Ministry of Justice, New Zealand

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Sentencing legislation
3.3 Sentencing for all cases
3.4 Sentencing for violent offences
3.5 Sentencing for other offences against the person
3.6 Sentencing for property offences
3.7 Sentencing for drug offences
3.8 Sentencing for offences against the administration of justice
3.9 Sentencing for offences against good order
3.10 Sentencing for traffic offences
3.11 Sentencing for miscellaneous offences
3.12 Sentences imposed in each court in 2006 for all offences
3.13 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders
3.14 Summary of key findings

3.1 Introduction

This chapter examines patterns in sentencing for all cases resulting in a conviction over the period 1997–2006. The following types of sentence are examined:[9]

• custodial sentences (life imprisonment, preventive detention, imprisonment, and corrective training)

• community-based sentences (community work, periodic detention, community service, community programme, and supervision)

• monetary penalties (fines and reparation)

• deferred sentences (i.e. to come up for sentence if called upon and suspended prison sentences)

• other sentences (e.g. a disqualification from driving or an order under section 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 for treatment or care of the offender in a psychiatric hospital or secure facility)

• conviction and discharge under section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or section 108 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The first part of this chapter will identify the major legislative changes that have affected the range and nature of sentencing options available during the last decade, before presenting information on the number and proportion of cases receiving each type of sentence. It will also explore changes in the average seriousness of convicted cases resulting in different sentence types.

The second part of this chapter will provide more detailed information about the sentencing structure for each of the main offence categories, including: violent offences, other offences against the person, property, drugs, offences against the administration of justice, offences against good order, traffic, and miscellaneous offences. For each of these offence categories the number and proportion of convicted cases resulting in different sentence types will be discussed, as well as the average length of custodial sentence imposed. These figures will also be provided for different offences within each category. A discussion of the average seriousness of cases resulting in each type of sentence will also be included for selected offence categories.

The final part of this chapter will present information on the gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders involved in convicted cases by each sentence type in 2006.

The information presented in this chapter is case-based. As outlined in Chapter 1, the system used to log cases was updated in 2004 (from LES to CMS). This may cause changes in the figures and trends that were observed before 2003 and after 2004. In particular, any changes in the number of cases in 2004 may not represent a true change in offender patterns. Accordingly, caution should be applied when making inferences based on any change between 2003 and 2004. For this reason, trends for the periods 1997 to 2003 and 2004 to 2006 will be analysed separately in this report.

For both LES and CMS data, where a case involved 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 or 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 seriousness of offence scale described in Section 2.4.

This chapter only presents information on the most serious sentence imposed in a case. For example, if in a single case an offender was sentenced to community work 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 community work for that particular case, as this sentence has the highest ranking in terms of seriousness.[10] Selecting one sentence to represent a case in this manner means that the number of sentences for supervision, reparation, and driving disqualifications presented in this report will be an undercount, as these sentences are the ones most frequently combined with more serious sentences. Chapters 5 and 6 include information on the use of supervision, fines, and reparation with other sentences.

There are three situations in which the imposition of a sentence is not usually recorded in the data used for this report. The first is when offenders who default in the payment of their fine or reparation sentence have a sentence of community work or, in limited circumstances, imprisonment substituted by a judge.[11] The second is when offenders sentenced to a community-based sentence have their sentence reviewed, sometimes resulting in some other sentence being imposed. The third, which only arose prior to the introduction of the Sentencing Act in 2002, is when offenders subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment had the sentence activated because of a subsequent conviction.[12] Because the sentences imposed in these situations are not usually recorded in the data used for this report, the actual number of offenders awarded a custodial or community-based sentence in each year is likely to be greater than the figures shown in this report.

3.2 Sentencing legislation

During the last decade two pieces of legislation have significantly impacted on sentencing: the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002. Collectively these Acts largely replaced the Criminal Justice Act 1985 and reformed New Zealand’s criminal justice law in four key areas:

• general sentencing purposes and principles

• the range of sentences and orders available to the courts

• sentencing for murder and high risk offenders

• parole and final release of offenders from prison.

The Sentencing Act 2002 made a number of changes to the sentences that were available under the Criminal Justice Act 1985. The sentences that were available under the Criminal Justice Act 1985 were:

• life imprisonment—an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment that is almost solely imposed on offenders convicted of murder (i.e. the offender is subject to the sentence for their entire life, although they can be released on parole)

• preventive detention—an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment that, before 2002, was generally only imposed on serious repeat sex offenders

• determinate imprisonment—a sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term

• corrective training—a three-month custodial sentence for offenders aged between 16 and 19 years involving hard physical work and strict discipline, followed by six months of supervision

• suspended sentence of imprisonment—a determinate sentence of imprisonment of up to two years that was suspended unless the offender was reconvicted within a set period of time

• periodic detention—a non-custodial sentence that involves the offender reporting to a work centre and undertaking community work projects

• community service—a non-custodial sentence that involves the offender undertaking work for an approved community agency

• community programme—a sentence (which may be residential) that involves placing the offender in the care of an approved organisation, group or individual

• supervision—a sentence under which the offender is required to comply with various reporting, residential, association and other conditions

• reparation—a sentence where financial payment is ordered to be made by the offender to the victim

• fine—a sentence where financial payment is ordered to be made by the offender to the State; prior to 30 June 2002, the court could, in certain circumstances, order the full or part payment of a fine to the victim of offending

• driving disqualification—a sentence where the offender must surrender his or her driver’s licence for a fixed term, or indefinitely

• to come up for sentence if called on—an order whereby, if the offender is convicted of a subsequent offence within a fixed term, he or she may be sentenced for the original offence.

The major changes that the Sentencing Act 2002 made to these sentences were as follows.

• A new sentence structure was created for people convicted of murder.[13]

• Preventive detention became available for a wider range of offences and offenders. (Further details on the legislative changes made regarding preventive detention and sentencing for murder are presented in Section 4.1.)

• Corrective training was abolished.

• Suspended sentences of imprisonment were abolished.

• A new sentence called community work replaced periodic detention and community service. Community work is aimed at compensating the community. The offender is placed at a community work centre, with another agency, or a combination of both of these.

• Community programme was abolished.

• Supervision was modified to include the care aspect of community programme.

• The presumption in favour of reparation was strengthened, and the provision for the payment of fines to victims was removed.

• A presumption in favour of fines was introduced (further details on the legislative changes made regarding fines and reparation are presented in Chapter 6).

While the Sentencing Act 2002 leaves judges with discretion when sentencing, the Act:

• sets out the general purposes and principles of sentencing

• lists aggravating and mitigating factors the court must take into account to the extent they are applicable to the case

• specifies the purposes for which each kind of sentence can be imposed

• requires judges to provide reasons, in open court, for the sentence or order given at a level of detail appropriate to the offence.

This report presents information on all of the sentences available under both the Criminal Justice Act 1985 and the Sentencing Act 2002. To make analysis easier, information is presented on the total number of ‘work-related’ community sentences imposed in each year in the decade. This is the total of periodic detention, community service, and community work sentences.

Since 1 October 1999, some offenders have been allowed to serve part of their prison sentences by way of home detention. There are two forms of home detention.[14] Front-end home detention is available to offenders sentenced to two years’ imprisonment or less who are granted leave to apply for home detention by the court. The New Zealand Parole Board determines whether offenders are allowed to serve their sentences on home detention. The courts cannot directly sentence offenders to home detention.[15]

Back-end home detention is available to offenders subject to long-term determinate sentences (more than two years). The New Zealand Parole Board may allow an offender to serve his or her sentence on home detention from any date that is three months before the offender’s parole eligibility date. Back-end home detention is not available to those sentenced to life imprisonment or preventive detention. As home detention is granted by the Parole Board and not by the courts, no information on home detention is provided in this report.

The monetary sentences considered in this report are fines[16] and reparation. Fines can be imposed for nearly every offence. Under the Sentencing Act 2002, reparation can be imposed if an offender has, through or by means of an offence, caused a person to suffer:

• loss of or damage to property

• emotional harm

• loss or damage consequential on any emotional or physical harm or loss of, or damage to, property.

As noted above, suspended sentences of imprisonment were abolished from 30 June 2002 by the Sentencing Act 2002. From a legal point of view, suspended prison sentences would have fallen in the sentencing hierarchy between prison and periodic detention. However, research undertaken by the Ministry of Justice indicates that the majority of suspended sentences were imposed on offenders who would not have otherwise received a prison sentence (see Spier (1998) for further details). Suspended sentences have consequently been placed further down in the sentencing hierarchy in the deferred category together with orders to come up for sentence if called upon. This avoids misrepresenting the number of prison sentences that would have been imposed if the power to suspend prison sentences did not exist. For this reason, suspended sentences rarely show up as the most serious sentence imposed in the case-based data used in this report (for more detailed information on the use of such sentences in New Zealand see Spier (1998) chapters 8 and 9).

Although there were significant changes to the sentencing regime in New Zealand from 30 June 2002 when the Sentencing Act 2002 came into force, the full effects of these changes were not immediately apparent in the sentencing data due to the Act’s transitional provisions and its gradual implementation in practice.

3.3 Sentencing for all cases

This section presents information on sentencing for all convicted cases over the period 1997 to 2006. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 respectively show the number and percentage of cases resulting in each type of sentence for each calendar year from 1997 to 2006. Figure 3.1 graphs the information displayed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1 shows that between 1997 and 2003, convicted cases fluctuated considerably ranging from around 94,000 to 100,000. Between 2004 and 2006, the number of convicted cases increased by 3%, from 109,017 to 112,774. Table 3.2 shows that, from 1997 to 2003, between 8% and 9% of convicted cases each year resulted in a custodial sentence. From 2004 to 2006, the proportion was between 9% and 10%. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed analysis of trends in custodial sentences and remands.

Table 3.1 Total number of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Sentence type3	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	8102	8255	8177	7886	7805	7930	8497	10353	10553	10469
Community work4	-	-	-	-	-	12693	25073	24839	24998	27196
Periodic detention5	19510	21340	20481	18395	18461	8791	-	-	-	-
Community service5	7812	8525	8226	7124	6764	3073	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related6	27322	29865	28707	25519	25225	24557	25073	24839	24998	27196
Community programme5	430	379	287	203	207	54	-	-	-	-
Supervision	5037	5004	4550	4024	3367	2312	1894	2014	2347	2243
Monetary7	47515	47165	47326	47215	48028	48507	50733	52918	50650	53207
Deferment8	3233	3560	3502	3590	3606	3612	4134	4831	4916	5345
Other9	808	983	1116	1125	1135	1226	1295	1878	1897	2061
Conviction & discharge10	4068	4994	4982	5945	6233	6141	6960	12184	12573	12253
Total	96515	100205	98647	95507	95606	94339	98586	109017	107934	112774

Table 3.2 shows that the percentages of all convictions each year that resulted in the imposition of a work-related community sentence (community work, periodic detention, or community service) trended downwards from 1998 to 2003. The proportion ranged between 25% and 30% from 1997 to 2003, and was between 23% and 24% during the last three years of the period.

There was a downward trend in the use of supervision as the principal sentence of a case after 1999; a trend which began prior to the commencement of the Sentencing Act in 2002. More recent figures, however, have demonstrated an upward movement, with an 11% increase evident in supervision sentences between 2004 and 2006, from 2,014 to 2,243. Chapter 5 provides a more detailed analysis of community-based sentences.

The Sentencing Act 2002 contains a presumption in favour of fines that was not present in the Criminal Justice Act 1985.[17] The Sentencing Act strengthens the presumption in favour of reparation and more clearly states the circumstances when such a sentence will be appropriate. If a court considers that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of reparation and a fine, but it appears to the court that the offender only has the means to pay one, the court must sentence the offender to make reparation.

Table 3.2 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	8.4	8.2	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.4	8.6	9.5	9.8	9.3
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	13.5	25.4	22.8	23.2	24.1
Periodic detention	20.2	21.3	20.8	19.3	19.3	9.3	-	-	-	-
Community service	8.1	8.5	8.3	7.5	7.1	3.3	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	28.3	29.8	29.1	26.7	26.4	26.0	25.4	22.8	23.2	24.1
Community programme	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.1	-	-	-	-
Supervision	5.2	5.0	4.6	4.2	3.5	2.5	1.9	1.8	2.2	2.0
Monetary	49.2	47.1	48.0	49.4	50.2	51.4	51.5	48.5	46.9	47.2
Deferment	3.3	3.6	3.6	3.8	3.8	3.8	4.2	4.4	4.6	4.7
Other	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.7	1.8	1.8
Conviction & discharge	4.2	5.0	5.1	6.2	6.5	6.5	7.1	11.2	11.6	10.9
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

During the decade, approximately half of all convicted cases each year resulted in a monetary penalty (in particular, fines) as the most serious sentence. This proportion remained relatively constant between 1997 and 2006. Chapter 6 will provide more detailed analysis on monetary penalties.

The proportion of convicted cases resulting in a deferred sentence (deferment) ranged from 3% to 4% between 1997 and 2003. In 2006, around 5% of convicted cases were deferred.

As shown in Table 3.2, between 1997 and 2003, around 1% of convicted cases resulted in ‘other’ sentences. As noted in Section 3.1, these sentences include an order under section 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 for treatment or care of an offender in a psychiatric hospital or secure facility. From 2004 to 2006, the proportion of such sentences comprised around 2% of all convicted cases.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

image not available

After 1997 there was an increase in the number of cases where a person is convicted and discharged (i.e. convicted with no sentence being imposed). Between 1997 and 2003, the proportion ranged between 4% and 7%. During the 2004 to 2006 period, the proportion of cases resulting in conviction and discharge ranged between 11% and 12%.

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. Between 1997 and 2003, the overall average seriousness of convicted cases ranged between 39 and 44. Between 2004 and 2006, the overall average scores stabilised between 37 and 38.

The average seriousness of offences resulting in a custodial sentence is considerably greater than for any other type of sentence (see Table 3.3). Between 1997 and 2003, the average seriousness of cases that resulted in a custodial sentence ranged between 265 and 283. From 2004 to 2006, the seriousness of cases resulting in a custodial sentence ranged between 245 and 249.

On average, monetary penalties are imposed for much less serious cases than custodial or community-based sentences. The average seriousness of the offences resulting in a monetary penalty as the most serious penalty has remained consistent over the decade, ranging between 4 and 6.

The average seriousness of cases resulting in a deferred sentence has demonstrated a downward trend. Between 1997 and 2003 the figures ranged from 14 to 24, before dropping to an average of 14 between 2004 and 2006. However, care should be exercised when interpreting changes in the average seriousness of cases resulting in deferred sentences. While seriousness is a relevant consideration, the outcome of such cases will generally be determined on the basis of factors relating to the offender, such as whether the offence was an out-of-character one-off incident. In such instances, the offender may be given a second chance.

Table 3.3 Average seriousness of cases resulting in each type of sentence, and average seriousness of all cases resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	281	272	267	274	265	283	281	245	247	249
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	39	39	40	40	40
Periodic detention	49	47	48	50	45	47	-	-	-	-
Community service	27	24	26	25	27	29	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	43	40	41	43	40	41	39	40	40	40
Community programme	106	98	103	91	97	96	-	-	-	-
Supervision	71	67	64	71	74	73	59	57	51	48
Monetary	6	6	6	6	6	6	5	5	5	4
Deferment	24	21	21	20	19	17	14	15	12	14
Other	22	13	16	17	20	14	15	12	17	19
Conviction & discharge	8	7	7	6	7	6	6	5	5	6
Overall average	44	42	42	42	40	41	39	37	38	37

For information on the custodial sentences imposed by type of offence, see Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Table 4.3 shows trends in the length of the custodial sentences imposed over the decade.

3.4 Sentencing for violent offences

This section presents information on the sentencing of cases involving all violent offences as a group, as well as information on the use of custodial sentences for some individual violent offences.

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 respectively show the number and percentage of cases involving violent offences resulting in each sentence from 1997 to 2006. Figure 3.2 graphs the information displayed in Table 3.5.

Between 1997 and 2003, around 21% to 23% of convicted cases involving violent offences resulted in custodial sentences. During the 2004 and 2006 period, the figures ranged from around 24% to 25% (see Table 3.5).

Table 3.5 shows that the proportion of convicted cases involving violent offences that resulted in work-related community sentences increased slightly over the decade. Between 1997 and 2003, the proportion ranged from 30% to 34%, with the figures remaining between 32% and 33% from 2004 to 2006.

The use of supervision as the most serious sentence for cases involving violent offences declined by 62% between 1997 and 2003 (from 1,829 to 689). Between 2004 and 2006, the number of supervision sentences imposed for cases involving violent offences rose by 25%, from 699 in 2004 to 872 in 2006 (see Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 Number of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	2230	2225	2180	2116	2115	2082	2268	2512	2632	2705
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	1604	3350	3275	3653	3717
Periodic detention	2593	2763	2630	2583	2436	1261	-	-	-	-
Community service	617	609	655	563	601	267	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	3210	3372	3285	3146	3037	3132	3350	3275	3653	3717
Community programme	134	116	85	56	71	20	-	-	-	-
Supervision	1829	1770	1663	1388	1184	878	689	699	975	872
Monetary	2159	2074	1887	2022	2085	2064	2054	2226	2211	1950
Deferment	855	890	804	801	855	845	1036	1146	1244	1471
Other	31	31	45	29	53	39	40	37	42	53
Conviction & discharge	233	261	274	280	307	343	318	379	366	363
Total	10681	10739	10223	9838	9707	9403	9755	10274	11123	11131

Table 3.5 Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	20.9	20.7	21.3	21.5	21.8	22.1	23.2	24.5	23.7	24.3
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	17.1	34.3	31.9	32.8	33.4
Periodic detention	24.3	25.7	25.7	26.3	25.1	13.4	-	-	-	-
Community service	5.8	5.7	6.4	5.7	6.2	2.8	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	30.1	31.4	32.1	32.0	31.3	33.3	34.3	31.9	32.8	33.4
Community programme	1.3	1.1	0.8	0.6	0.7	0.2	-	-	-	-
Supervision	17.1	16.5	16.3	14.1	12.2	9.3	7.1	6.8	8.8	7.8
Monetary	20.2	19.3	18.5	20.6	21.5	22.0	21.1	21.7	19.9	17.5
Deferment	8.0	8.3	7.9	8.1	8.8	9.0	10.6	11.2	11.2	13.2
Other	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5
Conviction & discharge	2.2	2.4	2.7	2.8	3.2	3.6	3.3	3.7	3.3	3.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Figure 3.2 Percentage of convicted cases involving violent offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

image not available

Table 3.6 shows the number of convicted cases involving violent offences at each level of offence seriousness and the average seriousness of violent offences for each year from 1997 to 2006. The seriousness score groupings in the table have little inherent meaning, but are 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, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Seriousness score	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
0-1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	0	0
>1-10	4609	4718	4544	4377	4337	4279	4277	4516	4751	4719
>10-50	2920	2773	2620	2496	2541	2238	2377	2586	2969	2941
>50-100	873	960	922	930	884	919	1005	968	1041	997
>100-500	976	1025	952	957	918	972	996	1117	1224	1326
>500	1302	1263	1184	1078	1026	995	1099	1086	1138	1148
Overall average	212	204	201	195	189	198	201	191	185	190

The average seriousness of violent offences shows a downward trend over the decade. Between 1997 and 2003, the average seriousness scores fluctuated between 189 and 212. From 2004 to 2006, the average seriousness score for violent offences was 189. The most significant factor in the drop in overall average seriousness score was the reduction in the number of violent cases with seriousness scores over 500.

Figure 3.3 shows that between 1998 and 2001, although the average seriousness of violent offences declined, the courts imposed sentences of imprisonment in an increasing proportion of violent cases. However, this does not necessarily mean that sentencing has become more punitive. The change could be due to other factors, such as changes in the criminal histories (including previous compliance with non-custodial sentences) of defendants coming before the courts. From 2004 to 2006, the proportion of convicted cases resulting in imprisonment followed the same trend as the average seriousness of violent offences.

Figure 3.3 Percentage of violent offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and average seriousness of violent offences resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006

Table 3.7 shows the actual number of convicted cases by violent offence type. Tables 3.8 and 3.9 show the trends in custodial sentences imposed for different types of violent offences. As Table 3.7 demonstrates, the annual conviction figures for manslaughter, attempted murder, and attempted sexual violation cases are relatively small; caution should therefore be exercised when interpreting proportions calculated for these offences.

Between 1997 and 2003, the number of cases involving violent offences declined by 9%, from 10,681 in 1997 to 9,755 in 2003. The figures increased by 8% between 2004 and 2006 (an increase of 857 cases). In 2006, 85% of the convictions for violent cases involved physical assaults, with serious assaults, male assaults female, and minor assaults accounting for 27%, 24%, and 22% of all convicted violent offence cases respectively.

Table 3.8 shows that the most serious violent offences (those involving homicide or sexual violation) almost always result in a custodial sentence, as do the majority of other serious offences such as aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping or abduction.

For the most serious category of non-sexual assaults—grievous assault— between 41% and 51% of convictions resulted in a custodial sentence between 1997 and 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion of such cases resulting in imprisonment increased from 49% to 54%.

Table 3.7 Number of convicted cases involving violent offences by offence type, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Murder	37	24	23	29	19	28	21	23	20	26
Manslaughter	26	43	27	18	30	29	32	50	16	25
Attempted murder	15	4	6	7	10	13	3	10	4	4
Kidnapping/abduction	59	66	35	40	55	50	68	50	45	69
Rape	128	130	116	94	106	102	121	96	114	116
Unlawful sexual connection	116	119	123	116	129	112	127	112	129	110
Attempted sexual violation	32	21	27	25	19	12	18	18	18	20
Indecent assault	331	304	298	273	245	299	266	258	284	264
Aggravated burglary	52	44	41	39	46	36	42	65	68	41
Aggravated robbery	389	401	395	336	267	250	275	256	326	317
Robbery	198	189	177	138	120	126	144	148	185	197
Grievous assault	936	1033	979	998	964	1004	1052	1098	1197	1216
Serious assault	2118	2242	2216	2321	2369	2339	2409	2661	2899	2989
Male assaults female	2646	2502	2331	2236	2257	1969	2116	2281	2663	2651
Assault on a child	207	197	214	185	207	195	172	220	200	171
Minor assault	2934	2951	2753	2534	2417	2360	2346	2426	2469	2402
Threaten to kill/do GBH	370	388	382	379	363	391	446	437	401	409
Cruelty to a child	6	9	21	11	18	12	15	13	13	13
Other violence	81	72	59	59	66	76	82	52	72	91
Total	10681	10739	10223	9838	9707	9403	9755	10274	11123	11131

Table 3.8 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by violent offence type, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Murder	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	96
Manslaughter	92	86	89	89	97	93	100	98	100	100
Attempted murder	93	-	67*	100*	90	100	-	100	-	-
Kidnapping/abduction	76	85	60	73	76	72	78	80	89	83
Rape	95	98	97	97	97	100	98	99	100	98
Unlawful sexual connection	80	91	89	90	88	96	97	96	95	95
Attempted sexual violation	88	95	85	96	89	75	94	89	100	95
Indecent assault	42	38	42	46	49	47	56	59	52	56
Aggravated burglary	54	70	78	85	76	78	64	86	94	83
Aggravated robbery	78	77	79	85	83	83	95	93	91	91
Robbery	67	57	61	64	61	67	76	74	66	61
Grievous assault	43	41	45	43	45	51	51	53	49	54
Serious assault	13	12	14	14	14	13	13	15	14	15
Male assaults female	13	14	13	14	15	12	12	16	15	15
Assault on a child	12	13	7	16	14	18	9	19	11	12
Minor assault	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	4
Threaten to kill/do GBH	20	19	24	25	23	24	22	25	25	25
Cruelty to a child	33*	56*	24	73	56	58	53	38	46	31
Other violence	47	53	41	37	53	57	56	48	46	66
Overall	21	21	21	22	22	22	23	24	24	24

Table 3.9 shows the average length (in months) of custodial sentences imposed for each type of violent offence, as well as the average length of custodial sentences for all violent offences. Between 1997 and 2003, the average length of imprisonment imposed for violent offences increased by 4% from 28 months to 29 months. Between 2004 and 2006, the average length of custodial sentence imposed for violent offences was 26 months.

Table 3.9 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of violent offence, 1997 to 2006^1,2,3,4

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Manslaughter	63.1	59.8	71.4	63.8	70.1	70.6	68.3	66.8	71.4	62.2
Attempted murder	83.6	-	-	102.0*	94.7*	73.8	-	103.5	-	-
Kidnapping/abduction	36.1	39.5	29.3	36.2	31.7	43.3	32.9	30.8	35.2	36.4
Rape	86.9	96.3	97.6	95.9	92.7	99.9	106.9	99.0	98.8	104.9
Unlawful sexual connection	52.6	51.5	62.6	62.1	61.7	54.5	50.7	63.4	54.8	55.0
Attempted sexual violation	61.0	47.1	49.2	43.4	55.0	57.3*	62.5	44.1	52.8	50.6
Indecent assault	19.9	20.4	21.6	20.7	22.8	19.7	18.9	23.3	18.0	19.2
Aggravated burglary	30.5	33.5	26.5	42.1	52.0	40.1	28.5	33.0	39.2	33.1
Aggravated robbery	39.8	40.1	44.6	41.4	41.7	44.3	43.3	37.0	37.1	36.8
Robbery	20.4	22.9	22.2	21.4	24.1	19.1	23.1	20.2	22.4	19.7
Grievous assault	21.8	22.9	22.0	25.6	23.6	25.4	23.7	23.9	23.9	24.7
Serious assault	7.9	7.2	7.2	7.5	7.3	7.9	8.1	7.8	6.6	7.3
Male assaults female	6.6	6.6	6.7	7.3	6.7	7.3	7.1	6.6	6.2	6.2
Assault on a child	5.5	6.9	8.5	7.6	6.0	8.4	9.5	8.3	6.4	7.0
Minor assault	2.4	2.2	2.3	2.0	2.3	2.1	3.1	1.6	2.1	1.9
Threaten to kill/do GBH	9.4	7.0	8.4	8.5	7.8	9.2	10.0	8.5	7.0	7.9
Cruelty to a child	-	12.2*	15.0*	17.0*	11.6	19.3*	15.8*	20.6*	17.7*	-
Other violence	22.0	19.7	17.6	20.6	17.4	18.5	15.7	22.0	15.9	13.5
Overall average	27.9	27.7	28.2	28.3	27.2	29.3	29.1	26.2	25.4	25.8

The average custodial sentence length for murder is not shown in Table 3.9 because prior to the Sentencing Act 2002 the mandatory sentence for murder was life imprisonment.  However, sentences for murder are included in the overall average figure.  Life imprisonment is now the presumptive, but not mandatory, sentence for murder.  Section 102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 states: ‘An offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust’. Since 30 June 2002, only three determinate sentences of imprisonment have been imposed on an offender convicted of murder; two of these cases had a life sentence substituted on appeal.

In July 1999, the Crimes Act 1961 was amended, by increasing the maximum penalties for a number of serious violent and sexual offences by three or five years 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. Because the maximum penalty for manslaughter was already life imprisonment (although that sentence was rarely imposed), the legislative change meant that the courts were justified in imposing a longer determinant sentence than would otherwise have been appropriate in cases involving home invasion. Life imprisonment was mandatory for murder, but if a murder involved a home invasion the mandatory minimum non-parole period became at least 13 years, rather than the standard 10 years.

The higher maximum penalties for home invasion offences were repealed by the Sentencing Act 2002. Instead, it became an aggravating factor in sentencing if an offence involved ‘unlawful presences in a dwelling place’. In addition, the Sentencing Act 2002 introduced a presumption in favour of imposing a minimum non-parole period of at least 17 years on a life sentence for murder if it involved the ‘unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, a dwelling place’, unless the court was satisfied that this would be ‘manifestly unjust’.

The average length of imprisonment imposed for rape increased by 23% from 87 months in 1997 to 107 months in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, this increased by a further 6%, from 99 months to 105 months.

3.5 Sentencing for other offences against the person

This section presents information on the sentencing of all offences against the person other than violent offences, and gives further information on the use of custodial sentences for some of the individual offence types included in this category.

Tables 3.10 and 3.11 respectively show the number and percentage of cases involving other offences against the person resulting in each type of sentence from 1997 to 2006. Table 3.10 shows that the number of cases involving non-violent offences against the person resulting in a custodial sentence ranged from 94 to 124 between 1997 and 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the figures increased from 127 to 146.

Table 3.11 shows that the proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for a non-violent offence against the person decreased from 8% in 1997 to 7% in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006 the proportion increased from 7% to 8%. From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of cases resulting in a work-related community sentence fluctuated between 18% and 24%. Between 2004 and 2006, the figures ranged from 19% to 22%.

Both tables show that the use of supervision for other offences against the person generally declined between 1997 and 2003. From 2004 to 2006, the number of other offences against the person resulting in supervision increased from 49 cases to 72 cases.

Table 3.10 Number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	108	113	94	103	109	115	124	127	135	146
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	170	348	331	358	392
Periodic detention	260	290	271	212	236	116	-	-	-	-
Community service	75	83	85	61	73	42	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	335	373	356	273	309	328	348	331	358	392
Community programme	7	3	5	3	0	0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	113	116	106	103	106	64	61	49	72	72
Monetary	562	579	571	626	617	650	711	715	632	632
Deferment	172	185	166	193	184	195	253	283	314	336
Other	1	0	4	2	5	4	7	9	4	1
Conviction & discharge	127	196	161	213	192	227	193	273	280	235
Total	1425	1565	1463	1516	1522	1583	1697	1787	1795	1814

Table 3.11 Percentage of convicted cases involving other offences against the person resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	7.6	7.2	6.4	6.8	7.2	7.3	7.3	7.1	7.5	8.0
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	10.7	20.5	18.5	19.9	21.6
Periodic detention	18.2	18.5	18.5	14.0	15.5	7.3	-	-	-	-
Community service	5.3	5.3	5.8	4.0	4.8	2.7	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	23.5	23.8	24.3	18.0	20.3	20.7	20.5	18.5	19.9	21.6
Community programme	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.0	0.0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	7.9	7.4	7.2	6.8	7.0	4.0	3.6	2.7	4.0	4.0
Monetary	39.4	37.0	39.0	41.3	40.5	41.1	41.9	40.0	35.2	34.8
Deferment	12.1	11.8	11.3	12.7	12.1	12.3	14.9	15.8	17.5	18.5
Other	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.2	0.1
Conviction & discharge	8.9	12.5	11.0	14.1	12.6	14.3	11.4	15.3	15.6	13.0
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

The use of deferred sentences for other offences against the person increased by 42% between 1997 and 2003. Deferred sentences comprised an increasing proportion of all conviction outcomes for this offence category between 2004 and 2006, rising from 16% to 19%. The proportion of other offences against the person resulting in a conviction and discharge increased from 9% in 1997 to 14% in 2002. In 2004 and 2005, over 15% of these cases resulted in a conviction and discharge, dropping to 13% in 2006.

Table 3.12 shows the number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person by offence type. Tables 3.13 and 3.14 show the proportion of these cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and the average sentence length imposed.

The number of offences involving obstructing or resisting a Police officer or other official increased over the decade, but decreased as a proportion of all other offences against the person. The proportion declined from 60% in 1997 to 53% in 2003, and ranged from 51% to 54% between 2004 and 2007.

Table 3.12 Number of convicted cases involving other offences against the person by offence type, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Non-violent sexual	240	225	200	215	210	195	208	183	228	209
Obstruct/resist	856	938	822	861	819	892	903	963	907	962
Intimidation	207	241	270	280	316	316	368	450	510	499
Other against persons	122	161	171	160	177	180	218	191	150	144
Total	1425	1565	1463	1516	1522	1583	1697	1787	1795	1814

Table 3.13 Percentage of convicted cases involving other offences against the person resulting in a custodial sentence, by offence type, 1997 to 2006¹

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Non-violent sexual	25	28	27	29	30	35	38	39	36	44
Obstruct/resist	2	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1
Intimidation	5	6	4	3	3	3	3	2	5	5
Other against persons	15	10	12	13	12	14	12	16	14	13
Overall	8	7	6	7	7	7	7	7	8	8

The proportion of convicted cases for non-violent sexual offences resulting in a custodial sentence showed an upward trend between 1997 and 2003 (25% in 1997 to 38% in 2003). Between 2005 and 2006, the proportion of such cases resulting in imprisonment increased from 36% to 44%.

From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of intimidation offences (excluding those involving threats to kill or do grievous bodily harm) that resulted in a custodial sentence declined from 5% to 3%. The figure was 2% in 2004, increasing to 5% in 2005 and 2006.

Table 3.14 shows that the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for ‘other offences against the person’ fluctuated over the decade. The overall average length of the custodial sentences imposed fluctuated between 1997 and 2003 (ranging from 11 to 18 months). From 2004 to 2006, the figures fluctuated over a narrower range from 15 to 17 months.

Table 3.14 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of other offence against the person, 1997 to 2006^1,2,3

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Non-violent sexual	16.1	25.3	17.8	26.3	18.8	18.4	18.7	20.1	19.3	22.8
Obstruct/resist	1.4	1.7	1.0*	0.9	1.5	1.3	1.1*	1.3	1.2	1.3
Intimidation	1.9	3.2	2.7	2.3*	2.0	2.4	4.6	2.6	1.4	4.0
Other against persons	11.9	10.3	8.0	8.9	9.8	13.0	12.2	14.8	16.5	15.8
Overall average	11.2	16.5	12.3	18.2	13.2	14.1	14.9	15.2	14.5	17.1

3.6 Sentencing for property offences

Tables 3.15 and 3.16 respectively show the number and percentage of cases involving property offences resulting in each sentence from 1997 to 2006.

Table 3.15 shows that the number of convicted cases involving property offences fluctuated throughout the decade. The number and proportion of convicted property cases resulting in a custodial sentence trended upward from 13% in 1997 to 15% in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion of property cases resulting in imprisonment remained constant at 17%. 

The increasing trend may be partly due to the repeal of section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. This section required 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 there were special circumstances. It should be noted that offences with maximum penalties exceeding seven years’ imprisonment (e.g. burglary and arson) were exempt from this provision. This provision was repealed by the Sentencing Act 2002. Instead, the appropriateness of a custodial or community-based sentence is now governed by the purposes and general principles in Part 1 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

Table 3.15 Number of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	2397	2429	2456	2460	2375	2450	2682	3243	3203	3146
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	4028	7648	7383	6890	7365
Periodic detention	5365	5560	5570	5052	5279	2538	-	-	-	-
Community service	2267	2535	2760	2538	2324	1067	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	7632	8095	8330	7590	7603	7633	7648	7383	6890	7365
Community programme	136	107	90	70	62	18	-	-	-	-
Supervision	1380	1386	1200	1125	891	608	494	541	511	502
Monetary	5346	5294	5387	5559	5680	5511	5434	5938	5627	5794
Deferment	1012	1107	1088	1041	1090	1051	1050	1319	1293	1322
Other	20	22	19	26	32	30	22	20	47	25
Conviction & discharge	562	668	646	635	662	720	666	936	870	811
Total	18485	19108	19216	18506	18395	18021	17996	19380	18441	18965

Table 3.16 Percentage of convicted cases involving property offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	13.0	12.7	12.8	13.3	12.9	13.6	14.9	16.7	17.4	16.6
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	22.4	42.5	38.1	37.4	38.8
Periodic detention	29.0	29.1	29.0	27.3	28.7	14.1	-	-	-	-
Community service	12.3	13.3	14.4	13.7	12.6	5.9	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	41.3	42.4	43.3	41.0	41.3	42.4	42.5	38.1	37.4	38.8
Community programme	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.1	-	-	-	-
Supervision	7.5	7.3	6.2	6.1	4.8	3.4	2.7	2.8	2.8	2.6
Monetary	28.9	27.7	28.0	30.0	30.9	30.6	30.2	30.6	30.5	30.6
Deferment	5.5	5.8	5.7	5.6	5.9	5.8	5.8	6.8	7.0	7.0
Other	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.1
Conviction & discharge	3.0	3.5	3.4	3.4	3.6	4.0	3.7	4.8	4.7	4.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

The proportion of property offences resulting in a work-related community sentence fluctuated between 41% and 43% in the period from 1997 to 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the corresponding figure ranged from 37% to 39%.

The use of supervision for property offences declined throughout the decade, with the proportion falling from 8% in 1997 to 3% in 2003. From 2004 to 2006, the proportion of property offences resulting in supervision remained at around 3%.

The number of cases involving property offences at each level of offence seriousness and the average seriousness of property offences are presented in Table 3.17.[18] The overall average seriousness of property offences resulting in a conviction declined from 60 in 1997 to 52 in 2003. The average seriousness scores climbed slightly between 2004 and 2006, from 54 to 56.

Table 3.17 Number of convicted cases involving property offences with each level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of property offences, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Seriousness score	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
0-1	2187	2290	2178	2267	2288	2343	2411	2781	2792	3042
>1-10	4877	5658	6428	6159	6373	6123	5899	6639	6287	6208
>10-50	3769	3700	3544	3366	3287	3331	3420	2702	2397	2481
>50-100	3628	3566	3420	3130	3125	3040	3099	3470	3311	3432
>100-500	4022	3887	3642	3572	3310	3173	3162	3784	3633	3788
>500	2	7	4	12	12	11	5	4	21	14
Overall average	60	58	54	55	52	52	52	54	55	56

Table 3.18 shows the number of convicted property cases by offence type. It shows that convictions for cases involving property offences increased from 1997 to 1999, before trending downwards until 2003. The figures fluctuated around an average of 18,929 between 2004 and 2006. From 1997 to 2003, theft comprised 32% to 35% of all convicted cases involving property offences. The trend continued from 2004 to 2006, with the proportion of cases involving theft ranging from 35% to 37%.

Table 3.18 Number of convicted cases involving each property offence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Burglary	3412	3259	3111	3080	2836	2763	2737	3218	3092	3266
Theft	5842	6071	6302	6111	6525	6252	6255	6839	6828	6881
Receiving stolen goods	1373	1406	1396	1285	1236	1078	1141	1256	1144	1229
Motor vehicle conversion	1190	1172	1097	940	934	918	958	978	947	922
Fraud	2860	2928	2763	2564	2448	2380	2244	2179	1883	1905
Arson	139	174	130	124	151	128	144	146	145	146
Wilful damage	2235	2386	2261	2346	2399	2476	2544	2856	2911	3169
Other property	1434	1712	2156	2056	1866	2026	1973	1908	1491	1447
Total	18485	19108	19216	18506	18395	18021	17996	19380	18441	18965

Figure 3.4 graphs the percentage of property offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence and the average seriousness of property offences resulting in conviction. As Figure 3.4 demonstrates, the increased use of custodial sentences has corresponded with a general decrease in the seriousness of property offences resulting in a conviction in recent years. However, as noted in the case of violent offences, this does not necessarily indicate that sentencing has become more punitive as the increase in the number of custodial sentences imposed for property offences may be attributable to other factors not included in the data (for example, the defendant’s criminal history, including breaches on non-custodial sentence conditions etc.)

Figure 3.4 Percentage of property offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and average seriousness of property offences resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006

Tables 3.19 and 3.20 present information on the custodial sentencing of property offences. As noted earlier, burglary and arson were two property offences that section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 did not apply to. Table 3.19 shows that the proportion of cases involving burglary offences resulting in a custodial sentence gradually increased between 1997 and 2003. The proportion ranged from 44% to 47% between 2004 and 2006.

Given that arson offences can involve a wide range of seriousness in terms of damage to property and danger to life, it is not surprising that the proportion of arson cases resulting in a custodial sentence fluctuated between 39% and 57% from 1997 to 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the figures ranged between 51% and 56%.

Table 3.19 Percentage of convicted cases involving property offence resulting in a custodial sentence by offence type, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Burglary	34	35	37	38	39	41	43	46	47	44
Theft	5	6	6	6	5	6	6	7	7	6
Receiving stolen goods	9	10	11	10	10	11	15	16	19	17
Motor vehicle conversion	20	22	24	23	24	25	26	30	28	34
Fraud	12	10	11	13	15	16	20	21	23	22
Arson	44	39	52	42	50	57	41	56	51	52
Wilful damage	3	2	1	1	1	2	1	2	2	1
Other property	8	7	6	8	6	6	8	10	15	14
Overall	13	13	13	13	13	14	15	17	17	17

The proportion of burglary and arson cases is substantially higher than for other property offence types. The proportion of motor vehicle conversion offences receiving custodial sentences showed an upward movement from 1997 to 2003 (20% to 26%). Between 2004 and 2005, the proportion declined from 30% to 28%, while 34% of motor vehicle conversion cases resulted in a custodial sentence in 2006.

From 1997 to 2000, 10% to 13% of convicted cases for fraud resulted in a custodial sentence. The proportion climbed from 15% in 2001 to 20% in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, 21% to 23% of convicted fraud cases resulted in a custodial sentence.

Table 3.20 shows that the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for property offences increased by three months between 1997 and 2002 (from almost 10 months to 13 months). The average sentence length remained around 11 to 12 months between 2004 and 2006.

Between 1997 and 2003, with the exception of 1998, the average length of imprisonment for arson offences was around 24 months. From 2004 to 2006, the average length was between 22 and 23 months.

The custodial sentences imposed for fraud offences generally increased in length from 1997 to 2003 (from 9 months to 12 and a half months). The figures ranged from 12 to 13 months between 2004 and 2006.

Table 3.20 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of property offence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Burglary	12.0	12.0	12.8	14.0	14.0	15.7	15.6	15.2	14.5	14.8
Theft	6.2	7.1	7.4	5.7	6.5	7.3	7.8	5.4	5.7	5.6
Receiving stolen goods	6.4	6.6	5.5	7.6	7.1	8.1	7.5	7.5	7.3	6.3
Motor vehicle conversion	6.5	6.4	7.7	7.5	8.0	8.5	9.4	8.5	8.8	8.6
Fraud	9.3	10.4	9.1	11.0	11.3	12.2	12.5	12.0	12.8	12.4
Arson	24.3	19.7	24.8	23.8	24.1	24.9	23.9	22.4	23.2	21.8
Wilful damage	4.0	3.6	2.4	6.7	6.2	4.9	4.6	4.2	4.8	4.9
Other property	5.0	6.4	5.0	7.1	6.3	7.1	7.1	6.3	6.2	4.9
Overall average	9.8	9.9	10.3	11.1	11.4	12.6	12.4	11.7	11.5	11.4

3.7 Sentencing for drug offences

Tables 3.21 and 3.22 respectively show the number and percentage of cases involving drug offences resulting in each type of sentence from 1997 to 2006.

Table 3.21 shows that the number of drug cases resulting in conviction peaked in 1998 at 7,313 cases, and then tracked downward to reach 5,877 in 2003. The downward trend continued between 2004 and 2006, with the number dropping from 5,798 to 5,028.

Table 3.22 shows that the proportion of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in imprisonment increased from 9% in 1997 to 15% in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion ranged from 16% to 17%. As discussed in Section 2.8, the general increase in the proportion of drug cases resulting in a custodial sentence can be partly attributed to the reclassification of methamphetamine in 2003, from a Class ‘B’ drug to a Class ‘A’ drug. This had the effect of substantially increasing the maximum penalties applicable to methamphetamine offences.

The use of work-related community sentences for drug offences varied between 1997 and 2003, with the proportion fluctuating between 29% and 35%. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion averaged just over 27%.

Table 3.21 Number of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	639	613	672	704	706	798	871	976	898	813
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	860	1734	1574	1434	1380
Periodic detention	1465	1952	1711	1571	1439	723	-	-	-	-
Community service	569	639	535	465	377	164	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	2034	2591	2246	2036	1816	1747	1734	1574	1434	1380
Community programme	24	15	16	11	11	1	-	-	-	-
Supervision	283	297	255	233	190	104	69	103	90	97
Monetary	3523	3376	3554	3382	3136	2912	2780	2589	2245	2181
Deferment	155	191	164	179	158	174	211	208	206	241
Other	0	2	2	2	6	4	2	1	4	0
Conviction & discharge	159	228	219	274	283	207	210	347	325	316
Total	6817	7313	7128	6821	6306	5947	5877	5798	5202	5028

Table 3.22 Percentage of convicted cases involving drug offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	9.4	8.4	9.4	10.3	11.2	13.4	14.8	16.8	17.3	16.2
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	14.5	29.5	27.1	27.6	27.4
Periodic detention	21.5	26.7	24.0	23.0	22.8	12.2	-	-	-	-
Community service	8.3	8.7	7.5	6.8	6.0	2.8	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	29.8	35.4	31.5	29.8	28.8	29.4	29.5	27.1	27.6	27.4
Community programme	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	4.2	4.1	3.6	3.4	3.0	1.7	1.2	1.8	1.7	1.9
Monetary	51.7	46.2	49.9	49.6	49.7	49.0	47.3	44.7	43.2	43.4
Deferment	2.3	2.6	2.3	2.6	2.5	2.9	3.6	3.6	4.0	4.8
Other	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0
Conviction & discharge	2.3	3.1	3.1	4.0	4.5	3.5	3.6	6.0	6.2	6.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

The number of cases involving drug offences within each level of offence seriousness and the average seriousness of drug offences are presented in Table 3.23. The average seriousness of drug cases trended upwards between 1997 and 2002, from 68 to 86, before dropping to 77 in 2003. The overall average level of seriousness of convicted drug cases increased between 2004 and 2005, rising from 84 to 91, before falling to 86 in 2006. Changes in the number of convictions for the most serious drug offences (with scores greater than 500) have heavily influenced the trend in the overall average seriousness of drug offences, with both showing almost identical patterns.

Table 3.23 Number of convicted cases involving drug offences with each level of offence seriousness and average seriousness of drug offences, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Seriousness score	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
0-1	2361	2483	2467	2291	2092	1943	1826	1691	1560	1444
>1-10	1323	1556	1507	1429	1245	1212	1365	1552	1411	1539
>10-50	1917	1980	1863	1751	1739	1491	1537	1371	1235	1119
>50-100	18	16	15	32	33	56	55	40	11	12
>100-500	993	1074	1070	1104	994	920	813	836	666	620
>500	205	204	206	214	203	325	281	308	319	294
Overall average	68	65	66	70	70	86	77	84	91	86

As noted above, changes in the seriousness of drug cases resulting in a conviction may be one factor associated with the increased proportion of drug cases resulting in a custodial sentence. Figure 3.5 shows that across the decade both revealed a general upwards trend. However, in 2006 both the average seriousness score and proportion of drug offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence dropped slightly.

Figure 3.5 Percentage of drug offence cases resulting in a custodial sentence, and average seriousness of drug offences resulting in conviction, 1997 to 2006

Table 3.24 shows the number of convicted cases by drug offence type. It demonstrates that from 1997 to 2003, between 85% and 93% of convicted cases for drug offences involved cannabis. The proportion rose slightly from 78% in 2004 to 79% in 2005, before declining to 76% in 2006.

Between 1997 and 2003, convictions for drug offences other than cannabis increased by 71% from 528 to 903. Between 2004 and 2006, the total number of non-cannabis convictions ranged between 1,130 and 1,194, comprising between 21% and 24% of all drug convictions during this time.

Table 3.24 Number of convicted cases involving each drug offence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Use cannabis	2836	2912	2836	2607	2293	2099	1974	1811	1652	1539
Deal in cannabis	2779	2928	2806	2675	2551	2163	2039	1845	1624	1518
Other cannabis	674	975	984	922	930	909	961	948	796	782
Use other drug	222	181	207	260	193	222	268	351	316	347
Deal in other drug	219	217	214	226	218	329	285	314	322	296
Other drug	87	100	81	131	121	225	350	529	492	546
Total	6817	7313	7128	6821	6306	5947	5877	5798	5202	5028

Tables 3.25 and 3.26 include data on custodial sentencing for different types of drug offences.

The proportion of convicted cases involving dealing in non-cannabis drugs increased between 1997 and 2003, from 54% to 82%. In 2006, 89% of such cases received custodial sentences. This increase is related to a rise in the number of convictions for dealing in stimulants (especially methamphetamine and amphetamine) and depressants, as well as an increase in the proportion of these types of offences receiving custodial sentences. As discussed in Section 2.8, methamphetamine was reclassified from a Class ‘B’ drug to a Class ‘A’ drug in 2003. As a result, life imprisonment became the maximum penalty for dealing in methamphetamine.

Table 3.25 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of drug offence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Use cannabis	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	2	2
Deal in cannabis	16	15	17	19	21	22	25	27	25	25
Other cannabis	2	1	1	2	2	1	2	2	3	1
Use other drug	4	2	7	5	3	3	6	9	9	8
Deal in other drug	54	53	60	60	59	78	82	85	93	89
Other drug	10	2	4	5	7	10	18	25	22	17
Overall	9	8	9	10	11	13	15	17	17	16

The proportion of ‘other drug’ cases that resulted in a custodial sentence also increased. Most of this increase was related to a larger number of convictions for offences involving possession of equipment capable of producing or cultivating non-cannabis drugs (see Section 2.8), and an increase in the proportion of these offences receiving custodial sentences.

Table 3.25 also shows that the proportion of cases involving dealing in cannabis which resulted in a custodial sentence increased over the decade. From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of these cases resulting in a custodial sentence increased from 16% to 25%. Between 2004 and 2006, one-quarter of all convicted cases for dealing in cannabis resulted in imprisonment. In contrast, the figures show that offenders were very rarely imprisoned for possession or use of cannabis, with the proportions ranging between 1% and 2% over the decade.

Table 3.26 shows that the average custodial sentence length imposed on offenders in cases involving drugs offences has increased over the decade. From 1997 to 2003, the overall average length was between 16 and 20 months. In 2005, the average length increased to 24 months, before declining to 23 months in 2006.

The average custodial sentence length imposed for dealing in cannabis increased from 13 to 15 months between 1997 and 2003. The average ranged between 15 and 16 months from 2004 to 2006.

Between 1997 and 2003, the average length of custodial sentence imposed for dealing in drugs other than cannabis ranged from 31 to 36 months. The average sentence length for such offences was 46 months in 2005, declining to 42 months in 2006.

Table 3.26 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of drug offence, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Use cannabis	1.8	1.5	1.8	1.7	2.1	2.0	1.1	2.6	1.9	0.9
Deal in cannabis	13.4	13.1	14.0	14.2	15.7	14.9	15.3	15.6	15.3	15.0
Other cannabis	3.4	2.5	2.0*	2.5	2.2	13.3*	6.4	4.6	5.4	9.9
Use other drug	1.4*	-	4.5	6.4	2.0*	8.0*	6.1	3.4	3.8	2.1
Deal in other drug	34.8	32.8	31.5	36.1	35.1	31.4	33.0	38.3	46.3	42.3
Other drug	3.3*	-	-	5.3*	10.4*	8.3	9.4	10.5	12.9	13.6
Overall average	15.9	15.8	16.0	17.5	18.3	19.5	18.8	20.1	24.3	22.5

3.8 Sentencing for offences against the administration of justice

This section presents information on the sentencing of cases involving offences against the administration of justice, and examines the use of custodial sentences for different offence types within this category. Offences against the administration of justice are mostly:

• the result of a breach of a sentence imposed for an earlier offence

• the result of failure to answer bail

• the result of breach of a protection order

• offences relating to court procedure.

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 non-payment. As part of the procedure for the enforcement of monetary penalties, people may have an alternative sentence of community work or, in particular circumstances, imprisonment imposed. The substitution of an alternative sentence is not recorded in the data utilised in this report.

Offenders who are given a community-based sentence may have their sentence reviewed for a number of reasons. On review, the sentence may be varied or cancelled and an alternative sentence substituted. Again, the substitution of an alternative sentence in these circumstances is not usually recorded in the data used for this report. However, where in some situations, the offender may simply be charged separately for breaching the conditions of their sentence. In such circumstances, the breach charge is recorded in the data and is included in the figures shown below.

Tables 3.27 and 3.28 respectively show the number and percentage of cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in each type of sentence from 1997 to 2006.

Table 3.27 Number of convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	797	850	804	729	740	618	669	1076	1195	1206
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	1489	2534	2778	2900	3320
Periodic detention	2281	2594	2725	2838	2780	1402	-	-	-	-
Community service	170	180	206	172	191	84	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	2451	2774	2931	3010	2971	2975	2534	2778	2900	3320
Community programme	23	43	22	11	11	4	-	-	-	-
Supervision	247	280	316	271	213	188	182	210	249	249
Monetary	795	718	801	789	860	1299	863	1061	855	778
Deferment	316	361	375	434	402	391	523	629	612	638
Other	4	2	3	6	6	7	4	14	7	7
Conviction & discharge	823	852	856	944	1059	1033	1858	5612	6740	6621
Total	5456	5880	6108	6194	6262	6515	6633	11380	12558	12819

Table 3.28 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	14.6	14.5	13.2	11.8	11.8	9.5	10.1	9.5	9.5	9.4
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	22.9	38.2	24.4	23.1	25.9
Periodic detention	41.8	44.1	44.6	45.8	44.4	21.5	-	-	-	-
Community service	3.1	3.1	3.4	2.8	3.1	1.3	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	44.9	47.2	48.0	48.6	47.4	45.7	38.2	24.4	23.1	25.9
Community programme	0.4	0.7	0.4	0.2	0.2	0.1	-	-	-	-
Supervision	4.5	4.8	5.2	4.4	3.4	2.9	2.7	1.8	2.0	1.9
Monetary	14.6	12.2	13.1	12.7	13.7	19.9	13.0	9.3	6.8	6.1
Deferment	5.8	6.1	6.1	7.0	6.4	6.0	7.9	5.5	4.9	5.0
Other	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
Conviction & discharge	15.1	14.5	14.0	15.2	16.9	15.9	28.0	49.3	53.7	51.6
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Table 3.27 shows that convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice tracked steadily upwards from 5,456 in 1997 to 6,633 in 2003. The climb continued between 2004 and 2006, reaching 12,819 in 2006.

Table 3.28 shows that the proportion of custodial sentences imposed for offences against the administration of justice generally trended downwards between 1997 and 2003. The figures were stable between 2004 and 2006 at almost 10%.

From 1997 to 2002, around half of the convicted cases for offences against the administration of justice resulted in a work-related community sentence. The proportion dropped to 38% in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, around one-quarter of such cases resulted in a work-related community sentence.

From 1997 to 2003, between 3% and 5% of the convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulted in supervision sentences. The proportion stabilised between 2004 and 2006 at 2%.

Between 1997 and 2003, monetary penalties were imposed in 12% to 20% of cases involving offences against the administration of justice. The proportion dropped from 9% in 2004 to 6% in 2006.

Table 3.29 shows the number and proportion of convicted cases for offences against the administration of justice by offence type. Table 3.30 shows the proportion of cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in a custodial sentence by offence type, and Table 3.31 presents information on the average custodial sentence length imposed for different types of offences within this category.

Table 3.29 Number of convicted cases involving each offence against the administration of justice, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Breach community work2	-	-	-	-	-	355	3172	5790	6790	7398
Breach periodic detention	3069	3315	3366	3516	3395	2887	433	148	53	29
Breach community service	247	205	172	190	168	225	115	24	10	6
Subtotal - breach work-related	3316	3520	3538	3706	3563	3467	3720	5962	6853	7433
Breach supervision	300	273	284	248	289	259	258	427	603	615
Breach conditions of release	69	98	98	106	132	128	293	592	811	861
Failure to answer bail	573	534	618	623	648	713	729	2735	2518	2240
Breach protection/non-molestation order3	589	887	1033	1009	1075	1010	1055	1058	1116	1072
Escape custody	200	206	197	163	153	118	146	156	165	148
Obstruct/pervert course of justice	129	102	92	96	82	91	95	114	140	116
Other against justice	280	260	248	243	320	729	337	336	352	334
Total	5456	5880	6108	6194	6262	6515	6633	11380	12558	12819

The Sentencing Act 2002 changed the types of community-based sentences that may be imposed and the types of sentences that may be breached. While periodic detention and community service could not be imposed after 29 June 2002, sentences still in force after that date could still result in breach action being taken. Tables 3.29 to 3.31 include a subtotal for breaches of work-related community sentences so that the trends are easier to analyse.

The proportion of cases resulting in imprisonment for breaching the conditions of work-related community sentences declined from 15% in 1997 to 8% in 2003. The corresponding percentages were 10% in 2004, and 9% in 2005 and 2006.

Table 3.30 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against the administration of justice resulting in a custodial sentence, by offence type, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Breach community work	-	-	-	-	-	9	8	10	9	9
Breach periodic detention	16	15	14	12	11	10	9	3	0	0
Breach community service	0	0	0	1	1	0	2	0	0	0*
Subtotal - breach work-related	15	14	13	12	11	9	8	10	9	9
Breach supervision	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	3	4	5
Breach conditions of release	20	17	12	12	11	13	14	15	12	13
Failure to answer bail	11	11	13	11	12	9	8	3	2	3
Breach protection/non-molestation order	11	13	11	11	14	12	13	15	17	17
Escape custody	50	57	45	37	39	36	27	33	38	24
Obstruct/pervert course of justice	33	30	39	33	40	41	49	44	54	53
Other against justice	5	8	3	7	7	3	9	10	11	12
Overall	15	14	13	12	12	9	10	9	10	9

Prior to the Sentencing Act 2002 coming into force, breaching the conditions of a supervision sentence was not an imprisonable offence. From 30 June 2002, however, the maximum penalty for breaching the conditions of a supervision sentence became three months’ imprisonment. In 2006, 5% of convicted cases involving the breach of a supervision sentence resulted in imprisonment.

The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for breaching conditions of release from prison tracked downwards from 1997 to 2001, before increasing slightly in 2002. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion ranged from 12% to 15%. It is necessary to note, however, that prisoners released on parole and some other types of release may be recalled to prison to continue serving their sentence instead of, or in addition to, being charged with a breach.

The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for failure to answer bail also declined from 13% in 1999 to 8% in 2003. Around 3% of such cases were disposed in this way in 2006. It is important to note, however, that some people who fail to answer bail may be remanded in custody for the remainder of the case rather than being charged with failure to answer bail.

Non-molestation orders were replaced by protection orders when the Domestic Violence Act 1995 came into force on 1 July 1996. The proportion of cases involving breaches of these orders that resulted in a custodial sentence trended upwards from 11% in 1997 to 13% in 2003. The proportion rose from 15% in 2004 to 17% in 2005 and 2006.

The proportion of cases resulting in a custodial sentence for escaping from lawful custody steadily declined from 1998 onwards, when 57% of these cases were disposed in this way. Though the 2005 figures recorded an increase on 2004 (from 33% to 38%), the proportion fell to 24% in 2006.

The proportion of cases resulting in imprisonment for obstructing or perverting the course of justice climbed steadily from 33% in 1997 to 49% in 2003. Over half of such cases resulted in imprisonment in 2005 and 2006.

Table 3.31 shows the average length of the custodial sentences (in months) imposed for different offences against the administration of justice, as well as the total average length of sentences awarded for all offences against the administration of justice overall.

The average length of custodial sentences imposed in cases involving offences against justice fluctuated between three and four months from 1997 to 2003. The overall average remained at approximately three months between 2004 and 2006.

After the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002 came into force on 30 June 2002, the maximum penalty for breaching the conditions of release from prison increased from three months’ to one year’s imprisonment. Not surprisingly, therefore, the average length of custodial sentences imposed for this offence increased from one to two months between 2002 and 2003, and from two months to two and a half months between 2004 and 2006.

The average custodial sentence length imposed for breaching the conditions of a work-related community sentence was consistently almost two months from 1997 to 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the average custodial sentence for such cases was around one and a half months in duration.

Under the Domestic Violence Act 1995, which came into force in July 1996, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for breaching a protection order is six months’ imprisonment, or, if an offender has two previous convictions for similar breaches within the preceding three years, up to two years’ imprisonment. The average length of custodial sentences imposed for breaching a protection order ranged from three to four months between 1997 and 2003. The average custodial sentence length declined from almost four months in 2004 to three and a half months in 2006.

Table 3.31 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of offence against the administration of justice, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Breach community work	-	-	-	-	-	1.9	1.6	1.6	1.5	1.5
Breach periodic detention	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.6	1.7*	-	-
Breach community service	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - breach work-related	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.5	1.5
Breach supervision	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.5	1.3	2.7	2.7
Breach conditions of release	1.6	1.5	1.3	1.6	1.8	1.2	2.4	2.1	2.2	2.5
Failure to answer bail	1.9	2.1	2.0	2.1	2.1	1.9	1.8	2.0	1.7	1.6
Breach protection/non-molestation order	3.4	2.9	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.9	4.0	3.9	3.8	3.5
Escape custody	4.9	6.5	4.5	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.6	3.8	4.3	4.8
Obstruct/pervert course of justice	9.0	12.4	9.8	10.3	9.1	11.5	12.2	11.0	9.9	9.9
Other against justice	12.5	5.0	3.1*	7.0	4.2	3.8	10.2	4.0	4.6	6.0
Overall average	2.9	3.1	2.7	2.9	2.8	3.1	3.6	2.6	2.7	2.6

3.9 Sentencing for offences against good order

This section presents information on the sentencing of all cases involving offences against good order, and then examines the use of custodial sentences for some individual offences against good order.

Tables 3.32 and 3.33 respectively show the number and percentage of cases involving offences against good order resulting in each type of sentence from 1997 to 2006.

Table 3.32 shows that the number of cases involving offences against good order increased steadily from 1997 to 2003. The 2006 figures recorded a 10% increase from 2005, from 8,697 to 9,571. As Table 3.33 shows, only a very small proportion (around 2%) of cases involving offences against good order resulted in a custodial sentence.

The proportion of cases involving offences against good order resulting in a work-related community sentence fluctuated between 9% and 13% from 1997 to 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion increased from 9% to 11%.

Supervision was the most serious sentencing outcome for around 3% of convicted cases involving offences against good order between 1997 and 1999. This proportion fell to 2% in the next two years and levelled off at 1% in 2002 and 2003, and has subsequently remained at this level.

Over half of the cases involving an offence against good order resulted in a monetary penalty. The proportion fluctuated between 56% and 65% between 1997 and 2003, and levelled off at 60% between 2004 and 2006.

Table 3.32 Number of convicted cases involving offences against good order resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	141	153	128	125	127	139	148	173	163	181
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	414	907	848	895	1037
Periodic detention	553	611	678	588	609	263	-	-	-	-
Community service	169	167	222	153	191	63	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	722	778	900	741	800	740	907	848	895	1037
Community programme	7	3	10	4	2	1	-	-	-	-
Supervision	158	159	181	169	142	107	85	100	102	108
Monetary	3671	3556	3900	4334	4910	5200	5767	5530	5068	5721
Deferment	610	696	731	820	777	833	927	1077	1096	1187
Other	4	4	9	3	14	13	4	10	10	9
Conviction & discharge	764	1002	980	1062	1095	1098	1091	1543	1363	1328
Total	6077	6351	6839	7258	7867	8131	8929	9281	8697	9571

Table 3.33 Percentage of convicted cases involving offences against good order resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	2.3	2.4	1.9	1.7	1.6	1.7	1.7	1.9	1.9	1.9
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	5.1	10.2	9.1	10.3	10.8
Periodic detention	9.1	9.6	9.9	8.1	7.7	3.2	-	-	-	-
Community service	2.8	2.6	3.2	2.1	2.4	0.8	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	11.9	12.3	13.2	10.2	10.2	9.1	10.2	9.1	10.3	10.8
Community programme	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	2.6	2.5	2.6	2.3	1.8	1.3	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.1
Monetary	60.4	56.0	57.0	59.7	62.4	64.0	64.6	59.6	58.3	59.8
Deferment	10.0	11.0	10.7	11.3	9.9	10.2	10.4	11.6	12.6	12.4
Other	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1
Conviction & discharge	12.6	15.8	14.3	14.6	13.9	13.5	12.2	16.6	15.7	13.9
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Table 3.34 shows the number of convicted cases by offence type. Tables 3.35 and 3.36 present information on the custodial sentences imposed for different types of offences against good order.

Table 3.34 shows that the offences of possession of an offensive weapon and disorderly behaviour increased over the decade. From 1997 to 2003, between 54% and 67% of cases involving offences against good order pertained to disorderly behaviour. In 2006, two-thirds of convicted cases involving offences against good order involved disorderly behaviour.

Table 3.34 Number of convicted cases involving each offence against good order, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Riot	5	2	2	17	10	4	4	10	2	0
Unlawful assembly	54	26	16	16	10	17	34	45	25	16
Possess offensive weapon	692	769	775	705	781	819	894	951	1061	1173
Offensive language	358	362	421	385	361	341	310	297	228	226
Disorderly behaviour	3307	3586	3938	4398	5000	5175	5976	6051	5593	6350
Trespassing	1488	1477	1573	1616	1575	1663	1614	1806	1695	1705
Other against good order	173	129	114	121	130	112	97	121	93	101
Total	6077	6351	6839	7258	7867	8131	8929	9281	8697	9571

Table 3.35 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of offence against good order, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Riot	40*	-	-	65	20	-	-	30	-	-
Unlawful assembly	11	19	13	13	10	0	0	9	4	0
Possess offensive weapon	9	10	7	8	7	8	8	9	9	9
Offensive language	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Disorderly behaviour	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Trespassing	4	3	4	3	4	3	4	3	3	3
Other against good order	2	1	1	2	0	4	5	9	2	6
Overall	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2

The proportion of cases involving unlawful assembly that resulted in a custodial sentence fluctuated across the period.

Table 3.36 shows that the average length of the custodial sentences imposed for good order offences overall averaged between three and five months from 1997 to 2003. The overall average fluctuated between three and four months from 2004 to 2006.

Table 3.36 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of offence against good order, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Riot	-	-	-	14.5	-	-	-	-	-	-
Unlawful assembly	3.3*	2.2*	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Possess offensive weapon	4.1	5.2	5.9	5.5	5.9	4.8	5.4	4.2	4.3	4.3
Offensive language	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Disorderly behaviour	1.5	1.1	1.3	1.7*	1.5*	2.0	6.1*	1.7	1.2	0.9
Trespassing	1.7	1.8	1.7	2.4	1.5	1.8	1.7	1.7	1.5	1.3
Other against good order	-	-	-	-	-	-	14.0*	15.9	-	27.3*
Overall average	2.9	3.4	3.8	4.9	3.5	3.4	4.2	4.0	3.2	3.8

3.10 Sentencing for traffic offences

Tables 3.37 and 3.38 respectively show the number and percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each type of sentence from 1997 to 2006.

The use of imprisonment for traffic offences remained consistent from 1997 to 2003, with 4% of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence each year. The proportion rose to 5% in the period from 2004 to 2006. 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 because of the large volume of convictions for these offences. In 2006, there were 2,070 traffic cases that resulted in a custodial sentence. This represented 20% of the total custodial sentences imposed in 2006.

Table 3.38 shows that around one-quarter of traffic offences resulted in a work-related community sentence from 1997 to 1999. The proportion remained stable at around 20% from 2000 onwards.

The proportion of convicted traffic cases resulting in a supervision sentence dropped from around 2% in 1997 to 1% in 2002, stabilising at just under 1% for the remainder of the decade.

Table 3.37 Number of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	1725	1788	1788	1580	1557	1635	1626	2122	2162	2070
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	3970	8164	8263	8519	9563
Periodic detention	6852	7347	6724	5389	5507	2410	-	-	-	-
Community service	3829	4190	3628	3085	2927	1321	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	10681	11537	10352	8474	8434	7701	8164	8263	8519	9563
Community programme	97	91	59	47	50	10	-	-	-	-
Supervision	982	961	779	698	611	347	298	302	328	312
Monetary	27387	28000	27681	28140	28206	27678	28053	30019	29457	30062
Deferment	45	56	85	69	68	53	59	84	68	52
Other	747	921	1032	1057	1018	1128	1214	1783	1783	1965
Conviction & discharge	952	1258	1420	2295	2425	2271	2152	2620	2038	1895
Total	42616	44612	43196	42360	42369	40823	41566	45193	44355	45919

Table 3.38 Percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	4.0	4.0	4.1	3.7	3.7	4.0	3.9	4.7	4.9	4.5
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	9.7	19.6	18.3	19.2	20.8
Periodic detention	16.1	16.5	15.6	12.7	13.0	5.9	-	-	-	-
Community service	9.0	9.4	8.4	7.3	6.9	3.2	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	25.1	25.9	24.0	20.0	19.9	18.9	19.6	18.3	19.2	20.8
Community programme	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	2.3	2.2	1.8	1.6	1.4	0.9	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7
Monetary	64.3	62.8	64.1	66.4	66.6	67.8	67.5	66.4	66.4	65.5
Deferment	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1
Other	1.8	2.1	2.4	2.5	2.4	2.8	2.9	3.9	4.0	4.3
Conviction & discharge	2.2	2.8	3.3	5.4	5.7	5.6	5.2	5.8	4.6	4.1
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Throughout the decade a monetary penalty was the most common penalty imposed for convicted traffic cases. This was the most serious penalty imposed for two-thirds of convicted traffic cases. This is principally because a large proportion of convicted traffic offences involve failure to comply with a prohibition of an enforcement officer, an offence which typically results in the imposition of a fine (see above Section 2.11).

Table 3.39 shows the number of convicted traffic cases by offence type. Tables 3.40 and 3.41 present data on the proportion of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence for different types of traffic offence. Between 1997 and 2006, nearly half of the cases involving traffic offences (between 45% and 48%) involved driving with excess alcohol.

Table 3.39 Number of convicted cases involving each traffic offence by offence type, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Driving causing death or injury	1040	1093	1069	989	932	935	1021	1072	1096	1105
Driving with excess alcohol	20282	20421	19589	18904	19756	18452	18703	20191	20593	21558
Driving while disqualified	7861	8605	7547	5753	5450	5012	5105	5615	5646	6200
Reckless/dangerous driving	1633	1790	1862	1612	1701	1866	2202	2868	3049	3189
Careless driving	7011	7695	6915	6257	5735	6057	5492	5457	5416	4998
Other traffic	4789	5008	6214	8845	8795	8501	9043	9990	8555	8869
Total	42616	44612	43196	42360	42369	40823	41566	45193	44355	45919

Table 3.40 Percentage of convicted cases involving traffic offences resulting in a custodial sentence by offence type, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Driving causing death or injury	5	6	6	6	7	8	7	9	9	10
Driving with excess alcohol	2	2	3	3	4	4	5	5	6	5
Driving while disqualified	15	14	14	15	14	14	13	15	15	13
Reckless/dangerous driving	3	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2
Careless driving	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Other traffic	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Overall	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	5

The proportion of cases involving driving causing death or injury resulting in imprisonment increased over the decade. Thus, although only 5% to 8% of such offences resulted in a custodial sentence from 1997 to 2003, between 2004 and 2006 the corresponding proportions were between 9% and 10%.

Similarly, the proportion of driving with excess alcohol cases (excluding those cases causing death or injury) resulting in a custodial sentence rose from 2% to 5% between 1997 and 2003. This increase may be partly explained by a legislative change in early 1999, which increased the maximum penalty for repeat drunk driving from three months’ to two years’ imprisonment. Between 2004 and 2006, the proportion of driving with excess alcohol cases resulting in a custodial sentence ranged from 5% to 6%.

Table 3.41 shows that the average length of custodial sentences imposed for traffic offences increased from just over five months in 1997 to seven and a half months in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006, the average sentence length remained steady at around seven months.

The average length of the custodial sentences imposed in cases involving driving causing death or injury fluctuated from year to year. In 2006, the average length of imprisonment imposed in such cases was 15 months.

Table 3.41 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of traffic offence, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Driving causing death or injury	15.5	12.7	13.1	16.7	11.4	14.4	16.5	15.0	13.6	15.0
Driving with excess alcohol	2.0	2.1	4.0	5.6	5.4	6.0	6.5	6.1	5.9	6.0
Driving while disqualified	6.4	6.6	6.9	7.6	7.5	8.3	8.1	7.5	7.0	7.4
Reckless/dangerous driving	1.9	1.7	3.5	3.2	1.8	1.9	2.3	2.2	2.1	2.3
Careless driving	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Other traffic	-	-	-	-	-	2.6*	-	3.7	2.3	2.1
Overall average	5.4	5.6	6.1	7.0	6.6	7.3	7.5	6.9	6.6	6.8

The average length of custodial sentences imposed for driving with excess alcohol increased from four months in 1999 to five and a half months in 2000. This change can, at least in part, be attributed to the legislative change in 1999 outlined above. From 2000 onwards, the average length of custodial sentence imposed for such offences remained stable at around six months.

A sentencing structure similar to that for driving with excess alcohol also exists for driving while disqualified offences. Prior to the Land Transport Act 1998, the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified (excluding cases resulting in death and injury) was three months’ imprisonment for the first offence, and for repeat offenders the maximum was five years’ imprisonment. The Land Transport Act reduced the maximum penalty for offenders convicted of a third or subsequent driving while disqualified offence from five to two years’ imprisonment. Despite this reduction, the average length of custodial sentence imposed for driving while disqualified offences has continued to increase – reaching eight months in 2002 and 2003. This was the longest average custodial sentence length recorded for driving while disqualified offences during the decade. The average length of custodial sentence ranged from seven to seven and a half months between 2004 and 2006. This increase, however, 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 recent years, with large increases in the sentences imposed for the drunk driving offence. This has meant that the major offence in some cases involving both drunk driving and driving while disqualified is now defined as driving with excess alcohol. In cases that still have driving while disqualified recorded as the most serious offence, the driving while disqualified offence is likely to be a more serious offence of this kind. It would therefore be anticipated that the average sentence imposed for driving while disqualified would be longer. The figures presented in Table 3.41 suggest that this has been the case.

3.11 Sentencing for miscellaneous offences

The majority of the miscellaneous offences are non-imprisonable. Consequently, only a small proportion of such offences result in imprisonment. Tables 3.42 and 3.43 respectively provide the number and percentage of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting in each sentence type. Table 3.43 shows that the proportion of miscellaneous offences resulting in imprisonment was between 1% and 2% from 1997 to 2003, while the proportion ranged from 2% to 3% between 2004 and 2006.

Table 3.42 Number of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	65	84	55	69	76	93	109	124	165	202
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	158	388	387	349	422
Periodic detention	141	223	172	162	175	78	-	-	-	-
Community service	116	122	135	87	80	65	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	257	345	307	249	255	301	388	387	349	422
Community programme	2	1	0	1	0	0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	45	35	50	37	30	16	16	10	20	31
Monetary	4072	3568	3545	2363	2534	3193	5071	4840	4555	6089
Deferment	68	74	89	53	72	70	75	85	83	98
Other	1	1	2	0	1	1	2	4	0	1
Conviction & discharge	448	529	426	242	210	242	472	474	591	684
Total	4958	4637	4474	3014	3178	3916	6133	5924	5763	7527

The proportion of miscellaneous offences resulting in community-based sentences fluctuated between 5% and 8% from 1997 to 2003. Around 6% of miscellaneous offences resulted in the imposition of a work-related community sentence between 2004 and 2006.

During the decade, a monetary penalty was the most frequent outcome for convicted cases involving a miscellaneous offence. Between 2004 and 2006, around 80% of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulted in the imposition of a monetary penalty.

Table 3.43 Percentage of convicted cases involving miscellaneous offences resulting in each type of sentence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Sentence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Custodial	1.3	1.8	1.2	2.3	2.4	2.4	1.8	2.1	2.9	2.7
Community work	-	-	-	-	-	4.0	6.3	6.5	6.1	5.6
Periodic detention	2.8	4.8	3.8	5.4	5.5	2.0	-	-	-	-
Community service	2.3	2.6	3.0	2.9	2.5	1.7	-	-	-	-
Subtotal - work-related	5.2	7.4	6.9	8.3	8.0	7.7	6.3	6.5	6.1	5.6
Community programme	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-	-	-	-
Supervision	0.9	0.8	1.1	1.2	0.9	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.4
Monetary	82.1	76.9	79.2	78.4	79.7	81.5	82.7	81.7	79.0	80.9
Deferment	1.4	1.6	2.0	1.8	2.3	1.8	1.2	1.4	1.4	1.3
Other	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
Conviction & discharge	9.0	11.4	9.5	8.0	6.6	6.2	7.7	8.0	10.3	9.1
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Table 3.44 shows the number of convicted cases by offence type. Tables 3.45 and 3.46 present data on the custodial sentencing of different offence types within the miscellaneous offence category.

Between 1997 and 2003, the proportion of convictions for miscellaneous cases concerning liquor-related offences ranged from 4% to 22%. In 2006, over half (56%) of the convictions for miscellaneous cases were liquor-related offences.

The proportion of cases involving offences under the Arms Act 1983 that resulted in a custodial sentence fluctuated from 10% to 17% between 1997 and 2003. The proportion rose from 13% in 2004 to 16% in 2006. Between 1997 and 2003, the average length of custodial sentence imposed for such offences fluctuated between 8 months and 12 months. In 2006, the average length of sentence imposed was ten and a half months.

In the period from 1997 to 2003, the average length of custodial sentence imposed for miscellaneous offences overall has fluctuated between 8 months and 13 months. The figures increased between 2004 and 2006, from 9 months to 12 months.

In more recent years, an increasing proportion of cases involving offences under the Tax Act resulted in a custodial sentence. Between 2004 and 2006, 3% of convicted cases involving these offences resulted in imprisonment. The average length of the custodial sentence imposed for such offences fluctuated between 10 and 16 months.

Table 3.44 Number of convicted cases involving each miscellaneous offence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Arms Act	410	445	451	361	340	333	382	410	395	450
Dog Control Act	1433	771	485	341	411	293	449	221	245	201
Tax Act	597	551	432	501	625	596	778	599	701	836
Liquor-related	785	1010	977	156	140	209	1071	2967	2544	4248
Fisheries Act	99	150	197	263	317	348	484	460	361	307
Other miscellaneous	1634	1710	1932	1392	1345	2137	2969	1267	1517	1485
Total	4958	4637	4474	3014	3178	3916	6133	5924	5763	7527

Table 3.45 Percentage of convicted cases resulting in a custodial sentence, by type of miscellaneous offence, 1997 to 2006

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Arms Act	13	14	10	16	16	17	14	13	14	16
Dog Control Act	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Tax Act	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	3	3
Liquor-related	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Fisheries Act	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	1	1
Other miscellaneous	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	4	6	7
Overall	1	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	3	3

Table 3.46 Average custodial sentence length imposed (in months), by type of miscellaneous offence, 1997 to 2006^1,2

	LES							CMS
Offence type	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Arms Act	10.0	8.3	9.4	10.5	8.1	12.2	11.5	8.4	11.3	10.6
Dog Control Act	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Tax Act	-	-	-	-	-	-	9.3*	15.8	10.0	12.1
Liquor-related	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Fisheries Act	-	-	-	-	-	23.5	-	-	-	-
Other miscellaneous	6.1	5.7	11.2	3.4*	8.0	7.8	6.4	7.0	9.4	13.7
Overall average	9.2	7.5	9.7	9.7	7.9	12.6	8.9	8.6	10.1	12.3

3.12 Sentences imposed in each court in 2006 for all offences

Table 3.47 shows the most serious sentence imposed for every case finalised in each court in 2006. In locations where there is a District and a High Court, the conviction figures from the two courts have been combined to form a single total.

Of the 112,774 cases resulting in a conviction in 2006, 111,875 (99%) were finalised in a District Court, and 860 (1%) were finalised in a High Court.[19]

Variation in the types of offences dealt with by individual courts (see Table 2.15) partly explains disparities in the sentences recorded for different courts. In addition, the availability of corrections facilities and services (e.g. work centres or programmes such as those to treat drug- or alcohol-related problems) in a location can affect which types of sentence are imposed. As noted in Chapter 2, some charges must be tried before a jury if the defendant pleads not guilty. Other charges can be tried before a judge alone, but the defendant can elect a jury trial. The least serious charges must be tried before a judge alone. If a person is charged with an offence that must be tried by a jury, but the closest court does not hold jury trials (e.g. Levin District Court), the case will be transferred to another court that holds such trials. For this reason, some of the more serious offences that were committed in locations such as Levin will appear in figures for other courts, and, as a consequence, may artificially exaggerate sentencing differences between courts.

Due to the small number of cases, Chatham Islands, Whataroa and Kaikoura have not been used for comparison with other locations. Table 3.47 shows that Auckland processed the highest total of cases in 2006 at 10,906. Other key trends for most serious sentence imposed for all convicted cases finalised in 2006 were as follows:

• The proportion of all convicted cases that resulted in a custodial sentence in each location ranged from 1% in Ruatoria, to 17% in Wanganui. The national average was 9%.

• The proportion of convicted cases receiving community-based sentences ranged from 13% of cases convicted in Queenstown to 48% of cases convicted in Ruatoria. This compared to 26% of all cases in New Zealand in 2006.

• In 2006, monetary penalties were imposed as the most serious sentence for 31% of cases in Opotiki, while in Waihi most cases resulted in a monetary penalty (75%). In New Zealand as a whole, 47% of cases resulted in monetary penalties.

• Overall, a total of 7% of cases in New Zealand resulted in ‘other’ sentences being imposed. In Waitakere, Upper Hutt, Lower Hutt and Westport, 11% of cases received ‘other’ sentences, compared to 3% in Ruatoria and Alexandra.

• In 2006, 18% of cases sentenced in Rotorua resulted in a conviction and discharge. The proportions in the other regions were lower than this, with the lowest figure recorded in Waihi, where 2% of cases resulted in a conviction and discharge. The national average was 11%.

Table 3.47 Most serious sentence imposed for all convicted cases finalised in each court location, 2006^1,2

	Custodial		Community- based3		Monetary		Other		Conviction & discharge		Total
Court	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Kaitaia	89	12	224	30	297	40	43	6	82	11	735	100
Kaikohe*	150	12	412	32	504	39	66	5	151	12	1283	100
Whangarei*	359	12	796	26	1523	50	143	5	222	7	3043	100
Dargaville	29	9	125	37	133	39	20	6	34	10	341	100
Warkworth	10	2	70	17	288	68	25	6	31	7	424	100
Auckland*	1039	10	1965	18	5621	52	845	8	1436	13	10906	100
Waitakere	231	5	1233	25	2080	42	536	11	862	17	4942	100
North Shore	268	7	861	22	2275	57	257	6	304	8	3965	100
Manukau*	773	9	2248	25	3994	44	571	6	1390	15	8976	100
Papakura	128	7	569	31	702	39	133	7	282	16	1814	100
Pukekohe	89	7	372	29	607	47	101	8	118	9	1287	100
Thames	27	4	201	28	392	55	43	6	56	8	719	100
Huntly	35	7	161	30	269	51	36	7	31	6	532	100
Waihi	29	2	225	19	872	75	19	2	24	2	1169	100
Morrinsville	31	5	158	26	343	56	29	5	51	8	612	100
Hamilton*	753	14	1354	25	2637	49	267	5	390	7	5401	100
Te Awamutu	20	6	99	28	205	58	13	4	15	4	352	100
Tauranga*	558	11	1251	25	2487	50	252	5	409	8	4957	100
Whakatane	158	11	486	32	675	45	70	5	109	7	1498	100
Opotiki	36	10	171	47	113	31	15	4	28	8	363	100
Ruatoria	1	1	54	48	43	38	3	3	11	10	112	100
Tokoroa	56	6	317	32	358	37	92	9	157	16	980	100
Rotorua*	374	12	939	29	1075	33	256	8	574	18	3218	100
Te Kuiti	18	5	128	36	168	47	16	5	25	7	355	100
Taupo	92	7	297	22	625	47	124	9	195	15	1333	100
Gisborne*	236	10	704	30	1084	46	129	5	200	8	2353	100
Wairoa	22	6	104	29	181	51	33	9	15	4	355	100
Taumaranui	33	10	125	36	143	42	30	9	12	3	343	100
New Plymouth*	262	10	788	29	1150	43	114	4	370	14	2684	100
Taihape	22	8	79	29	155	57	11	4	7	3	274	100
Napier*	381	14	765	29	1112	42	146	5	262	10	2666	100
Hastings	298	12	755	30	1067	43	134	5	229	9	2483	100
Hawera	66	7	368	38	383	39	44	5	116	12	977	100
Wanganui*	293	17	586	34	556	32	95	5	214	12	1744	100
Marton	18	5	83	25	161	49	29	9	39	12	330	100
Waipukurau	13	5	89	32	134	48	14	5	32	11	282	100
Dannevirke	20	8	85	34	109	44	10	4	25	10	249	100
Feilding	40	8	134	28	232	49	22	5	45	10	473	100
Palmerston North*	350	13	770	28	1310	47	151	5	212	8	2793	100
Levin	84	8	331	32	429	41	94	9	98	9	1036	100
Masterton	49	4	363	27	611	45	108	8	225	17	1356	100
Porirua	95	4	693	32	945	44	213	10	218	10	2164	100
Upper Hutt	35	4	255	27	400	42	110	11	158	16	958	100
Lower Hutt	83	4	695	29	992	42	272	11	327	14	2369	100
Wellington*	389	11	752	22	1576	46	306	9	421	12	3444	100
Chatham Islands	0	0	8	30	15	56	1	4	3	11	27	100
Nelson*	207	9	755	32	1022	43	129	5	245	10	2358	100
Blenheim*	81	7	298	26	594	53	53	5	100	9	1126	100
Westport	10	4	64	27	117	50	26	11	16	7	233	100
Greymouth*	34	6	171	28	322	53	54	9	24	4	605	100
Kaikoura	2	3	15	20	49	66	6	8	2	3	74	100
Christchurch*	1085	12	2264	25	4425	49	482	5	725	8	8981	100
Rangiora	27	4	170	25	408	59	42	6	39	6	686	100
Whataroa	0	0	5	17	22	73	0	0	3	10	30	100
Ashburton	22	5	127	30	209	49	26	6	41	10	425	100
Timaru*	121	10	306	24	672	53	66	5	100	8	1265	100
Oamaru	23	4	127	23	317	58	40	7	42	8	549	100
Queenstown	11	2	77	13	426	70	32	5	62	10	608	100
Alexandra	11	2	77	14	421	74	18	3	39	7	566	100
Dunedin*	356	11	856	25	1611	48	181	5	378	11	3382	100
Gore	27	6	117	26	235	53	32	7	36	8	447	100
Balclutha	10	4	50	22	136	59	15	6	21	9	232	100
Invercargill*	297	12	712	28	1190	47	163	6	165	7	2527	100
Total	10469	9	29439	26	53207	47	7406	7	12253	11	112774	100

3 Community-based sentences include community work and supervision.

3.13 Gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders

This section of the report presents information on the gender, age, and ethnicity of offenders that were sentenced in 2006. Although not examined in this report, some of the differences in sentencing seen by gender, age, and ethnicity will be due to differences in the types and seriousness of offences committed, differences in offending histories, as well as other factors. As discussed in Section 1.5, the way ethnicity data is collected has implications on its data quality.

Tables 3.48 to 349 respectively present information on the gender and age of offenders who received each type of sentence in 2006. Excluded from these tables were 931 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation.

Table 3.50 presents information on the ethnicity of offenders who received each type of sentence in 2006. Excluded from this table were 931 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation.

Table 3.48 shows that the majority of the offenders convicted in 2006 were male (82%). Male offenders were also more likely to be sent to prison than females, with 10% of all convicted males receiving custodial sentences, compared to 5% of all convicted females. This disparity is likely to be partially explained by differences in the seriousness of offending and offending histories. The figures show that one in ten cases resulting in a custodial sentence in 2006 involved female offenders, while nine in ten cases receiving custodial sentences involved male offenders.

Female offenders accounted for about one-fifth of community work and supervision sentences imposed in 2006.

Table 3.48 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and gender of the offender, 2006

	Male		Female		Unknown	Total
Most serious sentence	No.	%	No.	%	No.	No.
Custodial	9412	90	1040	10	17	10469
Community work	21947	81	5209	19	40	27196
Supervision	1738	78	504	22	1	2243
Monetary	42870	82	9381	18	177	52428
Deferment	3975	75	1352	25	13	5340
Other	1678	81	381	19	2	2061
Conviction & discharge	9666	80	2393	20	47	12106
Total	91286	82	20260	18	297	111843

Table 3.49 shows that cases involving offenders in their twenties accounted for 41% of the cases that resulted in a custodial sentence in 2006, with a further 12% of such cases involving offenders aged 17 to 19. Of the 1,316 cases involving teenagers that resulted in a custodial sentence, 98% involved offenders aged 17 to 19. One in five offenders receiving a custodial sentence in 2006 was aged 40 years or over.

Table 3.49 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and age of the offender, 2006

	14 to 16		17 to 19		20 to 24		25 to 29		30 to 39		40+		Unknown	Total
Most serious sentence	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	No.
Custodial	30	0	1286	12	2456	24	1822	17	2747	26	2093	20	35	10469
Community work	21	0	5618	21	6662	25	4057	15	6129	23	4604	17	105	27196
Supervision	7	0	387	17	438	20	351	16	613	27	435	19	12	2243
Monetary	304	1	12696	24	12723	24	6768	13	9627	18	9940	19	370	52428
Deferment	3	0	824	15	1034	19	734	14	1381	26	1345	25	19	5340
Other	32	2	606	29	469	23	254	12	322	16	376	18	2	2061
Conviction & discharge	95	1	2281	19	3185	27	1819	15	2625	22	2005	17	96	12106
Total	492	0	23698	21	26967	24	15805	14	23444	21	20798	19	639	111843

Offenders under 25 years of age accounted for 46% of the cases resulting in a community-work sentence in 2006.

In 2006, nearly two-thirds (304 out of 492) of the cases involving offenders aged 14 to 16 resulted in the imposition of a monetary penalty. For offenders in other age groups, the proportion resulting in a monetary penalty was much closer to a half.

Table 3.50 shows that for convicted cases in 2006, where the person’s ethnicity was recorded, 45% involved NZ European offenders, 43% involved Māori offenders, 9% involved Pacific offenders, and 3% involved offenders from other ethnic groups.

In 2006, Māori accounted for over half (53%) of the cases resulting in imprisonment, while 37% involved NZ Europeans, 7% involved Pacific peoples, and 3% involved persons from ‘Other’ ethnic groups. In 2006, 13% of all convicted cases involving Māori resulted in imprisonment, compared to 8% of cases involving NZ Europeans, 8% involving Pacific peoples, and 8% involving persons from ‘Other’ ethnic groups.

Māori offenders accounted for 49% of the cases resulting in a community work sentence in 2006, while 41% involved NZ Europeans, 8% Pacific peoples, and 2% persons from ‘Other’ ethnic groups.

In 2006, 51% of cases involving NZ European offenders resulted in the imposition of a monetary penalty. For cases involving Māori and Pacific peoples, the proportion that received a monetary penalty was lower at 37% and 45% respectively. For cases involving offenders from ‘Other’ ethnicities, 59% resulted in fines and/or reparation as the most serious sentence.

Table 3.50 Total number of cases resulting in conviction, by most serious sentence imposed and ethnicity of the offender, 2006^1,2

	NZ European		Maori		Pacific peoples		Other		Unknown	Total
Most serious sentence	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	No.
Custodial	3643	37	5298	53	723	7	256	3	549	10469
Community work	10256	41	12138	49	2072	8	450	2	2280	27196
Supervision	902	42	1003	47	210	10	35	2	93	2243
Monetary	22058	51	15559	36	4052	9	1789	4	8970	52428
Deferment	2108	41	2291	44	600	12	159	3	182	5340
Other	877	51	654	38	121	7	66	4	343	2061
Conviction & discharge	3845	37	5054	48	1322	13	274	3	1611	12106
Total	43689	45	41997	43	9100	9	3029	3	14028	111843

Table A2 in Appendix A presents information on the ethnicity of offenders who received each type of sentence in 2005. 751 cases where a conviction was entered against a corporation were excluded from this table.[20] The proportion of Māori, NZ Europeans, and Pacific peoples receiving each type of sentence in 2005 was similar to the proportions found in 2006.

3.14 Summary of key findings

The key findings for this chapter are as follows:

• Between 2004 and 2006, the number of convicted cases increased by 3%, from 109,017 to 112,774.

• Between 1997 and 2002, 8% of convicted cases resulted in a custodial sentence. However, in 2003 9% of convicted cases did so, and between 2004 and 2006, an average of 10% of convicted cases each year had custodial sentences imposed.

• During the decade, the proportion of custodial sentences imposed increased for violent offences, property, drug and miscellaneous offences. The proportion of custodial sentences decreased for offences against the administration of justice.

• Between 1998 and 2003, the proportion of convicted cases resulting in a work-related community sentence declined. From 2004 to 2006, 23% to 24% of all cases resulted in a work-related community sentence being imposed as the most serious sentence.

• Between 1997 and 2006, the proportion of work-related community sentences imposed generally declined for other offences against the person, offences against the administration of justice, property, drug and traffic offences.

• During the decade, around half of all convicted cases resulted in the imposition of a monetary penalty.

• The average length of custodial sentences imposed for property, drug and traffic offences generally increased during the decade.

• In 2006, 10% of convicted cases involving males resulted in imprisonment compared to 5% of cases involving females.

• Cases involving offenders aged 20 to 29 accounted for 41% of custodial sentences imposed during 2006, while cases involving those aged 14 to 19 comprised 13%.

• In 2006, Māori offenders accounted for 53% of cases resulting in imprisonment. A further 37% of cases resulting in custodial sentences involved NZ European offenders, 7% involved Pacific offenders, and 3% involved offenders from other ethnic groups.

• In 2006, 13% of convicted cases involving Māori offenders resulted in imprisonment, while 8% of cases involving NZ Europeans and Pacific peoples had custodial outcomes.

---

Footnotes

9 The sentences available to the courts changed over the decade. Section 3.2 describes these changes.

10 Sentence ranking was determined from factors such as the level of restriction and requirements placed on the offender. See Section 2.4 for further information of the calculation of seriousness scores.

11 Prior to 30 June 2002, these offenders could be sentenced to imprisonment, corrective training, periodic detention, or community service.

12 While the activation of prison sentences is not usually recorded in the data used for this report, the person is often imprisoned for the subsequent offence at the same time, which is recorded in the data.

13 In the most serious murder cases, where there is at least one aggravating factor, a life sentence must be imposed and the court must impose a minimum period of at least 17 years before the offender will be eligible for parole, unless it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so. However, the court can impose a determinate sentence when unusual mitigating factors would make a life sentence clearly unjust (Ministry of Justice 2002).

14 The regime for release on home detention from a sentence of imprisonment outlined above was repealed on 1 October 2007. While not impacting on the interpretation of the data presented in this report, it is important to note that from 1 October 2007 a new custodial sentence of home detention and a new ‘residential restrictions’ special condition of parole came into force.

15 In some instances, the start date of a prison sentence could be deferred by the court for up to two months. This allowed the offender to apply to the Parole Board for home detention, and, if the application was granted, meant the person started home detention without serving any time in prison.

16 Only court-imposed fines are included in this report. Fines resulting from infringement notices (for example, speeding, parking offences, etc.) filed with the District Court for enforcement are not included.

17 Research investigating District Court Judges’ views on court-imposed fines conducted in 2001 found that some judges felt that the Sentencing Act 2002 would make little difference to current practice because they were already imposing a fine whenever possible. Other judges, however, were reluctant to see fines used more widely—mainly due to many offenders’ inability to pay. The study, which included a survey of all district judges (n=64), found that half of the participating judges said they would impose an alternative sentence in more than 50% of cases because the offender could not afford to pay the fine they would usually impose (Searle 2003).

18 The seriousness score groupings in the table have little inherent meaning, but are a useful way of categorising offences—see Section 2.4 for a description of the way these seriousness scores are calculated.

19 The table excludes three cases where a custodial sentence was imposed, but the location is unknown due to incorrect data coding.

20 Problems with the electronic transfer of 2005 ethnicity data were identified last year where a larger proportion of defendants had unknown ethnicity in their records than in previous years. While the problems were under investigation, the 2004 ethnicity data were presented in the 2005 report titled ‘Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand: 1996–2005’.