I detest "empower" but the word is most apt in connection with the restoration of victims of crime.

Today Christie Marceau's family took their cause to Parliament, petitioning for a criminal justice system less prone to subordinating victims to the interests of criminals.

I happen not to support more changes to bail. But I support fully the constant pressure from such families and the Sensible Sentencing Trust, for restoration of the balance between the victim and the criminal.

Crime disempowers victims. It drives home to them, and all the innocent associated with them, the fragility of their safety, and of civilisation. It crushes victims with their helplessness, the violation drives home their awareness of dependence on others to protect them from bullies bigger and more ruthless and less honest or decent and well meaning than themselves.

The trial and in particular sentencing should be the reassertion of balance, the restoration of the expectation that civility and social norms will pay, the convincing rebuttal to the evidence up to then (for the victim) that crime pays, cheats prosper and bullies prevail.

The judges at sentencing are rebalancing  the scales of justice, wielding the sword of justice for the innocent majority against those who would otherwise make them all mugs for sticking to the rules.

So I found disturbing recent reporting of senior judges' late and rushed comments to a Select Committee considering the Victims Rights Reform Bill.

The Bill purports to remove some of the restrictions that have lead to Court censorship of "impact statements"  that have added insult to the injury of victims. In fact the Bill's changes are less straightforward than victims thought. In some respects may even reduce the likelihood  that victims will get to say what they think to the offender.

It looks very much as if judges have been used by officials to head off an alarming potential  burst of independence and leadership from the Select Committee.  As reported the judges, instead of presenting as champions for vicitms on sentencing,  look like apologists for the offenders.

" They said the Victims of Crime Reform Bill could create expectations that a victim could express a view on sentencing, which was not provided for in law. This risks "causing further upset and trauma to victims and undermining confidence in the judiciary".

That called for further investigation. The letter from the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge is posted on the Select Committee site here. So why not urge that it be made clear that victims could express a view on sentencing. Offenders and their families and whanau already have that right. Why should whanau have a greater right to be heard than the victim?

27 Offender may request court to hear person on personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background of offender

• (1) If an offender appears before a court for sentencing, the offender may request the court to hear any person or persons called by the offender to speak on—

  • (a) the personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background of the offender:

  • (b) the way in which that background may have related to the commission of the offence:

  • (c) any processes that have been tried to resolve, or that are available to resolve, issues relating to the offence, involving the offender and his or her family, whanau, or community and the victim or victims of the offence:

  • (d) how support from the family, whanau, or community may be available to help prevent further offending by the offender:

  • (e) how the offender's background, or family, whanau, or community support may be relevant in respect of possible sentences.

  (2) The court must hear a person or persons called by the offender under this section on any of the matters specified in subsection (1) unless the court is satisfied that there is some special reason that makes this unnecessary or inappropriate.

  (3) If the court declines to hear a person called by the offender under this section, the court must give reasons for doing so.

  (4) Without limiting any other powers of a court to adjourn, the court may adjourn the proceedings to enable arrangements to be made to hear a person or persons under this section.

  (5) If an offender does not make a request under this section, the court may suggest to the offender that it may be of assistance to the court to hear a person or persons called by the offender on any of the matters specified in subsection (1). 

Making it clear that victims should be heard would give meaning to other provisions of the Sentencing Act that are too often treated as mere formalities, pious statements that need not interfere with the Court's grand role as therapist for offenders.

7 Purposes of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders

(1) The purposes for which a court may sentence or otherwise deal with an offender are—

• • …(c) to provide for the interests of the victim of the offence; or

8  Principles of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders

• In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court—

  • (a) must take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender; and

  • (b) must take into account the seriousness of the type of offence in comparison with other types of offences, as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences; and

  • (c) must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

  • (d) must impose a penalty near to the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

  • (e) must take into account the general desirability of consistency with appropriate sentencing levels and other means of dealing with offenders in respect of similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances; and

  • (f) must take into account any information provided to the court concerning the effect of the offending on the victim;

10 Court must take into account offer, agreement, response, or measure to make amends

• (1) In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account—

  • (a) any offer of amends, whether financial or by means of the performance of any work or service, made by or on behalf of the offender to the victim:

  • (b) any agreement between the offender and the victim as to how the offender may remedy the wrong, loss, or damage caused by the offender or ensure that the offending will not continue or recur:

  • (c) the response of the offender or the offender's family, whanau, or family group to the offending: