Criminal Injustice Remains

Mana (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 11, 24 November 1977, Page 3

Criminal Injustice Remains

In the last issue of MANA we pointed to the fact that Maoris in 1971 were four times more likely to be charged of a criminal offence and eight times more likely to be found guilty than a Pakeha. That proportion has been reduced since that time, but only fractionally. With Pacific Islanders, we continue to be the major people charged and convicted of petty offences. Oliver Sutherland. John Hippolite and others on the Nelson Maori Action Committee found several years ago that when Maoris had legal representation, the imprisonment rate among Maoris dropped by a third. When they had a lawyer to represent them. Maoris had charges withdrawn or dismissed. and were more likely to be fined than imprisoned. It might, therefore, have been expected that the Duty Solicitor Scheme which was introduced by Martyn Finlay when he was Minister of Justice. would have helped to reduce the number of our people who were being tossed into prison. However, this has not proved to be the case. We still make up the bulk of the prison population. and the reasons for this are not hard to find. The Duty Solicitor Scheme was unlikely to ever be the answer to our problems because of the weaknesses inherent in the scheme. The scheme has always been dependent upon the goodwill of a few lawyers who have literally slogged their guts out to make it work. But the majority of lawyers considered the return for such work to be far too small for their grossly overvalued talents, and they were not prepared to involve themselves in the scheme. Furthermore, senior partners were not prepared to allow their juniors to be involved in the scheme when their time could be spent more profitably elsewhere. Another difficulty has been caused by the inability of many white bourgeouis lawyers to relate to the Court's clientele. Before the scheme even started, it was realised that liaison people were going to be needed who could relate to alleged Maori offenders. Typically though, no provision was made to employ these people. The result. which was entirely predictable. is that many Duty Solicitors have not been successful in winning the cooperation. let alone the trust, of many alleged offenders. In many areas of the Country. MANA's enquiries lead us to believe that the scheme has almost completely broken down. Representa-

tives of Community groups involved in Adminstrative Committees are unable to even get meetings arranged. In Auckland, for example, the Registrar of the Auckland Magistrate's Court unilaterally decided meetings need not be called, and has refused requests for a meeting. The Law Society has been pressing for increased fees for lawyers, so that they will be encouraged to participate in the Duty Solicitor's scheme. This is not the answer though. If fees are increased, more lawyers may partici- < pate in the scheme, but many of these will have no real interest. and even less real talent. and they will do little to help people accused of offences. What is needed is a scheme which will encourage lawyers with strong social

consciences and genuine abilities to take part in a workable and rewarding scheme. People will get far better service, and are more likely to get justice from lawyers who are interested in the work they are doing. The most equitable solution would be to provide Public Defenders, together with an extended Neighbourhood Law Office Service. The breakdown of the sDuty Solicitor Scheme provides a partial explanation of why the charge rate and conviction rate of our people is still out of all proportion to our percentage of the total population. These figures will remain high, as long as we have monocultural lawas supported by a racist judicial system, and a police force which operates on ethnically selective lines.