Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider this bill. I am pleased to have my member’s bill drawn from the ballot. This bill will amend section 272 of the Crimes Act 1961 to increase the maximum penalty for providing explosives to commit an offence from 2 years’ to 5 years’ imprisonment. At present there is an inconsistency between the maximum penalties for people who provide explosives, compared with people who have possession of a dangerous weapon. The maximum penalty for providing explosives to commit an offence is 2 years’ imprisonment. Considering the harm and death that explosives can cause, a 2-year prison sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or the potential for harm.

In this day and age the use of explosives internationally has increased. It has increased in New Zealand as well as in other parts of the world, over recent years. From 1980 to 2015 there were 26 charges of providing explosives to commit crime. Of those, there were four imprisonments. Under this bill there could be longer sentencing periods for those. Again, I would like to reiterate that explosives cause immeasurable harm to innocent bystanders. This bill is sending a strong message that supplying explosives is unacceptable.

Another reason for this bill is to fix up inconsistent sentencing guidelines in the Crimes Act. Under section 202A, individuals carrying or possessing dangerous weapons unlawfully are potentially liable for a longer term of imprisonment than an individual who knowingly provides explosives, intending to endanger property or people. So that does not make sense. That is what this member’s bill is about.

A person carrying an offensive weapon, even when they do not cause any harm, can face a term of imprisonment of up to 3 years, and yet a person who provides an explosive, such as a bomb, knowing it will be used to commit a crime, can be committed to prison only for up to 2 years. We do not want harsh penalties for relatively minor offences and soft penalties for offences that have the potential to cause major harm to people and the community. This is why a change is appropriate.

Providing an explosive to someone for the purpose of an offence is objectively worse than simply carrying an offensive weapon, and so the maximum sentence should therefore be higher. A maximum 5-year term of imprisonment is needed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter others, without being unnecessarily harsh. The offence does not have a minimum penalty, so when sentencing for this offence arises in court a judge can impose what he or she considers to be a fair and reasonable penalty.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.