Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says it is a “possibility” that the Government could introduce more minimum or mandatory sentences for crimes.

Mandatory sentences would mean the Government has more power over sentences and judges less.

Currently, when penalties are established for different offences, lawmakers normally set out a “maximum” sentence. For example, the Government’s newly announced coward punch offence has maximum sentences of either eight years or 15 years’ imprisonment, depending on the situation.

Judges then have discretion to take into account aggravating or mitigating circumstances. An example would be where someone pleads guilty to an offence in court, they could receive a discount from the judge’s starting point of up to 25%. Alternatively, someone committing a crime with a weapon may have their sentence increased.

Regardless, the punishment cannot go beyond the legislated maximum sentence.

Late last month, Government changes came into effect capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply in most cases at 40%. However, if a judge thought this sentence would be “manifestly unjust”, they can exceed this discount cap.

Discussing the policy on TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday morning, Goldsmith said judges had handed down “significant discounts”. He noted that the imprisonment rate for robbery had reduced from about 74% in 2016/17 to 58% in 2023.

“So people are convicted of serious violent crimes and the community is flabbergasted to say, ‘well, hang on a moment, you’re convicted of a serious violent assault and then boom, boom, boom, boom, and you end up on home detention playing PlayStation’,” he said.

He said the purpose of the legislation should be to denounce the crime.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the Government wanted to restore "real consequences" for crime. Photo / Michael Craig

Goldsmith said it was important to still have the up to 25% discount for an offender pleading guilty and then allowing “a bit of flexibility” for judges.

The minister said the 40% cap gave judges a “measure of discretion” and believed it was a “good balance”.

Asked by TVNZ political editor Maiki Sherman why not have a discount rate of 0% if the Government wanted to be tough on crime, Goldsmith said some people did argue for that.

“You get a very different view if you go to a public meeting in Papatoetoe on this issue and they say we’re too soft at 40%,” he said.

“How we’ve operated in New Zealand is that we’ve had maximum sentences for offences and then judicial discretion under that. What we’re doing by this is tightening that discretion, so Parliament is sending a message to the judiciary: we want tougher consequences.”

Goldsmith said an alternative was where the Government could instead “say, ‘you’re gonna have mandatory sentences or minimum sentences’.”

“That’s all a possibility. We haven’t taken that step yet. But we could.”

He said the judiciary was an “independent wing of government”, but Parliament set the sentencing law.

“We have got different options if this doesn’t work,” he said.

The use of mandatory sentences has previously received criticism for removing the flexibility of judges to tailor sentences to an offender’s personal circumstances.

One notable example is with the Three Strikes regime, which was introduced under the past National Government, repealed under Labour, and then re-introduced by the coalition this term.

The Three Strikes legislation requires offenders be warned of the consequences of re-offending at their first strike, denied parole at their second, and then forced to serve the maximum penalty of their offence without parole on their third strike.

The legislation allows some narrow judicial discretion in that judges can consider whether it would be “manifestly unjust” to impose the maximum sentence or no parole.

When the current Government brought the regime back, Labour said it was an “attack on the judiciary” and repeated offending was already an aggravating factor so judges could impose lengthy sentences where appropriate.

Goldsmith told Q+A that the recent law and order initiatives were intended to send a clear message that the Government was restoring “real consequences for crime”.

Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.