Going to jail because you don’t live within cellphone coverage

…it was in the Hamilton District Court that I first saw the difference between coming from a family with money and influence and coming from a family that was dysfunctional and impoverished of spirit.

A young man was in the dock – he was charged with assault, resisting arrest, offensive language – the usual offences a young man clocks up when he’s mad with the drink.I knew him as an acquaintance.

I wasn’t surprised to see him in the dock but I was certainly taken aback by his spruced-up appearance. His hair was cut, he was freshly shaved, his tatts were covered by an expensive new suit and he was being represented by a fancy lawyer.

His parents, respectable business people, were in the front row to support their black sheep of a son.

I listened, astonished, as the lawyer painted this aggressive oik as a brilliant young man, a flower of New Zealand youth, whose enormous potential would be blighted by a conviction.

Imagine the loss to the country should this extraordinary human being be denied the opportunity to flourish – on and on the lawyer went, certainly earning his exorbitant hourly rate. Sure enough, the young man was discharged without conviction.

Two cases on, another young man was appearing for sentencing for almost exactly the same crimes. Assault and resisting arrest after a bender.

Only this young man was Maori, in jeans and a dirty T-shirt, with no family to support him and represented by a court-appointed lawyer.

This young man was sent to prison – from memory it was for nine months – to act as a short sharp shock, according to the judge, to deter him from a life of crime.

I thought it was terribly unfair but I didn’t think it was racism. I thought it was about the difference in economic circumstances.

Thirty years on I think it’s much the same in the case of the four Northland teenagers who were sentenced to home detention after going on a burglary spree totalling nearly $80,000 in stolen property.

There was outrage that the four (Pakeha) boys had got off so lightly. Many suggested the outcome would have been quite different if the boys had been Maori.

But once again, I think it comes down to economics. They or rather their families, have repaid some of the money owed and are able to pay reparations.

The judge, under the Sentencing Act, is required to look at home detention as an option where the sentence would otherwise be two years’ jail or less and in this case, the judge was able to take this option because the boys all had homes and they all had homes with good cellphone coverage.

When people are on home detention, there must be cellphone coverage.

And so a lot of young people miss out on the softer option because they don’t have supportive families, they don’t have a place they can call home and some of them live in remote parts of the country where cellphone coverage is, at best, patchy.

I can understand why people were upset at what appears to be a very light sentence for a bunch of overprivileged little oiks who went out thieving purely for giggles.

But accusing the judge of racism is unfair.

Blame the Sentencing Act in the first instance, if you want to, and then let’s work on improving the circumstances of under-privileged young people, many of them Maori, so that the law can be seen to be applied fairly and evenly across society.

You shouldn’t be able to get a soft option simply because your parents earn more money than their neighbour.



– Kerry McIvor, NZ Herald

Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

To read Cam’s previous articles click on his name in blue.