The need for security of person and property is a fundamental one in any community. It was a prime motive for the establishment of British sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840. Already, however, in 1838, residents of Kororareka (now Russell) had formed a Vigilantes' Association for enforcing law and order, and they provided the first place of detention in this country of which there is any record – an old sea chest, ventilated by gimlet holes. After 1840 more orthodox prisons were established, although the first ones were scarcely escape proof. The Akaroa gaol was typical. It was described as a mere mud cottage quite unfit to hold prisoners, who could have pulled it down with their hands. Until 1854 the worst offenders were transported to Tasmania. Penal servitude within New Zealand was then substituted; it was in turn abolished in 1893.
Prison conditions were bad for many years. An understandable reluctance for the colony to expend its scanty energies and resources on lawbreakers resulted in prisons failing to reach the minimal standard expected in any civilised community. The worst feature was the confinement of children and the insane with ordinary criminals. Other evils were the absence in practice of uniform rules and standards of treatment and lack of security in most gaols. This led to the common practice of keeping prisoners in irons.
The early prisons survived a scathing attack by the Judges in 1861 and the critical report of a Royal Commission in 1868. Only in 1880 did the appointment of an Inspector-General (Arthur Hume, formerly Deputy Governor of Dartmoor and Wormwood Scrubs in England) begin the creation of an efficient prisons system. Under Hume the system was reorganised and greatly improved. Although in many respects his policy was harsh, rigid, and backward looking, he was responsible for some progressive innovations before his retirement in 1909. A road-making camp failed at Milford Sound in 1890, but a tree-planting camp was established at Waiotapu, near Rotorua, in 1901. This was a most significant step. It marked the end of close custody of every inmate, isolation, and unproductive toil as principles of penal policy. The Waiotapu and other tree-planting camps were later superseded by prison farms, which are an important feature of the New Zealand penal scene.
Meanwhile the First Offenders Probation Act of 1886 introduced a new method of dealing with inexperienced minor offenders. Limited in scope until 1920 and for many years little used, even where it was available, the Act nevertheless marked a revolution in penal methods. At the other end of the scale an indeterminate sentence for habitual criminals was introduced in 1906. This was the precursor of preventive detention.
The Crimes Amendment Act of 1910, sponsored by Sir John Findlay, was another milestone in penal thinking. Reformation was to be emphasised. Better classification, individualised treatment, more trade training, and education were to be provided. The keystone was the sentence of reformative detention, which could be imposed for periods of up to 10 years by Judges and three years by Magistrates, even if the ordinary maximum for the offence itself was less. A Prisons Board was constituted to inquire at least once a year into the case of every reformative detainee and habitual criminal and make recommendations as to his release.
The bright promise of this measure proved a mirage. The bold policy it envisaged was not carried out, primarily because the institutions, the staff, and the administrative strength of purpose were lacking, because the sentence of reformative detention was not used by the Courts in the way intended, and because the Prisons Board did not live up to its responsibilities. Reformative detention became the same in practice as ordinary imprisonment, the terms imposed depending on the gravity of the offence and not the needs of reformation. Declaration as a habitual criminal also lost some of its effect, coming to mean in practice simply the addition of a year to a finite sentence. In 1924 borstals were provided for, this being the only important innovation between 1910 and 1954.
The Criminal Justice Act of 1954 extensively revised the penal system. Its approach was to provide every means of diverting the young or inexperienced offender from a life of crime, while protecting the community against the hardened criminal by keeping him out of society for a long period. The following are the principal sanctions at present available to the Courts when an offender is convicted.
Probation. Anyone convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment may be released on probation for a term of between one and three years. There are statutory conditions relating to such matters as employment, residence, associates, and general behaviour, and the offender is under the supervision of a probation officer. Special conditions are often imposed; for instance, that the offender shall abstain from intoxicating liquor or pay a specified sum as restitution. An offender may be fined as well as being placed on probation. Breach of the conditions of probation is an offence and also renders the probationer liable to be sentenced for the original offence. Probation is widely used in New Zealand, 2,024 offenders being placed on probation in 1964, a figure slightly higher than in recent years.
Fine. Fines are by far the most common penalty imposed in this country and the only penalty for minor offences not punishable by imprisonment. In 1964, 146,488 fines were imposed in all Courts, the great majority being in the Magistrates' Courts for traffic violations.
Periodic Detention. This sentence, introduced in 1962, is intermediate between probation and the detention centre or borstal. In August 1965 it was available to Auckland, Christchurch, and Invercargill Courts. Intended principally for delinquents of the lout, larrikin, and vandal types, it may be imposed on any male between 15 and 21 who could be imprisoned for his offence or who refuses to pay a fine. A youth sentenced to periodic detention must report at a work centre on a specified number of occasions in each week during a specified period. This period must be spent in participating in such activities, attending such classes, and undergoing such instruction as the warden of the centre considers conducive to reformation. The offender may be employed on such suitable work within or outside the centre as the warden directs. It may be noted that there is power to detain the offender overnight, but not for a longer continuous period than 60 hours.
Detention Centre. Male offenders between 16 and 21 convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment may be sentenced to detention in a detention centre. The term is three months, reducible to two for good behaviour. The sentence provides a short period of discipline and hard work, coupled with positive educational measures. During 1964, 205 youths received this sentence, which is served at Waikeria Youth Centre in the Waikato.
Borstal Training. This involves detention in a borstal for an indefinite period not exceeding two years. To qualify, the offender must be between 17 (in special cases 15) and 21 and convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment. The time of release is determined by a Borstal Parole Board. There are borstals for males at Waikeria, Invercargill, and Waipiata, in Central Otago. Another is planned for the sandhill country near Wanganui, and inmates will be employed in afforestation work. The main borstal for girls is at Tawa, near Wellington. In 1964 this sentence was imposed on 449 offenders.
Imprisonment. This may be for a finite term or for life, the maximum for each offence being prescribed by statute. Inmates whose sentence is finite may earn remission of up to one-quarter of their sentence by good behaviour.
In 1964, 3,401 persons were sentenced to imprisonment. Anyone serving a sentence of up to eight days may be detained at any police station and those serving not more than 28 days may be detained in one of the police gaols. There are 11 principal prisons, including two prison-farms, both in the central North Island. The maximum-security prison for New Zealand is at Mount Eden, Auckland, where “lifers”, dangerous criminals, and preventive detainees are held. This institution has outlived its usefulness and a new maximum-security prison is being built at Paremoremo, across the harbour.
Preventive Detention. This may be imposed on certain persistent offenders and involves detention for a minimum of three years and a maximum (except in the case of sexual offenders) of 14.
The penal administration has two aims – to ensure that those committed to institutions are securely kept there and, more positively, to do everything practicable to rehabilitate offenders, especially young offenders, so that they will become good members of the community. To this latter end there has in recent years been considerable expansion in chaplaincy, educational, trade training, and psychological services within all penal institutions. Former negative approaches have not had notable success and, under a policy of responsible experimentation, new methods and techniques are being adopted. One of the most promising is known as group counselling, which may briefly be described as a meeting of a number of inmates under the leadership of an officer, to discuss their problems together.
Particular attention is paid to the problems of transition from prison to the free society. The step from custody to freedom is a difficult one for prisoners, many of whom require assistance, advice, and discipline if they are not to relapse into crime. For this reason those released from a sentence of detention in a detention centre, borstal training, preventive detention, or imprisonment for 12 months or more are on probation for a period. The Court may order that a person sentenced to less than 12 months' imprisonment be on probation after release. As another means of bridging the gulf between institutional life and the free community, inmates may be allowed absence on parole for a short period before their discharge to revisit their homes, arrange employment, and so on. There is power also to release selected inmates during the day to work in the community. For borstal trainees pre-release hostels have been established at Invercargill, Auckland, Hamilton, and Wellington, chosen inmates residing there and working for wages for private employers. The sanction for misbehaviour is immediate return to the institution. There is room for much more to be done to help offenders after their release; for instance, by setting up post-release hostels. Efforts are being made to enlist the help of the community in making good citizens out of young delinquents.
The need to release persons sentenced to indeterminate detention at the most appropriate time led to the establishment in 1910 of the Prisons Board, the present counterparts of which are the Prisons Parole Board and three Borstal Parole Boards. The Prisons Parole Board may also consider the case of persons serving finite terms of imprisonment in special circumstances and advises the Government concerning the release of those serving life sentences. It has a Judge as chairman, the Secretary for Justice, and up to five other members. A Magistrate presides over each Borstal Parole Board, the other members being the Secretary for Justice, the superintendent of the particular institution, and two local residents.
An important development is to keep offenders out of institutions and to rehabilitate them within the community whenever practicable. The offender is one who is unable or unwilling to respect his obligations to others. But however enlightened a prison regime may be, it is difficult to learn in captivity how to live as a member of the free community. A significant development in policy is therefore to reform offenders wherever possible within the community. The sentence of periodic detention is a step in this direction.
The crime rate in New Zealand is considerable for an uncrowded country where good living standards are attainable by all without a struggle. An indication of the prevalence of more serious crime is that in 1964, 1,420 persons were sentenced to detention for three months or more and 113 to imprisonment for three years or more or to preventive detention. Of all persons detained, 1,577 (43 per cent) were convicted of offences against property, compared with 1,035 (35·8 per cent) in 1956. Those sentenced to detention for sexual offences numbered 201 (5·6 per cent) in 1956 and 183 (5·8 per cent) in 1964. The ratio of prisoners to each 10,000 of the general population was 38·61 in 1890, 17·37 in 1928, and 15·38 in 1939, compared with 14·12 in 1964. This does not mean a corresponding reduction in the amount of crime, since before the First World War in particular many were sent to prison who would now be given probation, dealt with under the Child Welfare Act, or merely fined.
Riots, organised crime, and rackets are absent from New Zealand. Armed robbery is rare and the murder rate low. Bribery and corruption are not problems, either as distinct offences or as handicaps in dealing with offenders. On the other hand, assaults, disorderly conduct, and vandalism by larrikin groups, and many offences against property, are relatively common.
The extent of sexual crime is hard to judge because probably a considerable but unknown proportion of non-violent cases never comes to police notice. The number of rapes and violent assaults fluctuates widely. A bad feature two or three years ago was a number of multiple rapes of one victim. What does seem clear is that in New Zealand sexual crimes more readily arouse public emotion than do any others. A rise in the figures, however temporary, or a series of sensational incidents, produces widespread agitation for sterner and even savage punishments.
As elsewhere, crime among young people in New Zealand has increased. Despite liberal use of probation the number of those under 20 sentenced to detention rose from 343 in 1956 to 840 in 1964. The proportion of Maoris among younger offenders is particularly high. The crime rate among Maoris generally is much higher than among non-Maoris. Over 29 per cent of those sentenced to detention during 1964 were Maoris, while less than 6 per cent of the general population over 15 were Maoris. The principal reason for this appears to be the emigration of younger Maoris to the hitherto almost wholly European cities. The transition from an isolated and semi-communal rural society to the individualistic city way of life presents many with problems outside their experience. They may be bemused by different conditions and differing standards of values. An upsurge of crime in such circumstances is not peculiar to New Zealand. The problem is likely to persist with the continuing movement of Maoris to the larger towns; it is, however, more a social than a criminal one.
In 1963 there was enacted a pioneer measure for compensating victims of crimes of violence. The Act sets up a tribunal to hear claims either by persons who have suffered bodily injury as a result of criminal acts or by the dependents of persons killed thereby, and to make awards. The principal heads of compensation are actual expenses and loss of wages, the amounts payable under the latter head being equated with the maxima payable under the Workers Compensation Act. The tribunal may also award up to £1,000 for other pecuniary loss and up to £500 for pain and suffering. The amount awarded is paid by the State but recovery may be sought from the offender at the discretion of the Secretary for Justice.
by Bruce James Cameron, B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, Wellington.