An opinion piece written in Newsroom by Auckland University Associate Professor Carrie Leonetti provided a critique of the “two-tiered system of justice” in New Zealand.
>> Latest NZ law jobs here on LawFuel
The Polkinghorne trial, she said, serves as a stark example of how wealth and privilege can significantly influence the legal process.
As an international innocence researcher, Leonetti looked at the perspective on the concept of exoneration and how it applies to the Polkinghorne case and the use of the dock by the New Zealand system compared to the United States.
“As an American, I was gob-smacked by the whole ‘dock’ thing here. I grew up watching old English crime dramas but I always assumed that the dock – like the wigs and robes – was artistic license . . . Using a dock would be unconstitutional in the United States and Canada because it subconsciously affects the jury’s perception of the defendant as ‘dangerous’ and interferes with the defendant’s right to assist in their defence and communicate with their lawyers.”
There are complexities in interpreting acquittals, highlighting that a not-guilty verdict does not necessarily equate to proof of innocence. Instead, it indicates that the jury had reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. This nuanced understanding of legal outcomes is crucial for lawyers and the public alike to grasp.
In particular, Leonetti points out several ways in which Polkinghorne received preferential treatment:
- He was granted home detention rather than being remanded to prison.
- He sat at the counsel table during the trial instead of in the dock.
- He had access to a well-resourced defense team.
These observations raise important questions about equality before the law and the impact of socioeconomic status on trial outcomes.
“Polkinghorne got special treatment in the justice system – pretrial freedom, the ability to look calm and normal, and a million-dollar defence.” Carrie Leonetti
Her comparison to American legal practices, particularly regarding the use of docks, provides an interesting cross-cultural perspective that New Zealand lawyers might find enlightening.
The piece also touches on broader issues within the justice system, such as the overuse of pretrial detention and its negative impacts on defendants.
The article challenges legal professionals to consider how the current system may be perpetuating inequalities. It suggests that regardless of one’s opinion on the verdict itself, the disparities in treatment between wealthy defendants and those with fewer resources should be a cause for concern and a catalyst for reform.
This case serves as a powerful example for lawyers to reflect on the principles of justice and equality that should underpin the legal system. It prompts consideration of how to ensure fair trials for all defendants, regardless of their social or economic status.
