What’s in a name? A history of New Zealand’s unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom

The principle of open justice, including the media’s right to attend and report on criminal courts, must be balanced with the protection of individuals’ privacy and an accused person’s fair trial rights. Prohibiting media from identifying those involved in criminal cases is one way privacy and fair trial rights may be protected in New Zealand. Court news was not always restricted in this way: 115 years ago all parts of criminal court proceedings could be reported and media decided what information was censored. In 1905, New Zealand judges were given the power to suppress court evidence to protect public morality, and 15 years later, the power to suppress the names of certain first offenders to give them a second chance. The laws now stretch to suppressing many kinds of evidence and the identities of some people accused and convicted of New Zealand’s most serious crimes. Investigation of the 115-year-long evolution of New Zealand’s name suppression laws illuminates a piecemeal, but severe, curtailment of media freedom and a trend of imposition of increasingly complex laws which journalists must keep abreast of, understand and observe to prevent appearing before the courts themselves.

Multiple Convictions

Little has been written about the sizable majority of defendants who are convicted of several offenses at the same time or have previously been convicted of others. That is not a small oversight. Efforts to address it expose fundamental conceptual problems. The biggest is the multiple offense paradox. Efforts to offer principled accounts of the sentencing of multiple offenses founder on it. In Western legal systems, individuals sentenced following multiple convictions receive a bulk discount that results in a lesser total punishment than if each conviction had resulted in the punishment normally imposed on a first offender convicted of a single offense. By contrast, sentences of people convicted of separate offenses in successive proceedings usually include recidivist premiums that result in harsher punishments, often much harsher, than first offenders receive for the same offense.

Youth Work and Social Pedagogy

The most visible differentiation between models of youth justice across Europe exists in tensions between welfare-based and justice-based approaches. Proponents of welfare-based interventions often find themselves conflicted by the current growth of a right-wing, nationalistic, and perhaps at times xenophobic political climate throughout Europe, calling for tougher sanctions and sentences for young offenders. As a consequence, the promotion of any primarily welfare-based approaches within youth justice settings throughout Europe has been slow to emerge within key strategies to develop effective interventions with young offenders. This chapter explores the merits of a youth justice model that embraces the “children first—offenders second” approach, and it examines the potential role that a hybrid model of youth work practice and social pedagogy theory might play in achieving one of the key principles of the Council of Europe: integrating young offenders back into society, and not their marginalization and social exclusion.

Abolishing Youth Justice Systems: Children First, Offenders Nowhere

The 1980s decade of diversion in UK youth justice consolidated critiques of iatrogenic systemic contact and generated an abolitionist momentum that was significantly reversed by the 1990s punitive turn and ‘new youth justice’ strategies of modernisation, expansionism, interventionism and risk management. However, the tentative rejection of risk management and the rebirth of diversion in contemporary youth justice offer new hope for abolitionist arguments. This article critically evaluates contemporary abolitionist arguments, asserting that Children First definitions and diversionary, Bureau model responses could coalesce to form an innovative paradigm to replace traditional, formal conceptions of youth justice ‘systems’.

Robe versus Brief im Diversionsverfahren

Juvenile delinquency is omnipresent and ubiquitous. In times of resource-limited personnel policy, dwindling social control and media-effective appeals for sanctions, how should the judiciary react to typical crimes of young first offenders? Is an informal letter enough to lead the young person back to the right path? Or must the juvenile delinquent truly experience the power of the state in robes in order to persuade him or her to live in accordance with the law? This dissertation seeks to answer these questions. It offers an empirical study to determine whether a diversion variant within the informal settlements of the German JGG yields superior results in terms of special prevention and procedural economics. Based on these insights, the dissertation formulates a diversion guideline that makes the advantages of a juvenile court hearing available to diversion proceedings and, at the same time, bridges the gap between the requirements of science and the possibilities of practice.

The Model Regime

This chapter outlines a model regime of prior record enhancement (PRE), designed to promote more rational, parsimonious, and humane sentences. It provides general principles and specific rules reflecting what is known about PRE justifications, costs, benefits, and adverse consequences. The principles specify which punishment purposes justify PRE, while also recognizing the overarching importance of maintaining proportionality to conviction offense seriousness, ensuring that PREs are necessary and cost-effective, minimizing racial disparities and imprisonment of aging and nonviolent offenders, avoiding interference with offender efforts at desistance, and striking a reasonable balance between rule and discretion. The model’s PRE counting rules exclude juvenile and misdemeanor priors, convictions more than 10 years old, upweighting of felonies based on their severity or similarity, and custody status points. First offenders receive substantial sentence mitigation, after which PRE magnitude increases modestly and is capped. High-history offenders are punished no more than twice as severely as first offenders.

Retributivist Perspectives on an Offender’s Criminal or Crime-Free Past

Proponents of retribution (Just Deserts) as a punishment rationale sharply disagree about whether repeat offenders are more culpable for a new offense, in comparison to offenders with little or no prior record. Some retributivists assert that prior convictions should have no bearing on the offender’s culpability and deserved punishment for his latest offense. Other retributivists argue that first offenders are less culpable and deserve sentence mitigation; some of these writers would extend a lesser degree of mitigation to offenders with only a minor record. A third group of retributivists views prior crimes as an aggravating factor, justifying steady increases in punishment severity as offenders acquire more convictions. This chapter critiques each of these three approaches. It argues that first offenders deserve substantial mitigation, that sentence severity should rise only modestly with additional convictions, and that such enhancements must be “capped” to preserve proportionality to the crime being sentenced.

Recidivism and Neighborhood Governance

Recent research on recidivism emphasizes the importance of neighborhoods to successful prisoner reentry. This research analyzes two ways in which institutions of neighborhood governance affect reentry. First, offenders in neighborhoods with institutions supporting social control may have more success in reintegrating into the community. Second, neighborhood institutions may create barriers to entry for ex-offenders more likely to reoffend. To test this, we combine Arkansas Department of Corrections data on offenders returning to Little Rock between 2004 and 2014 with geocoded data on neighborhood and homeowner associations. We analyze this data using Cox proportional hazards and two-stage residual inclusion models of recidivism hazard. We find that a significant relationship exists between recidivism hazard and neighborhood governance, but that this is attributable to nonrandom assignment of ex-offenders to neighborhoods rather than the role neighborhood organizations play in facilitating reentry.