Yesterday I met a man whose daughter was killed last year.  Her alleged killer was released on bail pending trial, and was soon back on the streets of the small town near the victims’ family farm. Like many lay people, the father was astounded that an accused murderer could be released on bail, and indeed it was once rare if not unknown for that to occur.  The realisation that things were not as he thought led the father to do some research, the results of which astounded me and other lawyers I have spoken to.

About 20% of persons accused of murder – or about 10 persons per year - are apparently released on bail. Of those, it seems that an average of one accused per year commits homicide again while on bail.  While I have not yet personally seen the responses under the Official Information Act to support that assertion, the father assures me that he has them, and he did not seem the kind of person to have made it up. I will blog further when I see the material he is sending me.

Less shocking but still disturbing is the phenomenon of serious drug offenders – such as P manufacturers – committing further serious offences while on bail. The reason appears to be twofold: firstly such offenders know that they are now going away for a long time, as the courts have become harder on serious drug offending; secondly concurrent sentencing means that such offenders effectively get heavily discounted sentences for offences committed while on bail.

The New Zealand Herald reports today on one such offender, sentenced to 12 years for P manufacture and other offences. It appears he was initially released on bail, but then reoffended, and was brought back before the court for breach of bail conditions.  At that bail hearing, he absconded from the court, and was at large for six months. When located, he had a loaded shotgun on the car seat beside him, a rifle under the seat, a stun gun, cash, stolen jewellery, and counterfeit New Zealand driving licences.

For this huge dollop of offending he got 12 years, with a minimum non parole period of six years. At most, perhaps one or two years was added to his sentence for the crimes committed on bail.  Since by his own admission he had sold more than half a kilo of P, he was always going to get nine or ten years for that alone.

It is important to preserve the principal of “innocent till proven guilty”, and I would never argue against that.  Against that laudable principle, we must consider and balance the protection of the public from those who would harm them. On my recent visits to prisons, I have consistently found that less than 5% of those on remand are eventually found not guilty. It is clear then that Judges are not remanding too many people in prison pending trial.  In light of the evidence uncovered by the bereaved father, the question we need to address is whether the Judges are leaving too many out in the community.