Internet Party bio photo

Internet Party

New Zealand Political Party.

Twitter Facebook Google+ Instagram Github Pinterest Youtube

The Internet Party believes in a fair, restorative, balanced and solution-focused system of justice for New Zealand.

The Internet Party will:

  • Increase the use of non-custodial, rehabilitative and restorative approaches to overcoming crime in the community, through a series of actions based on international evidence and best practice.

  • Continue to improve systems and programmes in prison so that when prisoners are released they will have access to jobs, education, housing and other services, and will be less likely to re-offend.

  • Investigate the procedures used in sexual assault cases.

Further details

  1. The Internet Party supports an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2002 to promote community-based sentences. Section 15A(1)(b) of the Act should be changed to refer to a period of three years, instead of a “short-term sentence”, which currently means two years.

As it currently stands, a judge cannot exercise his or her discretion when a sentence of two or more years is required and must impose imprisonment - even if a community-based sentence would achieve the legislative intentions.

  1. In line with the Law Commission and JustSpeak’s 2014 recommendation, the Internet Party supports establishing a Sentencing Council composed of experts that will produce evidence- and consultation-based sentencing guidelines. The Council would involve the community and aim to promote consistency in sentencing and transparency, and take on an evidence-based approach.

  2. The Internet Party will propose allocating more funds into rehabilitative programmes with the aim of reducing re-offending. Programmes that are aimed at helping released prisoners settle back into society, rehabilitate and tackle the root cause of offending in the first place, are critical to minimising the chances of re-offending.

  3. The Internet Party supports the Law Commission’s recommendations, in particular, the recommendations provided by Yvette Tinsley and Elisabeth McDonald in considering alternative trial processes in sexual assault cases. For example, we support the idea of specialist judges and counsel involved in sexual assault cases. However, we oppose the recommendation to make legislative changes to allow finders of fact to draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s failure to be a witness.

  4. We oppose shifting the burden of proof to the accused in sexual assault cases as proposed by the Labour party.