Labour appoints judges who share their ideology. National just seems to accept whatever candidate the swamp offers up. When National is in power, the Attorney General or Justice Minister needs to thoroughly vet each candidate and reject unsuitable ones. If they do that, the problem will eventually go away. If they don't, it will be an uphill battle because it is so easy for judges to apply their own interpretation instead of what Parliament intended.
The entire report is an explanation of that. And you can add judges who think sentencing is more about the needs of the offender than protecting the public from future harm.
MayI suggest you read the section of my article about reforming the appointment process. Mr Partridges suggestions are a prospective interference with judicial independence although he would suggest otherwise. A more nuanced treatment than he gives is required.
As to your final comment may I refer you to section 8(g) of the Sentencing Act - Judges must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances - that is in the legislation that Parliament enacted. Legislative supremacy requires judges to take that into account. Your comment is, with respect, a bit simplistic.
Labour appoints judges who share their ideology. National just seems to accept whatever candidate the swamp offers up. When National is in power, the Attorney General or Justice Minister needs to thoroughly vet each candidate and reject unsuitable ones. If they do that, the problem will eventually go away. If they don't, it will be an uphill battle because it is so easy for judges to apply their own interpretation instead of what Parliament intended.
By the way - I was appointed by a Labour Government back in 1988. Never voted Labour before or since
Define “unsuitable”
The entire report is an explanation of that. And you can add judges who think sentencing is more about the needs of the offender than protecting the public from future harm.
MayI suggest you read the section of my article about reforming the appointment process. Mr Partridges suggestions are a prospective interference with judicial independence although he would suggest otherwise. A more nuanced treatment than he gives is required.
As to your final comment may I refer you to section 8(g) of the Sentencing Act - Judges must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances - that is in the legislation that Parliament enacted. Legislative supremacy requires judges to take that into account. Your comment is, with respect, a bit simplistic.