Abstract
One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand, there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This article will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the "instinctive synthesis" approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the article will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.
Highlights
Sentencing ... is founded upon two premises that are in perennial conflict: individualized justice and consistency
At the other end of the spectrum lies the "intuitive synthesis" approach, a doctrine that removes constraints on judicial discretion entirely, giving the sentencing judge a wide scope to balance the innumerable factors that make up an individual case and come to a decision that is holistically appropriate in all the circumstances
Given the effective failure of the Sentencing Act to guide the application of judicial discretion, commentators such as Ip believe that the sentencing guideline judgments issued by the Court of Appeal are a superior means of ensuring discretion is applied consistently in the criminal sentencing context.[33]
Summary
Sentencing ... is founded upon two premises that are in perennial conflict: individualized justice and consistency. At the other end of the spectrum lies the "intuitive synthesis" approach, a doctrine that removes constraints on judicial discretion entirely, giving the sentencing judge a wide scope to balance the innumerable factors that make up an individual case and come to a decision that is holistically appropriate in all the circumstances. This approach has been adopted in jurisdictions in the federal systems of Australia and Canada, and is underpinned by the belief that there is no objectively "right". The article will conclude that the establishment of a Sentencing Council is the most appropriate mechanism for guiding judicial discretion and ensuring consistency within the criminal justice system
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.