged from
12 days to 156 days, with the median being 60 days.
A total of 72 people (24% of front-end inmates whose home detention ended in 2000) had
sentences of more than one year and up to two years and were released by a District Prisons
Board after serving some time on home detention. These inmates spent an average of 86 days in
prison before being released to home detention. The time spent in prison before release to
home detention ranged from 0 days to 254 days, with the median being 70 days. The offenders
with total imposed sentences of more than one year spent a further 122 days, on average, on
home detention. The time spent on home detention ranged from 29 days to 246 days, with the
145
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
median being 114 days. On average, such offenders served 38% of their total imposed prison
sentences either in prison or on home detention before being released (usually on parole).
A total of 11 (4%) of the front-end inmates were recalled to prison from their home detention.
Three people (1%) successfully applied to a District Prisons Board to be returned to prison, and
one person was convicted and re-imprisoned for a further offence.
9.5.2 “Pre-parole” home detention served
There were 91 “pre-parole” inmates who ended a period on home detention in 2000. The
reason for the home detention ending is shown in Table 9.11.
Table 9.11
Reason for home detention ending in 2000 for “pre-parole” inmates
Reason for home detention ending
Number
Percentage
Released by District Prisons Board or Parole Board
Recalled to prison
Returned to prison
90
1
0
98.9
1.1
0.0
Total
91
100.0
All but one inmate sentenced to more than two years and released to home detention, had the
home detention ended by a District Prisons Board or the Parole Board after serving some time
on home detention. These inmates spent an average of 327 days in prison before being released
to home detention. The time spent in prison before release to home detention ranged from 35
days to 1096 days, with the median being 279 days. The offenders spent a further 104 days, on
average, on home detention. The time spent on home detention ranged from 29 days to 273
days, with the median being 95 days. On average, such offenders served 40% of their total
imposed prison sentences either in prison or on home detention before being released (usually
on parole).
One “pre-parole” inmate was recalled to prison from home detention.
146
Recidivism patterns for people
convicted in 1995
10.1 Introduction
This chapter has been prepared in response to various requests for information on recidivism
patterns. It summarises some of the information available on the prior and post offending
histories of the 104,920 people with a convicted case in 1995. Information is provided for all
offenders convicted in 1995, then for violent offenders and burglars, as there is particular interest
in these two groups of offenders.
A database has been established with the offending histories of all people convicted in 1995.
Both criminal (non-traffic) and traffic conviction histories were extracted from the Law
Enforcement System. A complete history of each person’s proven offending18 before the 1995
conviction is available, as well as two year proven reoffending information after the 1995
conviction (as the histories were extracted in March 1998).
10.2 All offenders
10.2.1 Prior histories of offending for all offenders
Table 10.1 shows the prior conviction histories and prior “proved” offending histories (i.e.
convictions plus offences proved in the Youth Court or Children and Young Persons Court) of
all people with a convicted case in 1995.
Only a quarter of the people convicted in 1995 were first offenders. The people convicted in
1995 had an average of 12 prior charges resulting in conviction, although the median number of
prior convictions was much lower than this at 4. Thirty percent of the people convicted in 1995
had more than 10 previous convictions. The maximum number of previous convictions by any
one person was 605.
There were 1,048 people convicted in 1995 (1% of all cases) who had no previous convictions,
but who had previous proved offences in the Youth Court. For the remainder of the chapter
only previous and post convictions will be examined.
18 The Criminal Conviction History Subsystem and the Traffic Conviction History Subsystem record all charges
that resulted in conviction in the District or High Court. The Criminal Conviction History Subsystem also records
non-traffic charges that were proven in the Youth Court (or the Children and Young Peoples Court before 1989)
against a young offender. These subsystems do not include information on offences that resulted in a caution or
warning by the Police, offences involving young people that were resolved at a Family Group Conference, or
offences where the person completed the Police diversion scheme.
147
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 10.1
Prior offending histories of all people convicted in 1995
Number of
prior offences
(charges)
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
None
One or more
27498
77422
26.2
73.8
26450
78470
25.2
74.8
10005
7456
14519
13499
13344
12910
5689
9.5
7.1
13.8
12.9
12.7
12.3
5.4
9641
7236
14224
13266
13632
13887
6584
9.2
6.9
13.6
12.6
13.0
13.2
6.3
104920
100.0
104920
100.0
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Prior convictions
Mean
Median
Maximum
Prior “proved” offences
12.0
4.0
605
13.0
4.0
618
Table 10.2 shows the prior conviction histories of all people with a convicted case in 1995
according to the gender of the person convicted. It is clear that male offenders convicted in
1995 had much more extensive offending histories, on average, than females. Thirty-four
percent of males had more than ten previous convictions, compared to only 16% of females.
Only 21% of males were first offenders, compared with 46% of females. Male offenders had
a mean of 13 and median of 5 previous convictions, compared to a mean of 6.5 and median
of 1 previous convictions for female offenders.
Table 10.2 Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by gender
Number of prior convictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Note:
148
Male
Female
(n=85754)
(n=16644)
20.7%
79.3%
45.7%
54.3%
9.3%
7.3%
14.7%
14.0%
14.0%
13.9%
6.1%
11.7%
7.1%
10.9%
8.7%
7.6%
5.7%
2.5%
100.0%
100.0%
13.3
5.0
6.5
1.0
874 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table, as
were 1,648 cases where information on the gender of the offender was not available.
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
Information was also available on the age of offenders when they received their first ever
conviction in New Zealand. For first offenders in 1995, the age at first ever conviction was
the offenders age at the time of the 1995 case. Females tended to receive their first ever
conviction slightly later in life than males. More than two-thirds (68%) of males convicted in
1995 received their first ever conviction when aged under 20, whereas only 45% of females
received their first ever conviction when aged under 20. Twenty-one percent of females were
aged thirty or more when they received their first ever conviction, whereas the proportion for
males was only 11%. The average age at first conviction for males was 20.9 years, whereas
for females it was 24.4 years.
Table 10.3 shows the prior conviction histories of all people with a convicted case in 1995
according to the ethnicity of the person convicted. It should be noted that ethnicity
information was not available for nearly a third of the cases resulting in conviction in 1995.
Table 10.3 Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by ethnicity
Number of prior
convictions (charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other1
(n=34937)
(n=29811)
(n=5421)
(n=1006)
16.0%
84.0%
12.7%
87.3%
24.5%
75.5%
48.4%
51.6%
8.7%
7.2%
15.4%
15.5%
15.6%
14.6%
7.0%
6.6%
5.6%
12.9%
14.9%
17.7%
20.3%
9.3%
11.0%
8.4%
16.6%
14.7%
13.0%
9.4%
2.4%
11.9%
8.6%
11.6%
8.1%
4.9%
5.1%
1.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
14.9
6.0
18.5
9.0
8.6
3.0
5.2
1.0
Notes:
1 It should be noted that 70% of the offenders in this ethnic category had their ethnicity recorded on the Law
Enforcement System as “Asian” or “Indian”, with the remaining offenders having their ethnicity recorded
as “Other”.
2 33,745 cases where information on the ethnicity of the offender was not available or where the case
involved a corporation were excluded from this table.
Mäori offenders convicted in 1995 tended to have more extensive offending histories than
European offenders, and both these groups had much more extensive offending histories
than Pacific peoples. Forty-seven percent of Mäori had more than ten previous convictions,
compared to 37% of Europeans, and 25% of Pacific peoples. Only 13% of Mäori convicted
in 1995 were first offenders, compared with 16% of Europeans, and 25% of Pacific peoples.
Nearly half (48%) of the people classified as being of “Other” ethnicity were first offenders.
Pacific peoples tended to receive their first ever conviction slightly later in life than European
and Mäori offenders. More than three-quarters (79%) of Mäori and nearly three-quarters
(74%) of European offenders convicted in 1995 received their first ever conviction when
149
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
aged under 20, whereas only 49% of Pacific peoples received their first ever conviction when
aged under 20. Fourteen percent of Pacific peoples were aged thirty or more when they
received their first ever conviction, whereas the proportions for European and Mäori
offenders were 8% and 4% respectively. Just over 30% of people of “other” ethnicity were
aged at least 30 when they received their first ever conviction. The average age at first
conviction for Mäori was 18.7 years, for European offenders it was 19.9 years, and for Pacific
peoples it was 22.3 years.
Table 10.4 shows the prior conviction histories of all people with a convicted case in 1995
according to the age of the person convicted. The number of prior convictions increased
with the age of the offender for offenders aged less than 30. Offenders in their thirties had
similar numbers of prior convictions to those aged 25 to 29, while offenders aged 40 or more
tended to have fewer prior convictions than offenders in their twenties or thirties.
Table 10.4 Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by age
Number of prior
convictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Note:
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
(n=512)
(n=17743)
(n=25850)
(n=18381)
(n=22071)
(n=13509)
80.1%
19.9%
38.9%
61.1%
19.0%
81.0%
12.5%
87.5%
13.9%
86.1%
26.4%
73.6%
9.4%
4.5%
2.3%
1.9%
1.2%
0.6%
0.0%
14.1%
9.8%
15.5%
11.0%
7.2%
3.2%
0.3%
10.6%
8.1%
16.5%
15.8%
15.2%
12.6%
2.3%
7.0%
5.8%
13.9%
15.2%
17.4%
19.3%
8.9%
7.7%
6.1%
13.2%
13.6%
15.5%
18.6%
11.5%
11.4%
8.2%
14.5%
11.9%
10.9%
10.4%
6.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.7
0.0
3.9
1.0
9.9
5.0
17.4
9.0
19.7
9.0
12.8
3.0
6,854 cases where information on the age of the offender was not available or where the case involved
a corporation were excluded from this table.
Over half (59%) of the people who were aged at least 40 when they were convicted in 1995
had received their first ever conviction when they were in their thirties or forties.
Table 10.5 shows the prior conviction histories of all people with a convicted case in 1995
according to the most serious sentence imposed in 1995. The number of prior convictions
tended to be greatest for people imprisoned (mean of 31), and smallest for people given a
monetary penalty (mean of 7). Only 6% of the people imprisoned in 1995 were first
offenders, compared to more than a third (36%) of those given a monetary penalty or who
were convicted and discharged (35%) being first offenders.
Eighty-four percent of the people imprisoned in 1995 received their first ever conviction
when aged under 20, whereas for those people given community-based sentences and
monetary penalties in 1995 the proportions were 72% and 56% respectively. The average age
150
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
at first ever conviction for those imprisoned in 1995 was 18.6 years, for those given a
community-based sentence it was 19.7 years, and for those given a monetary penalty it was
23.0 years.
Table 10.5 Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by most serious
sentence imposed
Number of prior
convictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Custodial
(n=7304)
Communitybased1
Monetary2
Other3
(n=54619)
(n=3923)
(n=34110)
Convicted &
discharged
(n=4964)
6.5%
93.5%
14.0%
86.0%
36.0%
64.0%
21.3%
78.7%
35.2%
64.8%
2.8%
2.0%
7.7%
11.7%
18.8%
31.7%
18.8%
7.5%
6.5%
14.5%
15.9%
17.6%
17.0%
7.0%
11.9%
8.3%
14.6%
11.3%
8.9%
6.7%
2.3%
9.5%
7.2%
12.4%
13.8%
13.8%
13.4%
8.6%
7.6%
5.5%
10.8%
10.7%
11.5%
12.3%
6.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
30.9
21.0
15.6
8.0
6.9
2.0
15.6
5.0
12.5
3.0
Notes:
1
Periodic detention, community programme, community service, and supervision.
2
Fines or reparation.
3
To come up for sentence if called upon, suspended prison sentences, and driving disqualifications.
Table 10.6 shows the prior conviction histories of all people with a convicted case in 1995
according to the offence they were convicted for in 1995. People convicted of offences
against justice in 1995 tended to have the greatest number of prior convictions, with 90% of
these offenders having previous convictions.
In contrast, people convicted of
“miscellaneous” offences were mostly first offenders (82% of cases). Eighty-two percent of
the people convicted of violent offences and property offences in 1995 had prior convictions.
People convicted of traffic offences or miscellaneous offences in 1995 tended to have gained
their first ever conviction later in life than people convicted of other types of offences. The
average age at first ever conviction for people convicted of a miscellaneous offence in 1995
was 27.6 years and for those convicted of a traffic offence it was 23.2 years, while for people
convicted of property, drug, against justice, and good order offences it was approximately 19
years. The average age at first ever conviction for people convicted of a violent offence in
1995 was 20.5 years.
151
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 10.6 Prior conviction histories of all people convicted in 1995, by type of
offence
Number of prior
convictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Violent
(n=11468)
Other ag.
persons
Property
Drug
(n=18841)
(n=6300)
(n=1440)
Against
justice
Good
order
(n=5554)
(n=5786)
Traffic
(n=45394)
Miscellaneous
(n=10137)
17.8%
82.2%
16.8%
83.2%
18.3%
81.7%
11.9%
88.1%
9.6%
90.4%
12.5%
87.5%
25.3%
74.7%
81.7%
18.3%
8.7%
6.9%
14.7%
14.9%
15.5%
15.6%
5.8%
9.4%
5.6%
15.4%
14.2%
14.9%
16.1%
7.4%
7.6%
6.3%
12.8%
13.2%
14.7%
17.0%
10.1%
7.0%
6.9%
15.7%
17.8%
17.5%
17.0%
6.2%
3.8%
3.9%
11.9%
18.1%
20.9%
21.6%
10.2%
8.3%
7.5%
16.1%
14.7%
16.2%
16.4%
8.3%
12.9%
9.0%
15.9%
12.9%
11.3%
9.4%
3.3%
4.4%
2.4%
3.8%
2.5%
2.5%
1.8%
0.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
13.7
6.0
15.1
6.0
18.3
7.0
15.0
8.0
19.9
11.0
16.5
7.0
9.1
3.0
2.1
0.0
Table 10.7 shows the length of time between the conviction prior to 1995 and the 1995
conviction for each person19. Fifteen percent of people were reconvicted within three
months of their previous conviction, and 49% were reconvicted within one year of their
previous conviction. There was more than five years between the 1995 conviction and the
person’s previous conviction for 13% of cases.
Table 10.7 Time to previous conviction for all people convicted in 1995
Time to previous conviction
1 month or less
>1 month – 3 months
>3 months – 6 months
>6 months – 12 months
>1 year – 2 years
>2 years – 5 years
>5 years
First offender
Total
Number
Overall percentage
3420
8180
10832
15339
14993
14845
9813
27498
3.3
7.8
10.3
14.6
14.3
14.1
9.4
26.2
104920
100.0
Percentage for those
with prior convictions
4.4
10.6
14.0
19.8
19.4
19.2
12.7
100.0
19 The “time to previous conviction” is the total time between the two conviction dates and, as such, includes
time spent in custody for people who were imprisoned at the conviction immediately prior to the 1995
conviction.
152
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
Table 10.8 shows the number of separate occasions in the past that people had been
convicted20 and the number of separate occasions in the past that people had been
imprisoned.
Table 10.8 Prior convicted cases and custodial sentences of all people convicted in
1995
Number of prior
cases
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Maximum
Prior convicted cases
Number
Percentage
27498
26.2
77422
73.8
Prior custodial sentence cases
Number
Percentage
81771
77.9
23149
22.1
12813
9331
18252
16399
13414
6983
230
12.2
8.9
17.4
15.6
12.8
6.7
0.2
7857
4248
5954
3460
1488
142
0
7.5
4.0
5.7
3.3
1.4
0.1
0.0
104920
100.0
104920
100.0
6.1
3.0
143
0.8
0.0
43
The people convicted in 1995 had been convicted on an average of six previous occasions,
although the median number of prior cases was half this number (3). The maximum number
of previous cases by any one person was 143.
More than one in five (22%) of the people convicted in 1995 had been to prison previously,
with 15% of people having been to prison more than once in the past.
10.2.2 Reoffending by all offenders
Table 10.9 shows the one year and two year reconvictions of all people with a convicted case
in 1995. Just under 40% of the people convicted in 1995 were reconvicted within one year,
with the majority of people (51%) being reconvicted within two years21.
Table 10.10 shows the reconvictions within two years of all people with a convicted case in
1995 according to the gender of the person convicted. It is clear that male offenders
convicted in 1995 were more likely to be reconvicted than females, with 56% of males being
reconvicted within two years, compared to only 34% of females.
20 Note that if a person had previously been convicted of say four charges in one case, then this is counted as
convictions in Table 10.1, but one prior case in Table 10.8.
21 Reconvictions were measured within one or two years from the date the person was sentenced in 1995 for all
offenders except those who were imprisoned. For people sent to prison in 1995, reconvictions were measured
from the estimated date of release from prison.
153
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 10.9 Reconvictions within one or two years by all people convicted in 1995
Number of
reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Maximum
One year reconvictions1
Two year reconvictions2
Number
61465
39763
Percentage
60.7
39.3
14110
7901
10324
4932
1926
507
63
13.9
7.8
10.2
4.9
1.9
0.5
0.1
14411
8714
13267
8116
4422
1481
165
14.6
8.8
13.4
8.2
4.5
1.5
0.2
101228
100.0
99035
100.0
1.5
0.0
132
Number
48459
50576
Percentage
48.9
51.1
2.6
1.0
153
Notes:
1
Excludes 3,692 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in custody for
the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998), or where there
was less than one year between the estimated date of release from prison and March 1998.
2
Excludes 5,885 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in custody for
the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998), or where there
was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and March 1998.
Table 10.10 Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by gender
Number of reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Male
Female
(n=80166)
(n=16356)
44.0%
56.0%
66.5%
33.5%
15.5%
9.6%
14.9%
9.2%
5.1%
1.6%
0.2%
11.6%
6.2%
7.9%
4.3%
2.2%
1.1%
0.2%
100.0%
100.0%
2.9
1.0
1.7
0.0
Note: 874 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table, as were
1,639 cases where information on the gender of the offender was not available. The table also excludes
5,885 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in custody for the
entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998), or where there
was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and March 1998.
154
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
Table 10.11 shows the reconvictions within two years of all people with a convicted case in
1995 according to the ethnicity of the person convicted. Mäori offenders convicted in 1995
were more likely to be reconvicted within two years than European offenders and Pacific
peoples. Sixty-nine percent of Mäori were reconvicted within two years, compared to 61% of
Europeans, and 58% of Pacific peoples.
Table 10.11 Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by
ethnicity
Number of reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
European
Mäori
Pacific peoples
Other
(n=32623)
(n=26916)
(n=5017)
(n=955)
39.2%
60.8%
30.9%
69.1%
42.4%
57.6%
59.9%
40.1%
15.9%
10.5%
16.4%
10.2%
5.6%
1.9%
0.3%
14.5%
10.8%
19.2%
13.6%
8.0%
2.7%
0.3%
15.7%
10.7%
15.6%
8.8%
5.2%
1.5%
0.1%
11.0%
7.5%
11.9%
6.0%
2.5%
1.0%
0.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
3.3
1.0
4.2
2.0
2.8
1.0
1.8
0.0
Note: 33,524 cases where information on the ethnicity of the offender was not available or where the case
involved a corporation were excluded from this table. The table also excludes 5,885 cases resulting in
prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in custody for the entire period up to the
date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998), or where there was less than two years
between the estimated date of release from prison and March 1998.
Table 10.12 shows the reconvictions within two years of all people with a convicted case in
1995 according to the age of the person convicted. In general, the likelihood of reconviction
reduced with the age of the offender. Over 70% of 17 to 19 year olds were reconvicted
within two years, compared with only 29% of people aged at least 40 being reconvicted
within two years.
Most cases involving 14 to 16 year olds are not dealt with in the District or High Court - they
are dealt with in the Youth Court, at Family Group Conferences, or by some other means.
For the relatively small number of 14 to 16 year olds that were convicted in 1995, 58% were
reconvicted within two years.
Table 10.13 shows the reconvictions within two years of all people with a convicted case in
1995 according to the most serious sentence imposed in 1995.
155
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table 10.12 Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by age
Number of
reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
(n=440)
(n=16684)
(n=24280)
(n=17168)
(n=20784)
(n=12828)
41.6%
58.4%
28.5%
71.5%
38.2%
61.8%
44.3%
55.7%
53.1%
46.9%
70.6%
29.4%
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
15.5%
7.0%
14.8%
10.0%
5.9%
5.0%
0.2%
14.2%
10.6%
19.3%
14.0%
9.8%
3.4%
0.2%
16.3%
10.5%
17.0%
10.6%
5.5%
1.8%
0.2%
16.4%
10.0%
15.1%
8.6%
4.2%
1.2%
0.2%
16.0%
8.9%
11.9%
6.4%
2.6%
0.9%
0.2%
13.4%
5.8%
5.7%
2.4%
1.3%
0.6%
0.1%
Total
Mean
Median
100.0%
4.1
1.0
100.0%
4.7
2.0
100.0%
3.2
1.0
100.0%
2.7
1.0
100.0%
2.0
0.0
100.0%
1.1
0.0
Note: 6,851 cases where information on the age of the offender was not available or where the case involved a
corporation were excluded from this table. The table also excludes 5,885 cases resulting in prison
sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in custody for the entire period up to the date on
which offending histories were extracted (March 1998), or where there was less than two years between
the estimated date of release from prison and March 1998.
Table 10.13 Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by most
serious sentence imposed in 1995
Number of
reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Custodial
(n=1419)
Communitybased
Monetary
Other
(n=54619)
(n=3923)
(n=34110)
Convicted &
discharged
(n=4964)
19.6%
80.4%
34.6%
65.4%
58.7%
41.3%
43.4%
56.6%
52.8%
47.2%
11.8%
10.3%
20.4%
18.8%
12.9%
5.6%
0.5%
14.4%
10.5%
18.2%
12.5%
7.2%
2.4%
0.2%
14.9%
7.7%
10.3%
5.1%
2.4%
0.8%
0.1%
14.5%
9.9%
14.6%
10.2%
5.3%
1.9%
0.3%
12.6%
7.7%
11.4%
7.8%
5.1%
2.2%
0.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.4
4.0
3.9
2.0
1.7
0.0
3.2
1.0
3.0
0.0
Note: The table excludes 5,885 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in
custody for the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998),
or where there was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and March
1998. As this represents the majority of prison sentences imposed in 1995, the figures presented for
custodial sentences must be treated with caution.
The number of reconvictions tended to be greatest for people imprisoned (mean of 6), and
smallest for people given a monetary penalty (mean of 2). Eighty percent of the people
156
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
imprisoned in 1995 were reconvicted within two years of their release from prison22. This
compares to 65% of those who received a community-based sentence, and 41% of those
given a monetary penalty who were reconvicted within two years.
Table 10.14 shows the reconvictions within two years of all people with a convicted case in
1995 according to the type of offence the person was convicted for in 1995.
Table 10.14 Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by type of
offence
Number of
reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Violent
(n=9442)
Other ag.
persons
Property
Drug
(n=16922)
(n=5916)
(n=1345)
Against
justice
Good
order
Traffic
(n=44373)
Miscellaneous
(n=5249)
(n=5714)
44.4%
55.6%
38.1%
61.9%
32.0%
68.0%
42.6%
57.4%
27.6%
72.4%
30.4%
69.6%
53.7%
46.3%
(n=10074)
87.4%
12.6%
16.2%
10.7%
15.4%
8.5%
3.7%
1.0%
0.1%
15.1%
10.0%
16.8%
12.3%
5.2%
1.8%
0.7%
13.3%
9.9%
17.7%
13.4%
9.4%
3.9%
0.5%
17.2%
10.1%
15.5%
9.0%
4.6%
1.0%
0.1%
12.8%
10.0%
20.1%
16.5%
9.8%
2.9%
0.4%
16.0%
10.9%
18.4%
12.7%
8.4%
3.1%
0.3%
16.6%
8.9%
11.9%
5.9%
2.4%
0.6%
0.1%
4.7%
2.1%
3.1%
1.5%
0.8%
0.3%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2.5
1.0
3.6
1.0
4.8
2.0
2.6
1.0
4.9
2.0
4.3
2.0
1.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
Note: The table excludes 5,885 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in
custody for the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998),
or where there was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and March
1998.
People convicted of an offence against justice or an offence against good order in 1995 were
the most likely to reoffend in the next two years (72% and 70% respectively were
reconvicted). Over half (56%) of the people convicted of a violent offence in 1995 were
reconvicted of an offence within two years, as were over two-thirds (68%) of those convicted
of a property offence in 1995. Less than half (46%) of the people convicted of a traffic
offence in 1995 were reconvicted within two years.
Table 10.15 shows the reconvictions within two years of all people with a convicted case in
1995 according to the number of convictions prior to 1995.
It is clear that the more extensive the offending history of a person prior to 1995, the greater
the likelihood that the person would be reconvicted within two years. Only a quarter of first
offenders in 1995 were reconvicted within two years, compared to 88% of people with more
22 Note that the imprisonment reconviction figures should be treated with caution as they generally relate to
inmates who served relatively short sentences. Many of the inmates who had long prison sentences imposed in
1995 did not have two years between their estimated date of release and the date the offending histories were
extracted, hence not allowing an examination of reoffending for all prison inmates.
157
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
than 50 convictions prior to the 1995 case being reconvicted within two years. People with a
large number of convictions prior to 1995 were the most likely to be convicted of a large
number of offences in the two years after the 1995 case.
Table 10.15 Reconvictions within two years of all people convicted in 1995, by number
of convictions prior to 1995
Number of
reconvictions
(charges)
None
One or more
1
2
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
51+
Total
Mean
Median
Number of prior convictions
None
One
Two
3-5
6-10
11-20
21-50
50+
(n=27068)
(n=9821)
(n=7318)
(n=14037)
(n=12839)
(n=12279)
(n=11099)
(n=4574)
75.4%
24.6%
59.9%
40.1%
54.2%
45.8%
47.4%
52.6%
38.8%
61.2%
29.3%
70.7%
21.6%
78.4%
12.4%
87.6%
10.0%
4.3%
5.5%
2.7%
1.5%
0.5%
0.0%
15.4%
8.6%
9.4%
4.1%
1.9%
0.7%
0.1%
16.1%
9.1%
12.0%
5.5%
2.4%
0.7%
0.1%
17.5%
10.2%
13.8%
6.7%
3.3%
1.1%
0.0%
18.5%
11.2%
16.3%
9.0%
4.8%
1.3%
0.1%
17.5%
11.9%
20.1%
12.6%
6.5%
1.9%
0.2%
13.8%
11.5%
22.4%
17.9%
9.3%
3.1%
0.4%
10.6%
9.4%
21.6%
20.9%
16.6%
7.2%
1.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.8
0.0
2.2
1.0
2.8
1.0
3.7
2.0
5.0
3.0
8.2
5.0
Note: The table excludes 5,885 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in
custody for the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998),
or where there was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and March
1998.
Table 10.16 shows the length of time to the first reconviction for all people convicted in
1995. As seen previously, nearly half (49%) of the people were not reconvicted within two
years. However, for those people who were reconvicted within two years, the majority (51%)
had the next conviction within six months of the 1995 case, with three-quarters (76%) having
the next conviction within 12 months. Eleven percent of those who were reconvicted, had
another conviction within one month of the 1995 case.
Table 10.16 Length of time to first reconviction for all people convicted in 1995
Time to next conviction
Number
Overall percentage
1 month or less
>1 month – 3 months
>3 months – 6 months
>6 months – 12 months
>1 year – 2 years
No reconvictions in two years
5550
9909
10429
12526
12162
48459
5.6
10.0
10.5
12.6
12.3
48.9
Total
99035
100.0
158
Percentage for those
who were reconvicted
11.0
19.6
20.6
24.8
24.0
100.0
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 10.1 shows the information presented in Table 10.16 as a reconviction “survival
curve”. The graph shows the percentage of people that remained without a reconviction at
any point in time in the two years after the 1995 case. The graph shows that the rate of
reconviction is greatest within the first six months of the 1995 conviction, and is particularly
high in the first three months after the 1995 case.
Figure 10.1 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years
% not reconvicted
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
Figures 10.2 to 10.7 show reconviction “survival” information according to the gender,
ethnicity, and age of offenders, the type of sentence imposed in 1995, the major offence in
the 1995 case, and the number of convictions prior to the 1995 case.
Figure 10.2 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by gender
% not reconvicted
100
90
80
70
Female
60
50
40
30
Male
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
159
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Males had a faster rate of reconviction than females, particularly within the first ten months
after the 1995 case (Figure 10.2). Mäori had faster reconviction rates than non-Mäori within
the first ten months after the 1995 case (Figure 10.3). The times to reconviction for
European and Pacific peoples were fairly similar. Figure 10.4 shows a clear relationship
between the age of the offender and the time to reconviction. Young offenders had a faster
rate of reconviction than older offenders within the first ten months after the 1995 case, but
thereafter rates were similar.
Figure 10.3 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by ethnicity
% not reconvicted
100
90
80
70
60
50
Other
40
30
Pacific
European
Maori
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
Figure 10.4 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by age
% not reconvicted
100
90
80
70
60
50
40+
30-39
25-29
20-24
17-19
40
30
20
10
0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
160
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 10.5 shows that people released from prison are reconvicted at a much faster rate than
people with other types of sentence, with the vast majority of reoffending by those people
released from prison occurring in the first seven months after release. Reconvictions for
people who received a monetary penalty in 1995 were more evenly spread over the following
two years than for other sentence types.
Figure 10.5 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by sentence
% not reconvicted
100
90
80
70
60
50
Monetary
Conv & disch
40
30
Other
20
10
Custodial
Community
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
Figure 10.6 shows that people convicted of offences against justice in 1995 are reconvicted at
a faster rate than people convicted of other offences, with people convicted of property
offences or offences against good order having the next fastest (and almost identical to each
other) reconviction rate.
% not reconvicted
Figure 10.6 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by major offence
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Misc.
Traffic
Violent
Drug
Oth persons
Property
Good order
Ag justice
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
161
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Figure 10.7 shows a clear relationship between the number of prior convictions and the time
to reconviction. Those people with a greater number of prior convictions had a faster rate of
reconviction than offenders with no or a small number of past convictions.
Figure 10.7 Percentage of people convicted in 1995 who remained without a
reconviction at any point in time in the next two years, by number of
prior convictions
% not reconvicted
100
90
80
70
0
1
2
3-5
6-10
60
50
40
30
11+
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Month after 1995 conviction
10.3 Violent offenders
10.3.1 Prior conviction histories for violent offenders
Table 10.17 summarises the prior conviction histories of people convicted of a violent
offence in 1995. Violent offenders convicted in 1995 had a mean of 13.7 (and median of 6.0)
previous convictions. Only 18% of violent offenders convicted in 1995 were first offenders.
The majority (56%) of violent offenders had not previously been convicted of a violent
offence. Just over a quarter (26%) of violent offenders had previously been convicted of two
or more violent offences. The majority of violent offenders convicted in 1995 had previously
been convicted of property and traffic offences (56% and 60% of cases respectively).
162
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
Table 10.17 Prior conviction histories of people convicted of a violent offence in 1995,
by type of offence previously convicted for (n=11468)
Number of prior
convictions (charges)
Other ag.
persons
Property
56.2%
43.8%
79.9%
20.1%
44.0%
56.0%
73.1%
26.9%
1
17.4%
12.4%
13.3%
2
9.6%
4.3%
7.6%
3-5
11.2%
2.9%
6-10
4.4%
0.4%
11-20
1.2%
21-50
0.1%
51+
Total
None
One or more
Mean
Median
Violent
Drug
Against
justice
Good
order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
71.1%
28.9%
61.9%
38.1%
40.5%
59.5%
78.4%
21.6%
17.8%
82.2%
11.7%
9.3%
17.1%
11.5%
11.2%
8.7%
6.3%
5.8%
8.4%
8.4%
4.5%
6.9%
11.9%
6.5%
8.3%
8.6%
16.0%
4.2%
14.7%
9.3%
2.0%
4.2%
3.0%
12.7%
1.2%
14.9%
0.1%
7.2%
0.3%
1.3%
0.7%
8.2%
0.4%
15.5%
0.0%
5.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
2.5%
0.2%
15.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
5.1
1.0
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.8
1.0
0.6
0.0
13.7
6.0
10.3.2 Reoffending by violent offenders
Table 10.18 shows the reconvictions within two years for people convicted of a violent
offence in 1995. Over half (56%) of the violent offenders convicted in 1995 were
reconvicted for any offence within two years.
Table 10.18 Reconvictions within two years of people convicted of a violent offence in
1995, by type of offence reconvicted for (n=9442)
Number of prior
convictions (charges)
None
One or more
Violent
79.4%
20.6%
Other ag.
persons
Property
94.8%
5.2%
80.3%
19.7%
Drug
92.2%
7.8%
Against
justice
84.7%
15.3%
Good
order
Traffic
87.1%
12.9%
69.2%
30.8%
Miscellaneous
97.2%
2.8%
Total
44.4%
55.6%
1
13.4%
4.1%
10.1%
4.9%
6.9%
9.2%
14.4%
1.9%
16.2%
2
4.1%
0.8%
3.8%
1.8%
3.7%
2.1%
7.3%
0.6%
10.7%
3-5
2.6%
0.3%
3.4%
1.0%
3.7%
1.2%
7.0%
0.2%
15.4%
6-10
0.4%
0.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.8%
0.3%
1.9%
0.0%
8.5%
11-20
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
3.7%
21-50
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
51+
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Mean
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.0
2.5
Median
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Notes: The table excludes 2,026 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained
in custody for the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March
1998), or where there was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and
March 1998.
163
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Just over one-fifth (21%) of the violent offenders were convicted of another violent offence
within two years of the 1995 conviction, including 7% of cases where the person was
reconvicted of two or more violent offences within two years. This compares with all nonviolent offenders in 1995, 11% of whom were reconvicted for a violent offence.
A traffic offence was the most likely type of offence that a violent offender would be
reconvicted of within two years, with nearly a third (31%) of violent offenders receiving such
a conviction within two years.
10.4 Burglars
10.4.1 Prior conviction histories for burglars
Table 10.19 summarises the prior conviction histories of people convicted of burglary in
1995. Such offenders had a mean of 22.2 (and median of 10.0) previous convictions. Only
17% of burglars convicted in 1995 were first offenders (compared with 26% of all offenders
convicted in 1995).
Table 10.19 Prior conviction histories of people convicted of burglary in 1995, by type
of offence previously convicted for (n=3233)
Number of prior
convictions
(charges)
Violent
Other ag.
persons
Burglary
Other
property
Drug
Against
justice
Good
order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
None
One or more
62.1%
37.9%
81.0%
19.0%
47.9%
52.1%
31.5%
68.5%
64.2%
35.8%
54.7%
45.3%
57.2%
42.8%
43.9%
56.1%
79.9%
20.1%
1
15.2%
12.5%
13.3%
10.2%
14.3%
10.5%
18.8%
10.4%
10.1%
6.5%
2
9.1%
3.4%
7.6%
8.0%
7.9%
7.5%
9.0%
8.8%
4.0%
5.3%
16.5%
83.5%
3-5
9.9%
2.7%
11.7%
14.1%
10.1%
14.6%
10.6%
14.0%
3.9%
10.7%
6-10
3.0%
0.4%
8.2%
12.9%
2.8%
9.5%
3.6%
11.1%
1.4%
11.5%
11-20
0.7%
0.0%
6.8%
12.0%
0.7%
3.0%
0.8%
8.5%
0.6%
14.7%
21-50
0.1%
0.0%
3.9%
9.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
3.1%
0.2%
21.0%
51+
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
13.8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
3.9
1.0
8.5
3.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
3.8
1.0
0.6
0.0
22.2
10.0
Mean
Median
The majority (52%) of burglars convicted in 1995 had previously been convicted of burglary.
Over one-third (39%) of burglars had previously been convicted of two or more burglaries.
The majority of burglars convicted in 1995 had previously been convicted of other property
offences and traffic offences (68% and 56% of cases respectively).
Thirty-eight percent of burglars had a prior conviction for a violent offence. This is a lower
proportion than for people who were convicted of a violent offence in 1995 (44%), but is
higher than for all offenders convicted in 1995 (27%).
164
Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
__________________________________________________________________
10.4.2 Reoffending by burglars
Table 10.20 shows the reconvictions within two years for people convicted of burglary in
1995. More than four out of every five (81%) burglars convicted in 1995 were reconvicted of
an offence within two years.
Table 10.20 Reconvictions within two years of people convicted of burglary in 1995, by
type of offence reconvicted for (n=2270)1
Number of prior
convictions
(charges)
Violent
Other ag.
persons
Property2
None
76.3%
92.6%
43.7%
One or more
Drug
Against
justice
82.7%
62.0%
Good
order
78.5%
Traffic
Miscellaneous
58.1%
94.9%
Total
18.6%
23.7%
7.4%
56.3%
17.3%
38.0%
21.5%
41.9%
5.1%
81.4%
1
16.1%
5.7%
17.5%
10.8%
15.0%
13.3%
14.8%
3.7%
11.7%
2
4.2%
1.3%
11.5%
4.2%
9.6%
4.8%
9.1%
0.8%
9.8%
3-5
3.0%
0.4%
12.6%
2.2%
10.4%
3.0%
13.6%
0.5%
23.0%
6-10
0.4%
0.0%
7.5%
0.1%
2.9%
0.4%
3.6%
0.0%
17.9%
11-20
0.1%
0.0%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
13.4%
21-50
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
51+
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Mean
0.4
0.1
2.9
0.3
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.1
6.2
Median
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
Notes:
1
The table excludes 963 cases resulting in prison sentences in 1995 where the offender had remained in
custody for the entire period up to the date on which offending histories were extracted (March 1998), or
where there was less than two years between the estimated date of release from prison and March 1998.
2
The data do not currently separate burglary reconvictions from reconvictions for other property offences.
Over half (56%) of the burglars convicted in 1995 were convicted of another property
offence within two years, including 39% of cases where the person was convicted of two or
more property offences within two years.
A traffic offence was the second most likely type of offence that a burglar would be
reconvicted of within two years, with 42% of burglars receiving such a conviction within two
years.
Nearly a quarter (24%) of burglars were reconvicted for a violent offence in the two years
after the 1995 case. It is interesting to note that this is a slightly greater proportion than for
people who were convicted of a violent offence in 1995 (21% were reconvicted for a violent
offence). Burglars had higher conviction rates overall than violent offenders (81% and 56%
respectively).
165
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
166
Summary of main findings
This is the eleventh report in an annual series. As with the other reports, trends in
prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing are examined, this time over the ten year period
1991 to 2000, using data extracted from the Law Enforcement System. Trends over the
decade in the number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended by the Police, and in offending by
young people which resulted in an appearance in court are also examined. Trends in the use
of bail and in offending while on bail are also presented for the period 1993 to 1998. Special
topics investigated this year are: the use of home detention in 2000; and recidivism patterns
for people convicted in 1995.
The information presented in this report is based on charges or cases processed by courts. It
should be noted that a change in the number of offences prosecuted in court in a particular
period does not necessarily reflect a change in the actual number of offences committed in
the same period. Not all offences which are committed are discovered by, reported to, or
recorded by the Police. Also, not all offences that come to the attention of the Police result
in prosecution, with resolution/clearance rates and prosecution rates differing significantly by
type of offence.
11.1 Prosecutions and convictions for all offences
Prosecutions and convictions overall
The total number of criminal prosecutions peaked in 1996 at nearly 277,000, and has
generally decreased since then. The figure in 2000 was 262,921. A large part of the decrease
in prosecutions in 1997 was attributable to the offence of failing to register a dog under the
Dog Control Act 1996 becoming an infringement offence (although it can still be proceeded
against summarily). There were about 6,700 fewer prosecutions for this offence in 1997
compared with 1996. Also of note, is that there were nearly 3,000 fewer prosecutions for
driving while disqualified in 2000 (8,865) compared with 1999 (11,706).
A conviction is the most frequent outcome of a prosecution. However, the proportion of all
prosecutions resulting in a conviction has generally shown a slowly decreasing trend over the
decade, reaching the lowest level recorded in the decade in 2000 (66%). At least part of the
decrease is likely to be linked to the use of diversion by the Police.
There has also been an increase through the decade in the number and proportion of
prosecutions where the defendant pleaded not guilty that were withdrawn. The introduction
of status hearings in many parts of the country may have contributed to this trend.
Violent offence prosecutions are the least likely (53%), and traffic offence prosecutions are
the most likely (80%), to result in conviction.
167
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The number of charges proven in the Youth Court against young offenders dropped a little in
2000 after a strongly increasing trend between 1992 and 1999.
The number of discharges without conviction under section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act
1985 has shown an increasing trend over the decade, with the number in 2000 being more
than double the number in 1991. The majority of the increase occurred for non-imprisonable
offences, with smaller increases occurring for imprisonable offences of low to moderate
seriousness.
Male offenders accounted for 83% of all cases that resulted in conviction in 2000 (for which
the gender of the offender was known), and female offenders accounted for 17% of cases.
Forty-seven percent of all convicted cases in 2000, for which the ethnicity of the offender was
known, involved Europeans, 42% involved Mäori, 9% involved Pacific peoples, and 2%
involved offenders of some other ethnicity.
Nineteen percent of all cases that resulted in conviction in 2000, and for which the age of the
offender was known, involved teenage offenders, 40% involved offenders in their twenties,
24% involved offenders in their thirties, and 17% involved offenders aged 40 or over.
Violent offences
The total number of convictions for violent offences has generally shown a slowly decreasing
trend since 1995, after a rapid increase between 1991 and 1995. The 2000 figure (14,639) is
the lowest recorded since 1993. The number of convictions for violent offences in 2000 was
still 53% greater than the figure in 1991.
The total number of convictions for violent sex offences (rape, unlawful sexual connection,
attempted sexual violation, and indecent assault) peaked at 2,084 in 1996, but has decreased
since then. In 2000, there were 1,297 convictions for violent sex offences. The number of
convictions for rape (138) and attempted sexual violation (42) in 2000 were the lowest
recorded in the decade. The number of convictions for non-violent sex offences has also
been lower in recent years than in the mid 1990s.
The number of convictions for aggravated robbery has decreased in the last three years after
showing an increasing trend between 1991 and 1997. The 2000 figure (434) is the lowest
recorded since 1994. The number of convictions for robbery has also dropped significantly
in the last two years.
The number of convictions in the two most serious categories of assault - “grievous” assault
and “serious” assault - increased strongly in number between 1991 and 1998, but have
levelled off since then.
There was a very large increase in convictions for “male assaults female” (the majority of
which are domestic-related assaults) between 1991 and 1994. This was partly a reflection of a
change in police practice with respect to arrest of the offender when attending domestic
incidents and subsequent prosecution. Although the number of convictions has decreased in
each of the last six years, the 2000 figure was still 80% greater than the figure in 1991.
168
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
Assaults on children aged less than 14 years (under section 194(a) of the Crimes Act 1961)
also increased significantly in the early 1990s. The number of convictions doubled between
1991 and 1994 from 152 to 299. Since 1994, the number of convictions for assault on a child
has averaged 300 each year, with the 2000 figure (281) being a little lower than this.
Convictions for all types of threatening and intimidation offences have increased strongly in
number through the decade.
Property offences
Property offences comprise the second largest group of offences resulting in conviction. In
2000, 29% of all convictions were for offences against property. The total number of
convictions for property offences remained reasonably stable between 1992 and 1996 at
around 57,000 convictions annually, but has decreased significantly in the last four years. The
2000 figure (50,039) was the lowest recorded in the decade.
Most of the decrease in property offences in the last four years was due to a decrease in the
number of convictions for fraud. Between 1994 and 1996 there were around 21,000 to
22,000 convictions for fraud each year, but by 2000 the number had dropped to under
15,000. This is the lowest number of convictions for fraud recorded in the decade.
The number of convictions for burglary increased a little in 2000 after generally showing a
downward trend since 1991. The 2000 figure (6,363) was still the second lowest recorded in
the decade.
The number of convictions for motor vehicle conversion averaged about 2,750 between 1992
and 1997, but has dropped in the last three years to be at the lowest level recorded in the
decade (2,188 in 2000).
The number of convictions for wilful damage in 2000 (5,237) was the highest recorded in the
decade.
Drug offences
A large increase in convictions occurred over the decade for offences relating to the
possession of pipes or other drug-related utensils, with the number of such offences more
than doubling from 951 in 1991 to 2,034 in 1999, before decreasing slightly to 1,993 in 2000.
Convictions for possession or use (other than for supply) of drugs other than cannabis have
shown an upward trend in the second half of the decade, with a particularly large increase
occurring between 1999 and 2000. The 2000 figure (678) is the highest recorded in the
decade. Within this category, the number of convictions for possession or use of LSD has
increased over the decade from an average of 35 in each of the years 1991 to 1994, to 120 in
2000. The number of convictions for the possession or use of “stimulants or depressants” in
2000 (230) was the highest recorded in the decade.
169
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Offences against justice
Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders when the Domestic Violence Act
1995 commenced on 1 July 1996. The number of breaches of protection orders increased
dramatically between 1996 and 2000. There were 2,265 convictions for breaches of
protection orders in 2000, more than nine times the number of breaches of non-molestation
orders in 1991 (242).
The number of convictions for failure to answer bail has continued to increase through the
decade, with the 2000 figure (4,293) being 78% greater than the figure in 1991 (2,411).
In 2000, there were 250 breach convictions per 1,000 periodic detention sentences imposed,
the highest rate recorded in the decade.
Offences against good order
The number of convictions for good order offences in 2000 was the highest recorded in the
decade. Convictions for disorderly behaviour have nearly tripled over the decade from 2,193
in 1991 to 6,160 in 2000 Convictions for trespassing offences have also shown an increasing
trend over the decade.
Traffic offences
Convictions for traffic offences decreased in number considerably between 1991 and 1993
(from nearly 80,000 to just over 62,000). From 1993 to 1998, there was an average of
approximately 62,000 convictions each year, but the number dropped to just over 57,000 in
2000. This was the lowest number of traffic convictions recorded in the decade. Traffic
offences accounted for 33% of all convictions in 2000, compared with 43% of convictions in
1991. Despite this decrease in convictions, traffic offences still comprise the largest group of
offences resulting in conviction.
Initiatives introduced by the Land Transport Act 1998 such as photo drivers licences, the
power to forbid unlicensed drivers from driving until they get a valid licence, and the power
to impound at the roadside vehicles driven by disqualified or unlicensed drivers, appear to
have had a significant impact on convictions for traffic offences. The number of convictions
recorded in 2000 for driving causing death or injury, driving with excess alcohol, driving while
disqualified, and careless driving were the lowest recorded in the decade. In contrast, the
number of convictions recorded for “failing to comply with a prohibition of an enforcement
officer” (mostly driving while forbidden) reached 6,457 in 2000 compared with 66 in 1998.
Miscellaneous offences
The number of convictions for liquor offences involving “minors” decreased from 1,006 in
1999 to 92 in 2000. This decrease coincides with amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989
and to section 38 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 that came into force on 1 December
1999. These amendments changed the offences of purchasing of liquor by minors, minors
being found in restricted or supervised areas, and minors drinking liquor in a public place to
infringement offences. The amendments also lowered the legal drinking age from 20 to 18.
170
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
11.2 Sentencing for all offences
Throughout the decade, 7% to 8% of people convicted each year have received a custodial
sentence, with the proportion being marginally higher in the last four years than in earlier
years in the decade. In 2000, 7,931 cases resulted in a custodial sentence, a lower number
than was imposed in the three previous years.
Over the decade, between 31% and 36% of all convictions each year have resulted in the
imposition of a community-based sentence, with the 2000 figure (31%) being the lowest
recorded in the decade.
Periodic detention is the most commonly imposed community-based sentence, and in terms
of principal sentences imposed it is in fact the second most commonly imposed sentence
behind the fine. Nineteen percent of convicted cases in 2000 resulted in periodic detention.
In 2000, there were 18,436 periodic detention sentences imposed – the lowest number
recorded in the decade.
The community programme sentence continues to be used less and less by the courts. In
2000, only 204 such sentences were imposed - which was 0.2% of all sentences imposed.
The use of monetary penalties (in particular, fines) as the most serious sentence has fluctuated
over the decade between 48% and 53% of cases. Part of the fluctuation is due to legislative
changes affecting the number of non-imprisonable offences resulting in conviction and a fine.
For example, the offence of “failing to register a dog” became an infringement offence in
1996 and caused a large drop in the number of fines from 1997. In contrast, the new powers
given to Police in early 1999 to forbid unlicenced drivers from driving until they have gained
a valid licence has led to an increase in 1999 and 2000 in the number of people convicted and
fined for “failing to comply with a prohibition of an enforcement officer” after they were
caught driving again without a valid licence.
There has generally been a slowly increasing trend over the decade in the proportion of cases
in which the person was convicted and discharged. In 6% of cases in 2000 the person was
convicted and discharged - twice the proportion in 1991 (3%). Most offence types showed an
increase over the decade in the proportion of cases that were convicted and discharged.
Violent offenders imprisoned in 2000 received sentences five months longer, on average, than
violent offenders imprisoned in 1991. The average length of custodial sentences imposed on
violent offenders in 2000 (26.2 months) was fractionally shorter than the figure in the
previous year.
The Crimes Amendment Act (No. 3) 1993 increased the maximum penalty for sexual
violation (rape and unlawful sexual connection) from 14 years to 20 years imprisonment. In
addition, legislation that came into force on 17 July 1999 increased the maximum penalty for
sexual violation to 25 years if the offence involved home invasion.
171
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Since the 1993 legislative change, the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for
rape have been considerably longer. In the period 1991 to 1993, rapists had sentences
imposed of 70.5 months (5 years 11 months), on average, but sentences increased to 97.3
months in 1999, before dropping slightly to 95.6 months (8 years) in 2000.
After remaining reasonably constant between 1994 and 1998 (at an average of 52.3 months or
4 years 4 months), custodial sentences imposed for unlawful sexual connection increased in
length by a little under a year in 1999 to 62.6 months, before dropping slightly to 61.4 months
(5 years 1 month) in 2000.
The average length of the custodial sentences imposed for manslaughter have been longer in
the last two years than in earlier years in the decade. In 2000, the average custodial sentence
imposed for manslaughter was 69.3 months (5 years 9 months).
Custodial sentences imposed for the most serious category of assault - “grievous” assault have increased in length, on average, since 1992. The 2000 figure (25.8 months) was the
highest figure recorded in the decade.
In the last five years, over a third of the offenders convicted for burglary were sent to prison,
with the 2000 figure (38%) being the highest recorded in the decade. The length of the
custodial sentences awarded for burglary increased through the decade, with burglars being
imprisoned for nearly six months longer, on average, in 2000 than in 1991.
The average length of the custodial sentences imposed in 2000 for receiving stolen goods,
fraud, and wilful damage were the longest recorded in the decade.
In 2000, a total of 710 drug offenders were imprisoned, the highest number recorded in the
decade. The proportion of cases involving drug offences resulting in a custodial sentence in
2000 (10%) was the highest recorded in the decade.
In 2000, 19% of dealing in cannabis cases were imprisoned for an average of 14.2 months.
Both these figures were the highest recorded in the decade.
There was a downward trend through the decade in the proportion of cases resulting in
imprisonment for breaching the conditions of a periodic detention sentence. The proportion
decreased from 22% in 1991 to 12% in 2000.
Before the Land Transport Act 1998, the maximum penalty for driving with excess alcohol
(excluding cases resulting in death and injury) was three months imprisonment regardless of
the number of previous occasions the person had been convicted of the offence. Now,
people convicted of driving with excess alcohol for the third or subsequent time can be
imprisoned for up to two years, while first or second time offenders can still only be
imprisoned for up to three months.
The average length of custodial sentences awarded in driving with excess alcohol cases
increased in both 1999 and 2000. The average sentence in 2000 was 5.6 months - almost
three times the average in the period 1991 to 1998 (2.1 months).
172
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
The same penalty structure as that for driving with excess alcohol exists for driving while
disqualified. Prior to the legislative change, the maximum penalty for a first time offender
was three months imprisonment, and for all repeat offenders the maximum penalty was five
years imprisonment.
Despite the maximum penalty decreasing from five years to two years imprisonment for a
third or subsequent driving while disqualified offence, the average length of custodial
sentences awarded for such offences increased in both 1999 and 2000, and the 2000 figure
was in fact the highest recorded in the decade. However, this increase may be partly artificial.
In cases where a drunk driver is also found to be a disqualified driver, and is convicted on
both offences, there has been a shift in the sentences imposed in the last two years, with large
increases in the sentences imposed for the drunk driving offence. This has resulted in a shift
in the major offence in some cases from driving while disqualified to driving with excess
alcohol. If the remaining cases that still have driving while disqualified as the most serious
offence are more serious cases, on average, then it would be expected that the average
sentence imposed would also be longer.
11.3 Custodial sentences and remands
The total number of custodial sentences imposed peaked in 1998 at 8,255 before decreasing
in the last two years to 7,931 in 2000.
Nearly one-third (31%) of the custodial sentences imposed in 2000 were for property
offences, a little over a quarter (27%) were for violent offences, and one-fifth (20%) were for
traffic offences.
The average custodial sentence length imposed (including preventive detention) has increased
over the decade from 10.2 months in 1991 to 14.2 months in 2000.
The number of corrective training sentences imposed has shown a decreasing trend over the
decade, with the 2000 figure (225) being less than half the number imposed in 1991 (620).
The number of preventive detention sentences imposed in 1999 (18) and 2000 (13) were a
little higher than in previous years in the decade.
The number of female sentenced inmates in 2000 (240) was the highest recorded in the
decade.
During 2000, there was an average of 4,735 sentenced male inmates in prison at any one time,
a slightly lower number than in the previous year, but still the second highest number
recorded in the decade.
The average daily number of both male and female prisoners in custody on remand was
higher in 2000 (734 and 33 respectively) than in any other year in the decade.
173
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Nine percent of all cases finalised in 2000 involved offenders who were remanded in custody
at some stage during the hearing of the case. Only the minority (19%) of defendants who had
a period in custodial remand in 2000 spent their whole case remanded in custody.
Almost half (48%) of the defendants who had some time in custodial remand spent only onequarter or less of their case in custodial remand. Of these cases, almost half spent all of their
time in custodial remand during the last quarter of their case (for example, while awaiting the
sentencing hearing), while just over one-quarter spent all of their time in custodial remand
during the first quarter of their case (for example, while information relevant to the bail
decision was collected).
The overall average amount of time spent in custodial remand has increased by almost ten
days (24%) over the last eight years from 40.6 days in 1993 to 50.4 days in 2000.
Most (92%) of the cases resulting in a prison sentence in 2000 involved a male offender. Just
over half (52%) of these males, for whom ethnicity was available, were Mäori, 39% were
European, and 8% were Pacific peoples. Forty-one percent of the Mäori men sent to prison
in 2000 were aged under 25. Forty-six percent of the male Pacific peoples sent to prison in
2000 were aged under 25, compared with 33% of European men.
Only 8% of all cases resulting in a custodial sentence in 2000 involved a female offender.
Nearly two-thirds (62%) of these female offenders, for whom ethnicity was available, were
Mäori, 32% were European and 6% were Pacific peoples. Thirty-eight percent of the female
Mäori were aged under 25, compared with 30% of the female Europeans, and 41% of the
female Pacific peoples.
11.4 Community-based sentences
The total number of periodic detention sentences imposed in 2000 (18,436) was the lowest
recorded in the decade. The largest proportional decrease in the use of periodic detention
over the decade occurred for traffic offences (45%) - with 4,400 fewer sentences imposed in
2000 than in 1991. In contrast, the number of periodic detention sentences imposed for
offences against justice increased by 56% over the decade.
Traffic offences (29%) and property offences (27%) accounted for the majority of periodic
detention sentences imposed in 2000. Traffic offences have accounted for a decreasing
proportion of periodic detention sentences through the decade. In 1991, traffic offences
accounted for 44% of such sentences, but by 2000 the proportion had fallen to 29%.
The total number of community programme sentences imposed has shown a downward
trend since 1992, with the 2000 figure (204) being the lowest recorded in the decade. Violent
offences have accounted for a greater proportion, and traffic offences and property offences
a lesser proportion, of such sentences since 1994.
174
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
The total number of community service cases imposed has fluctuated over the decade, but
has generally shown a downward trend. In 2000, there were 7,135 community service
sentences imposed, the lowest number recorded in the decade, and 22% less than the number
imposed in 1991 (9,196).
In 1991, traffic offences accounted for 58% of the community service sentences imposed.
There has generally been a slowly decreasing trend in this proportion through the decade,
with the 2000 figure being 43%. The next largest category in 2000 was property offences,
which accounted for 36% of community service sentences.
The total number of supervision sentences imposed as the principal sentence has decreased in
the last four years, after an increasing trend between 1991 and 1995.
Property offences accounted for 45% of the cases resulting in supervision as the most serious
sentence in 1991, but by 1995 they accounted for only 29% of supervision sentences. Since
1996, property offences have accounted for 26% to 29% of supervision cases each year. In
contrast, violent offences accounted for 17% of the supervision sentences imposed in 1991,
but by 1995 the proportion had more than doubled to 38%. Since 1996, 34% to 37% of
supervision sentences have been for violent offences.
Part of the increased use of supervision for violent offences between 1991 and 1995 was due
to very large increases in the number of convictions for male assaults female, which result in
supervision more frequently than other types of offences.
Community-based sentences have got shorter, on average, over the last decade. The average
length of periodic detention sentences imposed has decreased a little over the decade from
4.5 months in 1991 to 4.0 months in 2000. Community service sentences have decreased in
length over the decade from an average of 95 hours in 1991 to 84 hours in 1998, before
increasing a little in the next two years to 87 hours in 2000. Supervision sentences decreased
from 10.8 months, on average, in 1991 to 9.4 months in 1999, before increasing slightly in
2000 to 9.8 months.
11.5 Monetary penalties
The fine is the most commonly imposed sentence. The total number of fines imposed in the
last decade has decreased from a little over 65,000 in 1991 to around 55,000 in the last three
years. Part of this decrease is due to a decrease in convictions over the decade for traffic
offences (which often result in a fine). The much lower number of fines in the period 1997
to 2000 compared to previous years was partly due to the offence of “failing to register a
dog” becoming an infringement offence.
In 2000, 32% of all charges resulting in conviction had a fine imposed. The total amount of
fines imposed by the courts in 2000 was $23.5 million.
The median fine imposed in both 1999 and 2000 was $300. This is higher than in previous
years in the decade when the median fine was between $200 and $250.
175
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
The majority of fines (63% in 2000) are imposed with no other penalty. A little under a third
(32%) of the charges that resulted in a fine in 2000 also had a driving disqualification
imposed.
Property offences are the most likely to result in a reparation sentence, with 20% of such
charges resulting in a reparation sentence in 2000. The proportions for the other offence
types were very much lower, with violent offences (3%) being the next highest category in
2000.
The total amount of reparation imposed increased between 1991 and 1993 (from $9.2 million
to $12.5 million) and has remained between $12 million and $13 million each year since then.
Property offences accounted for 83% of the total amount of reparation imposed in 2000
($10.2 million of the total $12.4 million).
The median reparation sentence imposed has increased from $174 in 1995 to $250 in both
1999 and 2000. The 1999 and 2000 figures are the highest recorded in the ten year period
under examination.
Reparation is not usually imposed as the only sentence - this was the case for only 19% of the
reparation sentences imposed in 2000. Half of the reparation sentences in 2000 also had a
community-based sentence imposed, with reparation being most commonly imposed in
conjunction with periodic detention. The proportion of charges that had reparation imposed
and which also received a community-based sentence has decreased from 63% in 1991 to
50% in 2000. In 2000, 8% of reparation sentences were imposed in conjunction with
custodial sentences, compared with only 2% of sentences in 1991.
There were small increases in 1994 and 1995 in the use of reparation for all property offences.
These increases coincided with amendments to the Criminal Justice Act in late 1993 which,
amongst other changes, strengthened the direction to the courts to consider imposing
reparation in all cases unless it would be clearly inappropriate to do so. However, in
subsequent years, the use of reparation has been only marginally higher than the level before
1994.
There was a sustained increase in the use of reparation for theft offences after 1993. In 1993,
15% of theft offences resulted in reparation, but by 2000 the proportion had increased to
20%. In contrast, reparation use for fraud has generally decreased since 1995, with the 2000
figure (14%) being the lowest recorded in the decade.
11.6 Court statistics on young offenders
There was an increasing trend in apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds by the Police in the first
half of the decade, but the number has remained between 30,000 and 31,000 each year since
then. The 2000 figure for total apprehensions of 14 to 16 year olds was 40% greater than the
figure in 1991.
176
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
The number of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended for violent offences increased significantly
between 1991 and 1995, remained fairly stable in the next three years, then increased in both
1999 and 2000 to the highest figure recorded in the decade (3,384). The 2000 figure is double
the figure in 1991 (1,681).
The majority (51%) of apprehensions involving 14 to 16 year olds in 2000 were for
dishonesty offences. The number of apprehensions for dishonesty offences involving 14 to
16 year olds increased between 1991 and 1996, before decreasing in the next three years, then
increasing a little in 2000. The 2000 figure was 11% greater than the figure in 1991.
Trends in cases involving young people (i.e. people aged 16 or less when they offended)
coming before the courts were also examined for the period 1991 to 2000.
There has generally been an increasing trend throughout the decade in the number of cases
involving young people. In 2000, there were 4,024 cases involving young people that came
before the courts, 47% more than the number in 1991 (2,735).
Most (83%) of the court cases involving young people in 2000 involved males, with only 17%
involving females.
Over half (52%) of the cases in 2000, for which the ethnicity of the young person was known,
involved Mäori, 37% involved Europeans, and 9% involved Pacific peoples.
Sixteen year olds accounted for the largest proportion (44%) of cases involving young people
dealt with in 2000, while 15 year olds accounted for 27% of the cases, 14 year olds accounted
for 9% of the cases, and 17 to 19 year olds (who had their first court appearance in the Youth
Court) accounted for 19% of the cases.
The number of cases involving violent offences proved against young people more than
doubled between 1991 and 1998 (from 210 to 456). However, in the last two years, the
number has been lower than this (390 in 1999 and 403 in 2000). Of note is that the number
of 14 to 16 year olds apprehended for violent offences by the Police in 2000 was the highest
figure recorded in the decade, but this was not reflected in the court statistics.
The proportion of proved cases involving property offences decreased from 62% in 1991 to
49% in 1998. In the last two years 56% of proved cases involving young offenders involved
property offences. Burglaries have accounted for over half of the proved property offences
throughout the decade.
The number of proved cases involving offences against justice has been greater in the last
four years compared to earlier years in the decade. The vast majority of the increase occurred
for escaping from custody offences.
The proportion of proved cases involving young offenders that resulted in imprisonment or
adult community-based sentences in 2000 (6% and 7% of cases respectively) were the lowest
figures recorded in the decade. In contrast, the proportion of cases resulting in a Youth
Court supervision order in 2000 (39%) was the highest recorded in the decade.
177
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
11.7 Trends in the use of bail and in offending while on bail
A new method for producing regular statistics on offending while on bail has been developed.
Statistics are currently available for each of the years 1993 to 1998.
The percentage of cases that involved a remand on bail varied with the type of offence that
the person was charged with. In 1998, 76% of cases where a person was charged with a
violent offence as the major charge, resulted in the person being remanded on bail. Slightly
less than a third of traffic cases involved a remand on bail.
The proportion of people who offended while on bail changed very little between 1993 and
1998. The percentage increased slightly from 20% to 22% of those granted bail between
1993 and 1995, before decreasing to a similar extent in the next three years to be 20% in
1998.
The percentage of cases where there was an offence committed while on bail varied with the
type of charge for which the person was on bail. In 1998, those on bail charged with a
property offence (26%) or an offence against justice (25%) were the most likely to offend
while on bail. Those on bail charged with a miscellaneous offence were the least likely to
offend while on bail (12%).
In 1998, the most common offences committed while on bail were property offences (33%),
traffic offences (21%) and offences against justice (18%). Violent offences accounted for
12% of the offences committed while on bail in 1998.
Sixteen percent of those on bail charged with a violent offence in 1998 offended while on
bail. Of this group, 5% committed another violent offence while on bail, 3% committed a
property offence, 2% committed an offence against justice, 3% committed a traffic offence
and 3% committed other types of offences.
11.8 Use of home detention in 2000
Home detention became available in New Zealand from 1 October 1999. Home detention
allows some offenders to serve part of their prison sentence outside prison under electronic
surveillance, and under intensive supervision by Probation Officers. Statistics were presented
on the use of home detention in 2000.
There were 5,385 cases in 2000 where a court imposed a prison sentence of two years or less,
and information was recorded in the data on whether leave to apply for home detention was
granted. For 1,602 (30%) of these cases, leave to apply for home detention was granted by
the court. Of the 1,602 “front-end” inmates granted leave to apply in 2000, 731 (46%) had a
home detention hearing in 2000, and 392 (25%) eventually had their release to home
detention approved in 2000 (see Figure 11.1).
178
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 11.1 Summary of “front-end” home detention in 2000
Prison sentence of two years or less
imposed
(6,590)
Prison sentence of two years or less imposed
and information recorded on LES regarding
whether leave to apply for home detention
was granted
(5,385)
30%
Leave to apply for home
detention granted by Courts
(1,602)
46%
Home detention hearing held in
prison
(731)
94%
Result of home detention hearing
recorded
(686)
57%
Release to home detention
approved
(392)
70%
Leave to apply for home
detention not granted by Courts
(3,783)
54%
Home detention hearing not held
in prison
(871)
6%
Result of home detention hearing
not recorded
(45)
43%
Release to home detention not
approved
(294)
Ÿ O verall, 7% of people with a prison
sentence of two years or less were
released via the "front-end" to home
detention.
Ÿ O verall, 25% of those granted leave to
apply were released to home detention.
179
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Male offenders with prison sentences of two years or less were considerably less likely than
females to be granted leave to apply by the courts (28% of cases compared to 45%). In
addition, males coming to prison with leave to apply were less than half as likely as females to
be eventually released to home detention (22% of male inmates compared with 48% of
female inmates).
While the statistics presented above indicate significant differences in the frequency that male
and female inmates are released to home detention, it must be remembered that there may be
some differences between male and female inmates in relation to suitability for release to
home detention, and a desire by the inmate to take up the option. There may also be
differences based on other variables discussed below.
Mäori offenders were slightly less likely than non-Mäori offenders to be granted leave to
apply for home detention. Mäori and Pacific inmates with leave to apply granted were less
likely than European inmates to eventually have home detention approved.
Older offenders were more likely than younger offenders to be granted leave to apply and to
eventually be released to home detention.
People imprisoned for two years or less for a drug offence were more likely than other
offenders to be granted leave to apply (45% of cases). In addition, drug offenders with leave
to apply were significantly more likely to eventually be released on home detention than
inmates imprisoned for any other type of offence.
Shorter prison sentences of three months or less, and in particular sentences of one month or
less, had leave to apply for home detention granted less often than sentences of more than
three months. The length of the prison sentence imposed also had some impact on the
likelihood of release to home detention, with those inmates with shorter sentences being less
likely than those with longer sentences to eventually be released to home detention.
The more times an offender had been to prison previously, the less likely they were to be
granted leave to apply for home detention or to be eventually released to home detention.
There were 1,040 inmates who were eligible to apply for release to home detention as a preparole option in 2000. Of these, 189 (18%) had a home detention hearing before a District
Prisons Board or the Parole Board in 2000, and 87 (8%) eventually had their release to home
detention approved in 2000 (see Figure 11.2).
A slightly higher proportion of female inmates (14%) who were “pre-parole” eligible
eventually had home detention approved compared to males (8%).
European offenders were more likely than “pre-parole” eligible offenders of any other ethnic
group to ultimately have home detention approved.
Older “pre-parole” eligible offenders were more likely than younger offenders to eventually
be released to home detention.
180
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 11.2 Summary of “pre-parole” home detention in 2000
Prison sentence of more than two years and
offender eligible to apply for pre-parole
release to home detention
(1,040)
18%
Home detention hearing held
(189)
99%
Result of home detention hearing
recorded
(187)
47%
Release to home detention
approved
(87)
82%
Home detention hearing not held
(851)
1%
Result of home detention hearing
not recorded
(2)
53%
Release to home detention not
approved
(100)
Ÿ O verall, 8% of eligible people with a
prison sentence of more than two years
were released as a pre-parole option to
home detention.
Drug offenders were significantly more likely to be released on home detention than “preparole” eligible inmates imprisoned for violent, property, or traffic offences.
The length of the prison sentence imposed had some impact on the likelihood of release to
home detention, with those “pre-parole” eligible inmates with shorter sentences being more
likely than those with longer sentences to be released to home detention.
181
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Whether “pre-parole” eligible inmates had release to home detention approved varied
significantly from prison to prison. Male inmates at Invercargill Prison (28%), Manawatu
Prison (20%), and Mt Eden Mens Prison (19%) were the most likely to have release to home
detention approved, whereas no inmates at Ohura and only 2% of male inmates at Auckland
Prison had release to home detention approved.
There were 297 front-end inmates who served home detention in 2000. For just over twothirds (70%) of these people, the period on home detention ended because the offenders had
total imposed sentences of one year or less, and they reached their half sentence date at which
there is mandatory release. These inmates spent an average of 48 days in prison before being
released to home detention and a further 68 days, on average, on home detention.
A total of 72 people (24% of front-end inmates released to home detention) had sentences of
more than one year and up to two years and were released by a District Prisons Board after
serving some time on home detention. These inmates spent an average of 86 days in prison
before being released to home detention, and a further 122 days, on average, on home
detention. On average, such offenders served 38% of their total imposed prison sentences
either in prison or on home detention before being released (usually on parole).
A total of 11 (4%) of the front-end inmates were recalled to prison from home detention.
Three people (1%) successfully applied to a District Prisons Board to be returned to prison,
and one person was convicted and re-imprisoned for a further offence.
All but one of the 91 “pre-parole” inmates serving home detention were released by a District
Prisons Board or the Parole Board after serving some time on home detention. These
inmates spent an average of 327 days in prison before being released to home detention, and
a further 104 days, on average, on home detention. On average, such offenders served 40%
of their total imposed prison sentences either in prison or on home detention before being
released (usually on parole). One “pre-parole” inmate was recalled to prison from their home
detention.
11.9 Recidivism patterns for people convicted in 1995
Only a quarter of the people convicted in 1995 were first offenders. The people convicted in
1995 had an average of 12 prior charges resulting in conviction, although the median number
of prior convictions was much lower than this at 4. Thirty percent of the people convicted in
1995 had more than 10 previous convictions. Just under 40% of the people convicted in
1995 were reconvicted within one year, with the majority of people (51%) being reconvicted
within two years.
Male offenders convicted in 1995 had much more extensive offending histories, on average,
than females, and were also much more likely to be reconvicted in the next two years than
females. As well as being more likely to be reconvicted, males were reconvicted at a faster
rate than females.
182
Summary of main findings
__________________________________________________________________
Mäori offenders convicted in 1995 tended to have more extensive offending histories than
European offenders, and both these groups had much more extensive offending histories
than Pacific peoples. Mäori offenders convicted in 1995 were more likely to be reconvicted
within two years (69% of cases) than European offenders and Pacific peoples (61% and 58%
of cases respectively). Mäori had faster reconviction rates than non-Mäori within the first ten
months after the 1995 case.
The number of prior convictions increased with the age of the offender for offenders aged
less than 30. Offenders in their thirties had similar numbers of prior convictions to those
aged 25 to 29, while offenders aged 40 or more tended to have fewer prior convictions than
offenders in their twenties or thirties. In general, the likelihood of reconviction reduced with
the age of the offender. Over 70% of 17 to 19 year olds were reconvicted within two years,
compared with only 29% of people aged at least 40 being reconvicted within two years.
There is a clear relationship between the age of the offender and the time to reconviction.
Young offenders had a faster rate of reconviction than older offenders within the first ten
months after the 1995 case, but thereafter rates were similar.
Only 6% of the people imprisoned in 1995 were first offenders, compared to more than a
third (36%) of those given a monetary penalty or who were convicted and discharged (35%)
being first offenders. Eighty percent of the people imprisoned in 1995 were reconvicted
within two years of their release from prison23. This compares to 65% of those who received
a community-based sentence, and 41% of those given a monetary penalty who were
reconvicted within two years. People released from prison are reconvicted at a much faster
rate than people with other types of sentence, with the vast majority of reoffending by those
people released from prison occurring in the first seven months after release.
The more extensive the offending history of a person prior to 1995, the greater the likelihood
that the person would be reconvicted within two years. Only a quarter of first offenders in
1995 were reconvicted within two years, compared to 88% of people with more than 50
convictions prior to the 1995 case being reconvicted within two years. There is a clear
relationship between the number of prior convictions and the time to reconviction. Those
people with a greater number of prior convictions had a faster rate of reconviction than
offenders with no or a small number of past convictions.
Females tended to receive their first ever conviction slightly later in life than males. The
average age at first conviction for males was 20.9 years, whereas for females it was 24.4 years.
Pacific peoples tended to receive their first ever conviction slightly later in life than European
and Mäori offenders. The average age at first conviction for Mäori was 18.7 years, for
European offenders it was 19.9 years, and for Pacific peoples it was 22.3 years.
23 Note that the imprisonment reconviction figures should be treated with caution as they generally relate to
inmates who served relatively short sentences. Many of the inmates who had long prison sentences imposed in
1995 did not have two years between their estimated date of release and the date the offending histories were
extracted, hence not allowing an examination of reoffending for all prison inmates.
183
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Violent offenders tend to be generalist rather than specialist offenders. Of the violent
offenders convicted in 1995, less than half (44%) had been convicted previously of a violent
offence, but the majority had been convicted previously of property and traffic offences. In
the two years following the 1995 case, 21% of violent offenders were reconvicted for a
violent offence. A similar proportion (20%) were reconvicted for a property offence, and
31% were reconvicted for a traffic offence.
The majority of burglars convicted have extensive histories of offending, with the burglars
convicted in 1995 having an average of 22 previous convictions. The majority of burglars
(52%) convicted in 1995 had previously been convicted of burglary, with the average number
of previous burglary convictions being nearly four. More than four out of every five burglars
convicted in 1995 were reconvicted of an offence within two years, with 56% of burglars
being reconvicted for a property offence within two years.
Burglars were slightly more likely to be reconvicted for a violent offence than people who
were convicted of a violent offence in 1995 (24% of cases compared to 21% of cases
respectively).
184
References
Galaway, B. and Spier, P. (1992) Sentencing to Reparation: Implementation of the Criminal Justice Act
1985, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Land Transport Safety Authority (2001) Road Safety New Zealand, May 2001.
Lash, B. (1998) Those on Bail in New Zealand in 1994 and their Offending, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington.
New Zealand Police (1999) Media Release, 7 May 1999.
New Zealand Police (2001) Media Release, 9 April 2001.
Rich, M. (2000) Census of Prison Inmates 1999, Department of Corrections, Wellington.
Spier, P., Luketina, F. and Kettles, S. (1991) Changes in the Seriousness of Offending and in the
Pattern of Sentencing: 1979 to 1988, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1997) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1987 to 1996, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1998) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1988 to 1997, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1999) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1989 to 1998, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Statistics New Zealand (1996) New Zealand Now: Crime, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.
Young, W., Morris, A., Cameron, N. and Haslett, S. (1997) New Zealand National Survey of
Crime Victims 1996, Victimisation Survey Committee, Wellington.
185
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
186
Appendix 1 Some recent criminal justice research
publications of the Ministry of Justice
and the former Department of Justice
Braybrook, B. and Southey, P. (1992) Census of Prison Inmates 1991, Department of Justice,
Wellington.
Chetwin, A., Waldegrave, T., Simonsen, K., with Strategic Training and Development
Services, and The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit (2000) Speaking about
Cultural Background at Sentencing: Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington.
Church, A., Lang, K., Leigh, J., Young, P., Gray, A. and Edgar, N. (1995) Victims Court
Assistance: An Evaluation of the Pilot Scheme, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Church, A. and Dunstan, S. (1997) Home Detention: The Evaluation of the Home Detention Pilot
Programme 1995-1997, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Dunstan, S., Paulin, J. and Atkinson, K. (1995) Trial by Peers? The Composition of New Zealand
Juries, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Galaway, B. and Spier, P. (1992) Sentencing to Reparation: Implementation of the Criminal Justice Act
1985, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Harland, A. (1995) Victimisation in New Zealand: As Measured by the 1992 International Crime
Survey, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Kettles, S. and Luketina, F. (1992) The Violent Offences Legislation, Part 4, The Commission of a
Crime with a Weapon, and Part 5, Miscellaneous Provisions, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Lash, B. and Luketina, F. (1990) Offending While on Bail, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Lash, B. (1996) Census of Prison Inmates 1995, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Lash, B. (1998) Census of Prison Inmates 1997, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Lash, B. (1998) Those on Bail in New Zealand in 1994 and their Offending, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington.
Lee, A. and Searle, W. (1993)
Wellington.
Victims' Needs: An Issues Paper, Department of Justice,
187
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Lee, A., Searle, W. and Atkinson, K. (1993)
Department of Justice, Wellington.
Victims' Needs: The Results of the Survey,
Leibrich, J. (1993) Straight to the Point: Angles on Giving Up Crime, University of Otago Press,
Dunedin and Department of Justice, Wellington.
Leibrich, J., Paulin, J. and Ransom, R. (1995) Hitting Home: Men Speak About Abuse of Women
Partners, Department of Justice and AGB McNair, Wellington.
Ministry of Justice (1996) List of Offences With Maximum Penalties, by Act & Section (Current at 1
January 1996), Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Norris, M. and MacPherson, S. (1990) Offending in New Zealand: Trends and International
Comparisons, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Southey, P., Braybrook, B. and Spier, P. (1994)
Department of Justice, Wellington.
Rape Recidivism and Sexual Violation,
Southey, P., Spier, P. and Edgar, N. (1995) Census of Prison Inmates 1993, Department of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P., Luketina, F. and Kettles, S. (1991) Changes in the Seriousness of Offending and in the
Pattern of Sentencing: 1979 to 1988, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P., Southey, P. and Norris, M. (1991) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand:
1981 to 1990, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P., Norris, M. and Southey, P. (1992) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand:
1982 to 1991, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. and Norris, M. (1993) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1983 to
1992, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1994) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1984 to 1993, Department
of Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1995) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1985 to 1994, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1996) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1986 to 1995, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1997) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1987 to 1996, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (1998) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1988 to 1997, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
188
Appendix 1
_______________________________________________________________
Spier, P. (1999) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1989 to 1998, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Spier, P. (2000) Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1990 to 1999, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Triggs, S. (1995) Forecasting New Zealand’s Prison Population, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Triggs, S. (1997) Interpreting Trends in Recorded Crime in New Zealand, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington.
Triggs, S. (1998) From Crime to Sentence: Trends in Criminal Justice, 1986 to 1996, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington.
Triggs, S. (1999)
Wellington.
Sentencing in New Zealand: A Statistical Analysis, Ministry of Justice,
Whitney, L. (1992) Substance Abuse: A Survey of the Treatment Needs of Prison Inmates, Department
of Justice, Wellington.
189
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
190
Appendix 2 Outcome of prosecutions in 2000, by
type of offence
Tables A2.1 to A2.8 present a breakdown of the outcomes of all charges prosecuted in 2000
according to the type of offence involved.
Table A2.1 Outcome of prosecutions for violent offences, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
No.
%
Murder
31
58.5
0
0.0
0
Manslaughter
26
65.0
0
0.0
0
Not proved
No.
%
0.0
21
0.0
12
Other
Total
No.
%
No.
%
39.6
1
1.9
53
100.0
30.0
2
5.0
40
100.0
9
18.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
36
73.5
4
8.2
49
100.0
Kidnapping/abduction
113
36.8
7
2.3
0
0.0
187
60.9
0
0.0
307
100.0
Rape
138
26.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
379
72.1
9
1.7
526
100.0
Unlawful sexual
connection
Attempted sexual
violation
Indecent assault
319
35.1
5
0.6
0
0.0
567
62.4
17
1.9
908
100.0
42
30.0
1
0.7
0
0.0
95
67.9
2
1.4
140
100.0
798
46.2
8
0.5
6
0.3
886
51.3
30
1.7
1728
100.0
Aggravated burglary
71
34.3
5
2.4
0
0.0
129
62.3
2
1.0
207
100.0
Aggravated robbery
434
41.8
122
11.8
0
0.0
480
46.2
2
0.2
1038
100.0
Robbery
171
40.6
52
12.4
0
0.0
198
47.0
0
0.0
421
100.0
Grievous assault
1324
43.9
64
2.1
16
0.5
1583
52.5
26
0.9
3013
100.0
Serious assault
3251
62.1
134
2.6
131
2.5
1708
32.6
15
0.3
5239
100.0
Male assaults female
2922
60.3
18
0.4
134
2.8
1768
36.5
3
0.1
4845
100.0
281
47.5
1
0.2
14
2.4
294
49.7
2
0.3
592
100.0
3963
57.9
145
2.1
250
3.7
2476
36.2
5
0.1
6839
100.0
629
40.5
23
1.5
14
0.9
878
56.5
10
0.6
1554
100.0
Cruelty to a child
22
45.8
0
0.0
2
4.2
24
50.0
0
0.0
48
100.0
Other violence
95
35.3
23
8.6
1
0.4
148
55.0
2
0.7
269
100.0
Total violence
14639
52.6
608
2.2
568
2.0
11869
42.7
132
0.5
27816
100.0
Attempted murder
Assault on a child
Minor assault
Threaten to kill/do GBH
191
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A2.2 Outcome of prosecutions for other offences against the person, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
No.
%
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
No.
%
Other
Total
No.
%
No.
%
7
41.2
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
58.8
0
0.0
17
100.0
293
54.4
8
1.5
2
0.4
219
40.6
17
3.2
539
100.0
2379
58.6
35
0.9
115
2.8
1525
37.6
6
0.1
4060
100.0
Threats/intimidation
561
54.7
22
2.1
27
2.6
416
40.5
0
0.0
1026
100.0
Other against persons
252
52.7
12
2.5
15
3.1
197
41.2
2
0.4
478
100.0
Total other ag. persons
3492
57.1
77
1.3
159
2.6
2367
38.7
25
0.4
6120
100.0
Incest
Other sex
Obstruct/resist
Table A2.3 Outcome of prosecutions for property offences, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
No.
%
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
Other
Total
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
6363
56.4
1378
12.2
63
0.6
3468
30.7
18
0.2
11290
100.0
13370
59.4
1218
5.4
465
2.1
7449
33.1
7
0.0
22509
100.0
Receiving stolen goods
3018
58.8
130
2.5
57
1.1
1927
37.5
3
0.1
5135
100.0
Motor vehicle
conversion
Fraud
2188
54.1
666
16.5
25
0.6
1161
28.7
4
0.1
4044
100.0
14620
66.1
185
0.8
186
0.8
7103
32.1
12
0.1
22106
100.0
171
40.8
58
13.8
4
1.0
182
43.4
4
1.0
419
100.0
Wilful damage
5237
58.6
428
4.8
243
2.7
3019
33.8
10
0.1
8937
100.0
Other property
5072
61.2
603
7.3
103
1.2
2498
30.1
10
0.1
8286
100.0
Total property
50039
60.5
4666
5.6
1146
1.4
26807
32.4
68
0.1
82726
100.0
Burglary
Theft
Arson
Table A2.4 Outcome of prosecutions for drug offences, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
No.
%
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
No.
%
Other
No.
Total
%
No.
%
Use cannabis
6133
70.5
100
1.1
167
1.9
2299
26.4
0
0.0
8699
100.0
Deal in cannabis
3886
69.0
31
0.6
27
0.5
1685
29.9
5
0.1
5634
100.0
Other cannabis
2188
63.1
62
1.8
58
1.7
1162
33.5
0
0.0
3470
100.0
Use other drug
678
64.9
5
0.5
17
1.6
344
33.0
0
0.0
1044
100.0
Deal in other drug
464
39.7
1
0.1
1
0.1
698
59.7
6
0.5
1170
100.0
Other drug
314
56.8
2
0.4
3
0.5
234
42.3
0
0.0
553
100.0
Total drug
13663
66.4
201
1.0
273
1.3
6422
31.2
11
0.1
20570
100.0
192
Appendix 2
_______________________________________________________________
Table A2.5 Outcome of prosecutions for offences against justice, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
No.
Breach periodic
detention
Breach supervision
%
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
No.
%
Other
Total
No.
%
No.
%
6628
80.7
0
0.0
27
0.3
1555
18.9
0
0.0
8210
100.0
503
77.4
0
0.0
2
0.3
145
22.3
0
0.0
650
100.0
Breach parole
236
81.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
52
18.1
0
0.0
288
100.0
Breach community
service
Failure to answer bail
246
57.2
0
0.0
2
0.5
182
42.3
0
0.0
430
100.0
4293
63.5
51
0.8
49
0.7
2359
34.9
4
0.1
6756
100.0
2265
65.7
0
0.0
55
1.6
1127
32.7
0
0.0
3447
100.0
373
37.4
345
34.6
6
0.6
273
27.4
1
0.1
998
100.0
Obstruct/pervert
course of justice
143
49.7
1
0.3
0
0.0
141
49.0
3
1.0
288
100.0
Other against justice
804
59.6
9
0.7
32
2.4
431
31.9
73
5.4
1349
100.0
Total against justice
15491
69.1
406
1.8
173
0.8
6265
27.9
81
0.4
22416
100.0
Breach non-molestation
/protection order
Escape custody
Table A2.6 Outcome of prosecutions for offences against good order, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
No.
%
Other
Total
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Riot
23
71.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
9
28.1
0
0.0
32
100.0
Unlawful assembly
23
37.7
2
3.3
0
0.0
36
59.0
0
0.0
61
100.0
Possess offensive
weapon
Offensive language
1312
50.8
77
3.0
60
2.3
1129
43.7
7
0.3
2585
100.0
685
65.7
9
0.9
35
3.4
313
30.0
1
0.1
1043
100.0
Disorderly behaviour
6160
64.4
64
0.7
372
3.9
2969
31.0
4
0.0
9569
100.0
Trespassing
3138
60.1
176
3.4
148
2.8
1744
33.4
12
0.2
5218
100.0
Other good order
267
60.7
12
2.7
15
3.4
144
32.7
2
0.5
440
100.0
Total good order
11608
61.3
340
1.8
630
3.3
6344
33.5
26
0.1
18948
100.0
Table A2.7 Outcome of prosecutions for traffic offences, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
No.
Drive causing death or
injury
Drive with excess
alcohol
Drive while disqualified
%
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
No.
%
Other
Total
No.
%
No.
%
1446
70.1
22
1.1
11
0.5
584
28.3
1
0.0
2064
100.0
21615
88.6
122
0.5
15
0.1
2631
10.8
8
0.0
24391
100.0
7879
88.9
34
0.4
37
0.4
914
10.3
1
0.0
8865
100.0
2697
81.5
69
2.1
4
0.1
533
16.1
7
0.2
3310
100.0
8437
76.3
34
0.3
418
3.8
2166
19.6
1
0.0
11056
100.0
Other traffic
15038
70.6
140
0.7
1030
4.8
5064
23.8
19
0.1
21291
100.0
Total traffic
57112
80.5
421
0.6
1515
2.1
11892
16.8
37
0.1
70977
100.0
Reckless/dangerous
driving
Careless driving
193
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A2.8 Outcome of prosecutions for miscellaneous offences, 2000
Offence type
Convicted
No.
%
Youth Court
proved
No.
%
Section 19
discharge
No. %
Not proved
No.
%
Other
No.
Total
%
No.
%
Arms Act
858
55.7
49
3.2
39
2.5
593
38.5
2
0.1
1541
100.0
Dog Control Act
442
60.8
0
0.0
11
1.5
273
37.6
1
0.1
727
100.0
2282
73.4
0
0.0
68
2.2
757
24.4
0
0.0
3107
100.0
223
42.0
5
0.9
33
6.2
270
50.8
0
0.0
531
100.0
Tax Acts
Liquor-related
751
62.5
0
0.0
12
1.0
436
36.3
2
0.2
1201
100.0
Other miscellaneous
3344
53.6
21
0.3
142
2.3
2724
43.6
10
0.2
6241
100.0
Total miscellaneous
7900
59.2
75
0.6
305
2.3
5053
37.9
15
0.1
13348
100.0
Fisheries Act
194
Appendix 3 Ethnicity, age, and gender of all
offenders convicted
Tables A3.1 to A3.4 present a breakdown of the offence types that resulted in conviction in
2000 according to the ethnicity, age, and gender of the offenders involved. No information is
presented where the ethnicity, age, or gender of the offender was not available, or where the
case involved a corporation.
Information on the ethnicity, age, and gender of offenders convicted in 2000 was available for
86%, 99%, and just under 100% of cases respectively. The vast majority of cases for which
demographic information was not available involved traffic and “miscellaneous” offences.
Table A3.4 presents information for people of “other” ethnicity. It should be noted that for
79% of these cases, the persons ethnicity was recorded in the Law Enforcement System as
either Asian or Indian. For the remaining 21% of cases, ethnicity was recorded on the Law
Enforcement System just as “Other”.
Tables A3.5 to A3.10 show information on the number of cases resulting in conviction for
each offence type, controlling for gender, ethnicity, and age separately, for each of the years
1991 to 2000.
Care should be taken in interpreting information presented by ethnicity, particularly for the
years 1991 to 1996, because of the large number of cases where ethnicity was not available
(mainly for traffic and miscellaneous offences).
195
14-16
F Total
1
13
0
0
0
15
0
0
1
3
0
1
7
108
0
2
9
142
M
445
96
1731
479
407
801
2728
225
6912
17-19
F
Total
82
527
7
103
211 1942
59
538
35
442
52
853
348 3076
23
248
817 7729
M
635
132
1625
710
606
976
2986
164
7834
20-24
F
Total
89
724
12
144
277
1902
88
798
66
672
58
1034
371
3357
8
172
969
8803
M
546
106
954
621
333
499
2123
115
5297
25-29
F
Total
67
613
12
118
241
1195
109
730
39
372
37
536
369
2492
10
125
884
6181
M
875
138
1282
936
476
575
3109
199
7590
30-39
F
Total
93
968
14
152
384 1666
158 1094
70
546
59
634
593 3702
17
216
1388 8978
M
744
106
827
475
248
321
2846
181
5748
40+
F
60
13
248
79
32
55
553
16
1056
Total
804
119
1075
554
280
376
3399
197
6804
M
3257
578
6434
3221
2072
3173
13893
886
33514
Total
F
392
58
1361
493
243
261
2241
74
5123
Total
3649
636
7795
3714
2315
3434
16134
960
38637
14-16
F Total
6
34
0
1
4
31
0
0
1
9
0
1
9
71
0
0
20
147
M
554
69
1795
278
420
668
1413
64
5261
17-19
F
Total
116
670
10
79
414 2209
40
318
98
518
95
763
312 1725
12
76
1097 6358
M
869
121
1647
495
740
702
2102
55
6731
20-24
F
Total
122
991
32
153
503 2150
102
597
157
897
68
770
510 2612
10
65
1504 8235
M
776
111
963
456
537
471
1767
36
5117
25-29
F
Total
112
888
24
135
383 1346
119
575
112
649
52
523
471 2238
9
45
1282 6399
Note: 47 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
M
28
1
27
0
8
1
62
0
127
M
1181
133
1073
725
578
581
2473
101
6845
Age and gender of offender
30-39
F
Total
161 1342
34
167
524 1597
178
903
125
703
99
680
857 3330
17
118
1995 8840
M
499
52
420
303
180
215
1553
67
3289
40+
F
55
19
212
83
42
43
441
16
911
Total
554
71
632
386
222
258
1994
83
4200
M
3907
487
5925
2257
2463
2638
9370
323
27370
Total
F
572
119
2040
522
535
357
2600
64
6809
Total
4479
606
7965
2779
2998
2995
11970
387
34179
Number of cases involving Mäori offenders resulting in a conviction in 2000, by type of offence, and age and gender of
offender
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Involving drugs
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Offence type
Table A3.2
Notes:
1
Gender is denoted in this table by M = Male and F = Female.
2
73 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
M
12
0
15
0
2
1
101
2
133
Age and gender of offender
Number of cases involving European offenders resulting in conviction in 2000, by type of offence, and age and gender of
offender
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Involving drugs
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Offence type
Table A3.1
Total
4
17
969
M
156
20
261
38
73
153
253
15
115
1084
17-19
F
Total
23
179
2
22
42
303
1
39
11
84
2
155
32
285
2
17
1775
M
307
28
371
69
149
217
617
17
165
1940
20-24
F
Total
19
326
2
30
66
437
6
75
8
157
5
222
58
675
1
18
1189
M
251
24
161
40
84
104
512
13
134
1323
25-29
F
Total
19
270
3
27
47
208
8
48
7
91
8
112
41
553
1
14
1629
M
389
24
190
60
90
101
761
14
187
1816
30-39
F
Total
24
413
4
28
61
251
7
67
13
103
5
106
71
832
2
16
932
M
226
12
73
13
37
41
516
14
115
40+
F
16
4
24
1
5
8
53
4
1047
Total
242
16
97
14
42
49
569
18
6507
M
1334
108
1057
220
434
617
2664
73
720
Total
F
105
15
240
23
44
28
255
10
7227
Total
1439
123
1297
243
478
645
2919
83
14-16
F
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
3
M
25
1
66
13
9
17
142
7
280
17-19
F
Total
2
27
0
1
5
71
1
14
1
10
2
19
10
152
0
7
21
301
M
37
2
70
23
23
50
240
7
452
20-24
F
Total
4
41
0
2
14
84
2
25
1
24
0
50
10
250
0
7
31
483
M
37
5
29
8
8
18
112
9
226
25-29
F
Total
6
43
1
6
11
40
2
10
0
8
3
21
8
120
0
9
31
257
Note: 9 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
M
55
3
69
11
12
27
225
11
413
Age and gender of offender
30-39
F
Total
4
59
0
3
24
93
0
11
1
13
4
31
14
239
9
20
56
469
M
43
0
50
2
12
15
144
12
278
40+
F
1
0
13
0
0
2
11
4
31
Total
44
0
63
2
12
17
155
16
309
M
197
11
284
57
64
127
865
46
1651
Total
F
17
1
67
5
3
11
54
13
171
Total
214
12
351
62
67
138
919
59
1822
Number of cases involving offenders of “other” ethnicity resulting in a conviction in 2000, by type of offence, and age and
gender of offender
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Involving drugs
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Offence type
Table A3.4
Note: 12 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
13
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Involving drugs
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
14-16
F Total
4
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
0
Age and gender of offender
Number of cases involving Pacific people offenders resulting in a conviction in 2000, by type of offence, and age and
gender of offender
M
5
0
1
0
1
1
5
0
Offence type
Table A3.3
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A3.5 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and
gender of offender, 1996 to 2000
Offence type
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1999
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1997
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1996
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
8760
1200
14382
5794
5327
6619
34574
2317
78973
1100
194
4164
1051
880
660
7468
495
16012
0
7
4
0
2
1
88
123
225
9860
1401
18550
6845
6209
7280
42130
2935
95210
9145
1120
14869
6071
5206
6229
35204
3401
81245
1078
201
4338
1057
894
629
7467
851
16515
0
1
8
0
5
0
113
81
208
10223
1322
19215
7128
6105
6858
42784
4333
97968
9708
1238
14840
6170
5061
5823
36608
3403
82851
1030
195
4259
1143
812
548
7335
942
16264
1
3
9
0
4
0
150
130
297
10739
1436
19108
7313
5877
6371
44093
4475
99412
9660
1088
14598
5731
4658
5611
35019
3336
79701
1020
185
3871
1084
788
472
7023
1188
15631
1
2
13
2
6
0
101
296
421
10681
1275
18482
6817
5452
6083
42143
4820
95753
10042
1265
14499
5276
4663
5659
37405
6145
84954
1005
214
3877
1045
683
460
7150
3041
17475
2
0
8
0
2
0
79
1244
1335
11049
1479
18384
6321
5348
6119
44634
10430
103764
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
198
Appendix 3
_______________________________________________________________
Table A3.6 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and
gender of offender, 1991 to 1995
Offence type
1995
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1994
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1993
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1992
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1991
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
10490
1226
14884
5425
4694
5311
38015
5692
85737
946
181
3790
951
732
470
7080
2529
16679
2
2
5
1
7
0
92
1508
1617
11438
1409
18679
6377
5433
5781
45187
9729
104033
10250
1138
15431
6652
4683
4751
35577
6613
85095
919
153
4154
1236
796
456
6613
3227
17554
4
0
6
2
14
0
74
1138
1238
11173
1291
19591
7890
5493
5207
42264
10978
103887
8336
1073
16463
6577
4550
4435
37186
5635
84255
677
161
4394
1145
789
344
6750
2622
16882
2
1
10
2
25
0
168
1206
1414
9015
1235
20867
7724
5364
4779
44104
9463
102551
6593
966
16341
5517
4212
3434
40809
4851
82723
542
129
4336
994
657
337
7304
2075
16374
3
0
3
0
4
0
284
510
804
7138
1095
20680
6511
4873
3771
48397
7436
99901
6060
889
16339
5807
3898
3626
47039
4577
88235
456
141
4241
1013
632
384
7985
1807
16659
1
1
6
2
22
1
148
391
572
6517
1031
20586
6822
4552
4011
55172
6775
105466
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
199
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A3.7 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and
ethnicity of offender, 1996 to 2000
Offence type
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1999
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1997
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1996
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
European
Mäori
Pacific
peoples
Other
Unknown
Total
3649
636
7799
3714
2324
3434
16167
987
38710
4480
606
7966
2779
3005
2996
11995
399
34226
1439
123
1299
243
478
645
2925
87
7239
214
12
351
62
67
139
919
67
1831
78
24
1135
47
335
66
10124
1395
13204
9860
1401
18550
6845
6209
7280
42130
2935
95210
3848
609
8047
3900
2370
3257
15896
1933
39860
4673
598
8287
2871
2787
2781
12018
719
34734
1417
88
1377
264
464
663
2856
100
7229
215
12
314
55
56
118
816
81
1667
70
15
1190
38
428
39
11198
1500
14478
10223
1322
19215
7128
6105
6858
42784
4333
97968
4078
654
8125
4042
2232
3198
16525
1834
40688
4848
614
8582
2959
2775
2405
11760
608
34551
1478
138
1446
227
399
607
2607
95
6997
261
14
262
42
60
113
674
127
1553
74
16
693
43
411
48
12527
1811
15623
10739
1436
19108
7313
5877
6371
44093
4475
99412
4226
605
8161
3766
2070
3101
14181
1602
37712
4582
529
8274
2769
2552
2286
10542
490
32024
1583
116
1372
207
412
583
2085
92
6450
223
13
255
47
53
83
518
171
1363
67
12
420
28
365
30
14817
2465
18204
10681
1275
18482
6817
5452
6083
42143
4820
95753
4411
772
8185
3508
1955
3180
14509
1833
38353
4824
558
8162
2555
2488
2296
10445
721
32049
1539
121
1372
199
413
528
1747
187
6106
217
22
313
25
39
75
497
130
1318
58
6
352
34
453
40
17436
7559
25938
11049
1479
18384
6321
5348
6119
44634
10430
103764
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
200
Appendix 3
_______________________________________________________________
Table A3.8 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and
ethnicity of offender, 1991 to 1995
Offence type
1995
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1994
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1993
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1992
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1991
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
European
Mäori
Pacific
peoples
Other
Unknown
Total
4579
717
8528
3825
1984
2993
14663
1954
39243
5055
576
8367
2359
2548
2190
10249
588
31932
1568
83
1211
154
396
493
1916
111
5932
180
15
227
17
49
85
406
165
1144
56
18
346
22
456
20
17953
6911
25782
11438
1409
18679
6377
5433
5781
45187
9729
104033
4576
694
9197
4700
1995
2820
11335
1957
37274
4839
491
8463
2911
2547
1928
8660
682
30521
1536
89
1233
191
397
388
1364
85
5283
168
10
254
47
37
44
268
354
1182
54
7
444
41
517
27
20637
7900
29627
11173
1291
19591
7890
5493
5207
42264
10978
103887
3906
654
10021
4686
1934
2593
10502
1890
36186
3807
466
8959
2795
2535
1768
8080
635
29045
1148
84
1304
180
298
358
1307
77
4756
116
7
245
29
32
45
194
583
1251
38
24
338
34
565
15
24021
6278
31313
9015
1235
20867
7724
5364
4779
44104
9463
102551
3016
544
10076
4081
1887
2012
11742
1507
34865
3102
397
8815
2229
2207
1484
8277
516
27027
851
63
1225
151
316
236
1353
87
4282
90
4
248
23
32
26
225
364
1012
79
87
316
27
431
13
26800
4962
32715
7138
1095
20680
6511
4873
3771
48397
7436
99901
2738
529
10276
4163
1780
2195
14466
1471
37618
2795
364
8545
2444
2081
1495
9930
613
28267
826
63
1178
158
314
275
1742
85
4641
75
7
215
26
34
28
255
348
988
83
68
372
31
343
18
28779
4258
33952
6517
1031
20586
6822
4552
4011
55172
6775
105466
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
201
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A3.9 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and
age of offender, 1996 to 2000
Offence type
2000
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1999
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1998
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1997
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1996
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Unknown
Total
56
1
47
0
14
4
427
11
560
1416
207
4572
917
1082
1804
7125
391
17514
2098
333
4809
1509
1841
2098
8723
330
21741
1827
288
3015
1372
1178
1204
6586
304
15774
2804
352
3968
2082
1447
1465
10079
621
22818
1658
207
2124
965
582
703
9095
791
16125
1
13
15
0
65
2
95
487
678
9860
1401
18550
6845
6209
7280
42130
2935
95210
58
1
48
2
6
8
385
25
533
1493
262
4864
984
1102
1597
7025
1283
18610
2156
320
4875
1672
1786
2008
8605
565
21987
1908
254
3322
1445
1191
1176
6944
438
16678
2872
308
3966
2193
1375
1405
10650
696
23465
1734
174
2115
832
575
664
9093
773
15960
2
3
25
0
70
0
82
553
735
10223
1322
19215
7128
6105
6858
42784
4333
97968
64
3
60
2
15
4
397
38
583
1630
245
4850
926
1083
1494
6966
1176
18370
2381
386
5116
1764
1814
1920
8786
500
22667
2096
282
3252
1638
1128
1139
7182
386
17103
2889
323
3752
2218
1356
1257
11202
782
23779
1678
194
2041
764
449
555
9520
816
16017
1
3
37
1
32
2
40
777
893
10739
1436
19108
7313
5877
6371
44093
4475
99412
72
0
68
2
19
5
417
29
612
1529
230
4984
963
1033
1340
6206
937
17222
2400
362
5080
1684
1740
1909
8703
477
22355
2119
240
3283
1572
1087
1098
7352
440
17191
2952
283
3419
1946
1149
1205
10751
704
22409
1605
156
1618
648
401
525
8665
781
14399
4
4
30
2
23
1
49
1452
1565
10681
1275
18482
6817
5452
6083
42143
4820
95753
78
1
68
0
11
6
388
8
560
1545
270
4985
815
1019
1267
6746
949
17596
2515
417
5086
1699
1810
1952
9956
688
24123
2189
271
3216
1503
1134
1227
7801
570
17911
3119
343
3417
1745
1040
1153
11049
955
22821
1597
172
1576
557
309
514
8655
987
14367
6
5
36
2
25
0
39
6273
6386
11049
1479
18384
6321
5348
6119
44634
10430
103764
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
202
Appendix 3
_______________________________________________________________
Table A3.10 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by type of offence and
age of offender, 1991 to 1995
Offence type
1995
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1994
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1993
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1992
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
1991
Violent
Other against persons
Property
Drug
Against justice
Good order
Traffic
Miscellaneous
Total
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40+
Unknown
Total
66
3
57
0
9
4
362
17
518
1521
226
4997
791
1024
1218
7012
926
17715
2855
415
5330
1800
1858
1928
11051
579
25816
2431
267
3269
1512
1169
1171
8038
500
18357
2987
323
3454
1771
1042
1032
10557
906
22072
1575
162
1542
503
293
428
8116
916
13535
3
13
30
0
38
0
51
5885
6020
11438
1409
18679
6377
5433
5781
45187
9729
104033
58
2
50
3
19
3
359
15
509
1485
226
4965
940
948
1101
6378
1089
17132
2837
441
5664
2297
1995
1788
10792
622
26436
2270
216
3392
1929
1179
1014
7762
518
18280
3015
263
3672
2148
991
918
9689
1032
21728
1507
141
1811
573
303
383
7205
1020
12943
1
2
37
0
58
0
79
6682
6859
11173
1291
19591
7890
5493
5207
42264
10978
103887
34
1
67
2
8
1
353
16
482
1224
233
5225
966
946
1089
6220
893
16796
2368
383
6336
2366
1879
1694
11436
539
27001
1823
214
3700
1900
1185
832
8249
500
18403
2335
254
3747
2022
975
824
10260
843
21260
1226
150
1764
468
273
339
7383
828
12431
5
0
28
0
98
0
203
5844
6178
9015
1235
20867
7724
5364
4779
44104
9463
102551
31
1
66
2
8
3
375
7
493
993
200
5483
893
841
903
6672
631
16616
1889
370
6364
2079
1764
1340
13066
561
27433
1532
198
3577
1607
1056
671
9086
441
18168
1726
185
3482
1578
831
582
10527
682
19593
965
140
1676
351
275
271
8318
612
12608
2
1
32
1
98
1
353
4502
4990
7138
1095
20680
6511
4873
3771
48397
7436
99901
43
0
87
2
10
7
457
4
610
1012
216
5646
1008
918
1032
8050
629
18511
1846
319
6376
2266
1631
1337
14870
489
29134
1286
203
3729
1620
950
670
10420
406
19284
1574
187
3247
1613
764
645
11869
630
20529
749
105
1479
313
201
319
9267
535
12968
7
1
22
0
78
1
239
4082
4430
6517
1031
20586
6822
4552
4011
55172
6775
105466
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
203
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
204
Appendix 4 Ethnicity, age, and gender of all
offenders receiving each type of
sentence
Tables A4.1 to A4.4 present a breakdown of the most serious sentence imposed for offences
that resulted in conviction in 2000 according to the ethnicity, age, and gender of the offenders
involved. No information is presented where the ethnicity, age, or gender of the offender
was not available, or where the case involved a corporation.
Information on the ethnicity, age, and gender of offenders convicted in 2000 was available for
86%, 99%, and just under 100% of cases respectively. The vast majority of cases for which
demographic information was not available involved offences that received monetary
penalties.
Table A4.4 presents information for people of “other” ethnicity. It should be noted that for
79% of these cases, the persons ethnicity was recorded in the Law Enforcement System as
either Asian or Indian. For the remaining 21% of cases, ethnicity was recorded on the Law
Enforcement System just as “Other”.
Tables A4.5 to A4.10 show information on the number of convicted cases resulting in each
type of sentence, controlling for gender, ethnicity, and age separately, for each of the years
1991 to 2000. Only the most serious sentence imposed in each case is shown in the tables.
Care should be taken in interpreting information presented by ethnicity, particularly for the
years 1991 to 1996, because of the large number of cases where ethnicity was not available.
205
M
17
8
0
2
4
73
1
13
15
133
14-16
F
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
4
9
Total
M
345
1278
8
614
258
3794
200
106
309
6912
17-19
F
21
79
0
141
53
426
42
13
42
817
Total
20-24
M
F
580
40
1699 136
9
3
347 170
247
51
4280 450
190
52
75
7
407
60
7834 969
Total
Age and gender of offender
25-29
30-39
M
F
M
F
Total
509
32
541
806
68
1154 115
1269 1560
177
5
0
5
10
1
181
136
317
313
219
226
65
291
372
84
2708 414
3122 3699
651
187
59
246
388
93
47
10
57
63
14
280
53
333
379
81
5297 884
6181 7590 1388
874
1737
11
532
456
4350
481
77
460
8978
Total
M
566
888
3
370
239
3053
303
59
267
5748
40+
F
42
98
2
164
64
525
80
17
64
1056
608
986
5
534
303
3578
383
76
331
6804
Total
M
2823
6587
35
1827
1346
17607
1269
363
1657
33514
Total
F
203
605
6
830
318
2470
326
61
304
5123
Age and gender of offender
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
M
F
M
F Total
M
F
M
F Total
M
Total
Total
Custodial
29
5
34
613
55
668
896
90
986
765
65
830 1016
Periodic detention
11
1
12
1297
210 1507 1944
320 2264 1496
266 1762 1977
Community programme
1
0
1
33
2
35
24
10
34
17
5
22
32
Community service
4
1
5
488
211
699
285
249
534
172
225
397
272
Supervision
15
5
20
279
76
355
292
81
373
220
96
316
373
Monetary
44
6
50
1970
378 2348 2607
553 3160 1853
439 2292 2293
Deferment
5
1
6
190
65
255
190
84
274
195
77
272
317
Other
4
0
4
51
18
69
52
11
63
51
13
64
103
Conviction & discharge
14
1
15
340
82
422
441
106
547
348
96
444
462
Total
127
20
147
5261 1097 6358 6731 1504 8235 5117 1282 6399 6845
Note: 47 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
Sentence imposed
30-39
F
139
374
13
363
127
676
147
25
131
1995
1155
2351
45
635
500
2969
464
128
593
8840
Total
M
400
764
6
221
160
1343
171
34
190
3289
40+
F
43
155
5
169
39
356
68
16
60
911
443
919
11
390
199
1699
239
50
250
4200
Total
M
3719
7489
113
1442
1339
10110
1068
295
1795
27370
Total
F
397
1326
35
1218
424
2408
442
83
476
6809
Table A4.2 Number of cases involving Mäori offenders resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious sentence imposed, and
age and gender of offender
Custodial
17
366
620
Periodic detention
8
1357
1835
Community programme
0
8
12
Community service
2
755
517
Supervision
5
311
298
Monetary
77
4220
4730
Deferment
1
242
242
Other
13
119
82
Conviction & discharge
19
351
467
Total
142
7729
8803
Notes:
1
Gender is denoted in this table by M = Male and F = Female.
2
73 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
Sentence imposed
Table A4.1 Number of cases involving European offenders resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious sentence imposed, and
age and gender of offender
4116
8815
148
2660
1763
12518
1510
378
2271
34179
Total
3026
7192
41
2657
1664
20077
1595
424
1961
38637
Total
30-39
F
11
26
0
34
12
73
16
1
14
187
146
385
2
161
114
773
95
22
118
1816
Total
M
74
180
4
93
72
400
42
17
50
932
40+
F
5
11
0
27
13
43
7
1
8
115
79
191
4
120
85
443
49
18
58
1047
Total
M
578
1435
12
515
381
2788
253
64
481
6507
Total
F
39
104
0
128
54
275
52
3
65
720
M
19
65
0
28
16
238
20
2
25
413
Age and gender of offender
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Custodial
0
0
0
6
0
6
13
1
14
11
1
12
Periodic detention
0
0
0
25
1
26
65
1
66
31
1
32
Community programme
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Community service
0
0
0
34
4
38
31
7
38
12
4
16
Supervision
0
0
0
11
1
12
10
2
12
10
4
14
Monetary
1
1
2
176
15
191
301
15
316
132
17
149
Deferment
0
0
0
5
0
5
15
3
18
9
2
11
Other
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
4
Conviction & discharge
1
0
1
20
0
20
17
2
19
17
2
19
Total
2
1
3
280
21
301
452
31
483
226
31
257
Note: 9 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
Sentence imposed
30-39
F
2
3
0
10
6
24
5
0
6
56
21
68
0
38
22
262
25
2
31
469
Total
M
17
31
2
15
12
160
21
2
18
278
40+
F
0
2
0
2
1
19
2
0
5
31
17
33
2
17
13
179
23
2
23
309
Total
M
66
217
2
120
59
1008
70
11
98
1651
Total
F
4
8
0
27
14
91
12
0
15
171
Table A4.4 Number of cases involving offenders of “other” ethnicity resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious sentence
imposed, and age and gender of offender
M
135
359
2
127
102
700
79
21
104
1629
Age and gender of offender
14-16
17-19
20-24
25-29
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Total
Total
Total
Total
Custodial
7
4
11
80
7
87
178
5
183
104
7
111
Periodic detention
0
0
0
196
22
218
428
27
455
272
18
290
Community programme
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
Community service
1
0
1
91
15
106
119
23
142
84
29
113
Supervision
0
0
0
67
10
77
79
10
89
61
9
70
Monetary
4
0
4
400
39
439
744
74
818
540
46
586
Deferment
0
0
0
44
11
55
50
9
59
38
9
47
Other
0
0
0
6
0
6
9
1
10
11
0
11
Conviction & discharge
1
0
1
83
11
94
166
16
182
77
16
93
Total
13
4
17
969 115
1084 1775 165
1940 1189 134
1323
Note: 12 cases where the gender and/or age of the offender were not recorded in the data were excluded from this table.
Sentence imposed
Table A4.3 Number of cases involving Pacific people offenders resulting in conviction in 2000, by most serious sentence imposed,
and age and gender of offender
70
225
2
147
73
1099
82
11
113
1822
Total
617
1539
12
643
435
3063
305
67
546
7227
Total
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A4.5 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and gender of the offender, 1996 to 2001
Most serious sentence
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
2000
Custodial
7264
667
0
7931
Periodic detention
16269
2163
4
18436
Community programme
162
42
0
204
Community service
4467
2661
7
7135
Supervision
3185
847
0
4032
Monetary
39253
7422
200
46875
Deferment
2731
865
1
3597
Other
928
198
1
1127
Conviction & discharge
4714
1147
12
5873
Total
78973
16012
225
95210
1999
Custodial
7618
559
0
8177
Periodic detention
18063
2408
10
20481
Community programme
219
68
0
287
Community service
5233
2977
16
8226
Supervision
3568
981
1
4550
Monetary
39172
7383
163
46718
Deferment
2607
894
1
3502
Other
897
216
3
1116
Conviction & discharge
3868
1029
14
4911
Total
81245
16515
208
97968
1998
Custodial
7677
577
1
8255
Periodic detention
18982
2342
15
21339
Community programme
296
83
0
379
Community service
5477
3027
21
8525
Supervision
3898
1101
5
5004
Monetary
39076
7161
234
46471
Deferment
2679
879
1
3559
Other
830
153
0
983
Conviction & discharge
3936
941
20
4897
Total
82851
16264
297
99412
1997
Custodial
7607
495
0
8102
Periodic detention
17464
2034
12
19510
Community programme
337
92
1
430
Community service
5062
2734
16
7812
Supervision
3922
1113
2
5037
Monetary
39138
7338
356
46832
Deferment
2382
848
2
3232
Other
669
139
0
808
Conviction & discharge
3120
838
32
3990
Total
79701
15631
421
95753
1996
Custodial
7326
458
3
7787
Periodic detention
17258
1846
12
19116
Community programme
559
144
0
703
Community service
5292
2729
9
8030
Supervision
4030
1134
2
5166
Monetary
43769
9100
1214
54083
Deferment
2628
866
0
3494
Other
623
166
0
789
Conviction & discharge
3469
1032
95
4596
Total
84954
17475
1335
103764
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
208
Appendix 4
_______________________________________________________________
Table A4.6 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence
imposed and gender of the offender, 1991 to 1995
Most serious sentence
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
1995
Custodial
6848
393
5
7246
Periodic detention
17664
1764
9
19437
Community programme
723
157
0
880
Community service
5952
2657
15
8624
Supervision
4099
1066
1
5166
Monetary
43832
8608
1473
53913
Deferment
2393
752
0
3145
Other
675
129
1
805
Conviction & discharge
3551
1153
113
4817
Total
85737
16679
1617
104033
1994
Custodial
6946
413
2
7361
Periodic detention
18764
2008
5
20777
Community programme
734
165
0
899
Community service
6581
2813
11
9405
Supervision
3888
1085
4
4977
Monetary
41449
8859
1136
51444
Deferment
2649
878
1
3528
Other
642
143
0
785
Conviction & discharge
3442
1190
79
4711
Total
85095
17554
1238
103887
1993
Custodial
7550
425
14
7989
Periodic detention
19957
2078
30
22065
Community programme
873
183
2
1058
Community service
6832
2878
21
9731
Supervision
2993
943
2
3938
Monetary
39540
8252
1206
48998
Deferment
2807
968
4
3779
Other
704
160
5
869
Conviction & discharge
2999
995
130
4124
Total
84255
16882
1414
102551
1992
Custodial
7365
422
18
7805
Periodic detention
19652
2002
48
21702
Community programme
944
219
1
1164
Community service
6956
2774
35
9765
Supervision
2368
733
2
3103
Monetary
39042
8211
582
47835
Deferment
2744
960
4
3708
Other
728
149
14
891
Conviction & discharge
2924
904
100
3928
Total
82723
16374
804
99901
1991
Custodial
7341
392
6
7739
Periodic detention
20467
2039
42
22548
Community programme
921
201
1
1123
Community service
6430
2748
18
9196
Supervision
2254
752
4
3010
Monetary
45365
8736
420
54521
Deferment
2283
854
0
3137
Other
728
152
7
887
Conviction & discharge
2446
785
74
3305
Total
88235
16659
572
105466
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
209
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A4.7 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious
sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 1996 to 2000
Most serious sentence
European
Mäori
Pacific
peoples
Other
Unknown
Total
2000
Custodial
3026
4117
617
70
101
7931
Periodic detention
7201
8829
1540
225
641
18436
Community programme
41
149
12
2
0
204
Community service
2660
2662
645
147
1021
7135
Supervision
1665
1766
435
73
93
4032
Monetary
20129
12538
3070
1108
10030
46875
Deferment
1598
1510
305
82
102
3597
Other
424
378
67
11
247
1127
Conviction & discharge
1966
2277
548
113
969
5873
Total
38710
34226
7239
1831
13204
95210
1999
Custodial
3055
4307
595
98
122
8177
Periodic detention
8062
9695
1697
221
806
20481
Community programme
45
216
16
3
7
287
Community service
3029
3198
682
138
1179
8226
Supervision
1935
1945
513
68
89
4550
Monetary
20020
11765
2832
943
11158
46718
Deferment
1512
1428
353
92
117
3502
Other
445
360
57
18
236
1116
Conviction & discharge
1757
1820
484
86
764
4911
Total
39860
34734
7229
1667
14478
97968
1998
Custodial
3107
4333
607
91
117
8255
Periodic detention
8385
10220
1705
224
805
21339
Community programme
61
265
35
2
16
379
Community service
3222
3431
693
110
1069
8525
Supervision
2135
2118
531
92
128
5004
Monetary
19995
10883
2585
841
12167
46471
Deferment
1585
1443
365
88
78
3559
Other
396
259
41
19
268
983
Conviction & discharge
1802
1599
435
86
975
4897
Total
40688
34551
6997
1553
15623
99412
1997
Custodial
3071
4189
611
90
141
8102
Periodic detention
7660
9210
1597
172
871
19510
Community programme
85
285
44
4
12
430
Community service
2897
3108
563
107
1137
7812
Supervision
2188
2085
521
79
164
5037
Monetary
18546
10394
2407
753
14732
46832
Deferment
1478
1279
341
78
56
3232
Other
305
220
34
10
239
808
Conviction & discharge
1482
1254
332
70
852
3990
Total
37712
32024
6450
1363
18204
95753
1996
Custodial
2942
4037
542
79
187
7787
Periodic detention
7438
8983
1505
175
1015
19116
Community programme
163
466
57
5
12
703
Community service
2856
3108
560
108
1398
8030
Supervision
2369
2071
470
67
189
5166
Monetary
19220
10418
2200
712
21533
54083
Deferment
1560
1405
383
86
60
3494
Other
315
184
34
9
247
789
Conviction & discharge
1490
1377
355
77
1297
4596
Total
38353
32049
6106
1318
25938
103764
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
210
Appendix 4
_______________________________________________________________
Table A4.8 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious
sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 1991 to 1995
Most serious sentence
European
Mäori
Pacific
peoples
Other
Unknown
1995
Custodial
2901
3661
479
63
142
Periodic detention
7655
9130
1503
152
997
Community programme
226
523
99
8
24
Community service
3065
3389
638
98
1434
Supervision
2417
2055
479
50
165
Monetary
19503
10272
2146
651
21341
Deferment
1474
1287
272
42
70
Other
329
198
38
7
233
Conviction & discharge
1673
1417
278
73
1376
Total
39243
31932
5932
1144
25782
1994
Custodial
2984
3614
477
67
219
Periodic detention
8218
9379
1485
157
1538
Community programme
252
504
94
13
36
Community service
3139
3373
616
96
2181
Supervision
2295
1986
429
58
209
Monetary
16745
8880
1591
665
23563
Deferment
1723
1370
300
52
83
Other
268
180
24
4
309
Conviction & discharge
1650
1235
267
70
1489
Total
37274
30521
5283
1182
29627
1993
Custodial
3204
3775
515
52
443
Periodic detention
8801
9558
1321
129
2256
Community programme
346
531
82
2
97
Community service
3155
3290
593
81
2612
Supervision
1920
1425
322
25
246
Monetary
15411
7782
1372
815
23618
Deferment
1723
1522
336
73
125
Other
264
183
25
6
391
Conviction & discharge
1362
979
190
68
1525
Total
36186
29045
4756
1251
31313
1992
Custodial
3225
3546
401
62
571
Periodic detention
8847
8943
1250
108
2554
Community programme
393
570
95
7
99
Community service
3290
3174
559
58
2684
Supervision
1551
1122
191
31
208
Monetary
14372
7147
1317
611
24388
Deferment
1745
1517
291
51
104
Other
275
145
30
4
437
Conviction & discharge
1167
863
148
80
1670
Total
34865
27027
4282
1012
32715
1991
Custodial
3210
3533
448
39
509
Periodic detention
9220
9225
1306
140
2657
Community programme
369
553
78
5
118
Community service
3221
2871
511
69
2524
Supervision
1610
1000
184
17
199
Monetary
17133
8955
1693
588
26152
Deferment
1536
1250
248
36
67
Other
288
187
32
5
375
Conviction & discharge
1031
693
141
89
1351
Total
37618
28267
4641
988
33952
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
Total
7246
19437
880
8624
5166
53913
3145
805
4817
104033
7361
20777
899
9405
4977
51444
3528
785
4711
103887
7989
22065
1058
9731
3938
48998
3779
869
4124
102551
7805
21702
1164
9765
3103
47835
3708
891
3928
99901
7739
22548
1123
9196
3010
54521
3137
887
3305
105466
211
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Table A4.9 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious
sentence imposed and age of the offender, 1996 to 2000
Most serious sentence
14-16 17-19 20-24 25-29 30-39
40+
Unknown
Total
2000
Custodial
62
1130
1820
1507
2233
1177
2
7931
Periodic detention
20
3160
4756
3452
4740
2268
40
18436
Community programme
1
45
48
29
58
22
1
204
Community service
8
1736
1430
1005
1629
1308
19
7135
Supervision
25
770
783
707
1114
623
10
4032
Monetary
332
8831 10744
7321 10301
8838
508
46875
Deferment
10
568
607
589
1087
722
14
3597
Other
26
259
185
158
271
228
0
1127
Conviction & discharge
76
1015
1368
1006
1385
939
84
5873
Total
560
17514 21741 15774 22818 16125
678
95210
1999
Custodial
58
1285
2062
1628
2093
1037
14
8177
Periodic detention
19
3544
5278
4132
5213
2268
27
20481
Community programme
8
82
44
45
78
30
0
287
Community service
6
2030
1579
1214
1962
1403
32
8226
Supervision
23
850
834
795
1305
734
9
4550
Monetary
312
9057 10339
7324 10456
8672
558
46718
Deferment
6
579
602
592
1003
707
13
3502
Other
26
303
199
156
218
214
0
1116
Conviction & discharge
75
880
1050
792
1137
895
82
4911
Total
533
18610 21987 16678 23465 15960
735
97968
1998
Custodial
80
1294
2129
1695
2063
989
5
8255
Periodic detention
25
3754
5743
4310
5317
2165
25
21339
Community programme
4
111
71
59
92
42
0
379
Community service
17
2075
1640
1317
2067
1379
30
8525
Supervision
28
957
992
942
1356
723
6
5004
Monetary
337
8463 10168
7273 10595
8934
701
46471
Deferment
6
588
653
596
988
722
6
3559
Other
23
255
182
138
192
192
1
983
Conviction & discharge
63
873
1089
773
1109
871
119
4897
Total
583
18370 22667 17103 23779 16017
893
99412
1997
Custodial
94
1322
2170
1665
1900
947
4
8102
Periodic detention
20
3458
5536
4190
4536
1749
21
19510
Community programme
8
98
90
89
100
45
0
430
Community service
5
1879
1561
1272
1886
1184
25
7812
Supervision
30
981
1009
999
1354
660
4
5037
Monetary
357
8141 10342
7702 10649
8319
1322
46832
Deferment
6
499
631
526
922
641
7
3232
Other
22
207
136
105
178
159
1
808
Conviction & discharge
70
637
880
643
884
695
181
3990
Total
612
17222 22355 17191 22409 14399
1565
95753
1996
Custodial
88
1308
2079
1593
1818
897
4
7787
Periodic detention
25
3395
5541
3976
4462
1695
22
19116
Community programme
8
157
158
134
167
78
1
703
Community service
9
1819
1762
1313
1951
1146
30
8030
Supervision
27
1028
1143
1011
1302
652
3
5166
Monetary
326
8443 11691
8349 11037
8433
5804
54083
Deferment
10
591
686
678
950
567
12
3494
Other
16
171
155
139
157
151
0
789
Conviction & discharge
51
684
908
718
977
748
510
4596
Total
560
17596 24123 17911 22821 14367
6386
103764
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
212
Appendix 4
_______________________________________________________________
Table A4.10 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious
sentence imposed and age of the offender, 1991 to 1995
Most serious sentence
14-16 17-19 20-24 25-29 30-39
40+
Unknown
1995
Custodial
72
1218
2021
1547
1579
802
7
Periodic detention
17
3280
5964
4193
4407
1552
24
Community programme
8
159
191
184
222
115
1
Community service
3
2014
1944
1528
1978
1133
24
Supervision
31
970
1212
1004
1289
658
2
Monetary
303
8552 12659
8421 10652
7928
5398
Deferment
2
552
674
604
786
511
16
Other
18
203
168
129
159
127
1
Conviction & discharge
64
767
983
747
1000
709
547
Total
518
17715 25816 18357 22072 13535
6020
1994
Custodial
71
1164
2116
1625
1628
754
3
Periodic detention
33
3469
6604
4545
4509
1597
20
Community programme
5
187
218
156
228
104
1
Community service
9
1996
2307
1654
2201
1213
25
Supervision
14
985
1245
951
1258
521
3
Monetary
286
7765 12009
7863
9924
7398
6199
Deferment
4
571
793
665
936
551
8
Other
19
172
171
145
146
131
1
Conviction & discharge
68
823
973
676
898
674
599
Total
509
17132 26436 18280 21728 12943
6859
1993
Custodial
47
1273
2370
1749
1666
869
15
Periodic detention
28
3569
7340
4894
4689
1493
52
Community programme
14
210
269
178
267
117
3
Community service
7
2101
2463
1747
2227
1143
43
Supervision
18
883
958
749
905
421
4
Monetary
270
7174 11654
7665
9693
7119
5423
Deferment
14
698
856
713
938
547
13
Other
20
214
198
132
164
138
3
Conviction & discharge
64
674
893
576
711
584
622
Total
482
16796 27001 18403 21260 12431
6178
1992
Custodial
55
1250
2446
1741
1547
743
23
Periodic detention
28
3784
7347
4828
4138
1510
67
Community programme
4
251
317
250
234
107
1
Community service
5
1983
2576
1753
2186
1215
47
Supervision
16
778
829
548
619
308
5
Monetary
289
7007 12013
7658
9212
7468
4188
Deferment
10
760
897
702
808
513
18
Other
12
189
205
146
171
154
14
Conviction & discharge
74
614
803
542
678
590
627
Total
493
16616 27433 18168 19593 12608
4990
1991
Custodial
73
1396
2458
1660
1510
631
11
Periodic detention
39
4148
7749
4852
4280
1435
45
Community programme
10
265
287
234
235
88
4
Community service
11
1924
2463
1691
2021
1055
31
Supervision
16
775
772
537
617
292
1
Monetary
365
8596 13721
9084 10498
8401
3856
Deferment
11
643
784
584
665
444
6
Other
24
195
208
151
166
141
2
Conviction & discharge
61
569
692
491
537
481
474
Total
610
18511 29134 19284 20529 12968
4430
Note: Cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.
Total
7246
19437
880
8624
5166
53913
3145
805
4817
104033
7361
20777
899
9405
4977
51444
3528
785
4711
103887
7989
22065
1058
9731
3938
48998
3779
869
4124
102551
7805
21702
1164
9765
3103
47835
3708
891
3928
99901
7739
22548
1123
9196
3010
54521
3137
887
3305
105466
213
Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1991 to 2000
_______________________________________________________________
214