New Zealand is a remote island country found 1,000 miles southeast of Australia’s coastline. France is a much larger country found in the Western part of Europe on the coastline. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the legal traditions, law enforcement practices, criminal procedure, court structures, corrections, and juvenile justice procedures in both New Zealand and France. I chose New Zealand as the first country of interest because I am travelling to visit this beautiful country next summer and wanted to know more about it. France was the country that was in the running to claim New Zealand as a colony in the 1830s but ultimately was beat out by England. I chose to compare New Zealand and France to see how different the various structures would be if France would have claimed New Zealand as a colony instead of England. First, I will discuss the history of New Zealand.
History of New Zealand
New Zealand was one of the last habitable countries discovered, making it one of the youngest established countries in the world. According to New Zealand Now, the “first to arrive [on the island] were ancestors of Māori”. These first settlers most likely arrived from Polynesia between 1200 and 1300 AD. They were exploring the Pacific Ocean and came across New Zealand. “The navigator credited with discovering New Zealand is Kupe” (New Zealand Now). The first European to arrive in New Zealand was the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman in 1642. He named the newly discovered land, Staten Landt. Dutch cartographers renamed it Nova Zealandia in 1645 after the Dutch-named province of Zeeland. In 1769, 127 years after the first European visited, Captain James Cook arrived to map and give the island its final name of New Zealand.
In the 1830s, the British government decided to beat France to the claim and added New Zealand as one of their colonies. On February 6, 1840, William Hobson, New Zealand’s first Governor, invited Māori chiefs to sign a treaty to establish New Zealand as a British colony. This treaty was called The Treaty of Waitangi. The purpose of this treaty was to establish a relationship between the two groups of people and ensure the rights of the Māori (the indigenous people of New Zealand), and all other citizens of New Zealand were protected. The treaty acknowledges that Māori tribes have the right to organize themselves, protect their way of life, and control their own resources. The principles of the Treaty are referred to in many acts of New Zealand’s Parliament.
Legal Traditions
Next, some of the legal traditions of both New Zealand and France will be discussed. According to CIA World Factbook (2017), New Zealand is a “parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy”. “The Crown or monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, but for most purposes, she is represented in New Zealand by a Governor General” (NYU Law Global). The role of Queen Elizabeth II is primarily ceremonial, but there are occasions when the role holds some power. New Zealand has a responsible and representative government. According to Freedomhouse.org (2016), New Zealand is very democratic and scores a “1” (most free) on both the civil liberties and political rights scales provided by the report. It operates as a unitary state and has a unicameral legislature meaning that Parliament only has a House of Representatives. While New Zealand does not have a written constitution, there are a number of constitutional documents, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, that list the powers of the government.
France is a little different than New Zealand. According to CIA World Factbook (2017), France is a “semi-presidential republic”. The French president is elected to a five-year term by the citizens of France and then appoints a prime minister to serve alongside him. According to Freedomhouse.org (2016), France also scores a “1” (most free) on the political rights scale but scored a “2” on the civil liberties scale provided by the report. France’s current civil liberties rating changed from a “1” to “2” “due to infringements on personal autonomy, particularly controls on dress and religious symbols, that disproportionately focus on women, following earlier deterioration related to terrorist attacks and aggressive counterterrorism measures” (Freedomhouse.org, 2016).
Law Enforcement Practices
Next, the various law enforcement procedures of the two countries will be discussed. The New Zealand has a centralized police force whose primary focuses are to prevent crime and enforce the law. A centralized police force is “one supervised by a single authority at all levels” in New Zealand’s case, at the national level (Reichel, 2018, p. 147). The police officers see their work as a shared responsibility with the outside communities. New Zealand created the Community Patrols of New Zealand (CPNZ) for the purpose of encouraging a more community-friendly approach to policing. Training for the members of the New Zealand police force takes approximately sixteen weeks at their New Zealand Police College. After graduation, the new officers serve as a probationary constable for two years before joining the ranks of the rest of the national police force.
Both New Zealand and France have centralized police structures. Similar to New Zealand, France has various levels of policing available to their citizens. Their local village policing most similar to community police forces in New Zealand is called the police de proximite. According to Reichel (2018), police officers in France must go to the “national police academy for one year; must pass physical and written task and be 19 years old”. Both New Zealand and France have a police academy for training their officers.
Criminal Procedures
Next, the similarities and differences between New Zealand and France’s criminal procedures will be discussed. The criminal procedure New Zealand follows is similar to English Common Law. As they were once an English colony, New Zealand has adopted the Common Law system. There are several basic rights the accused are entitled to in New Zealand. Among these are having “the right to a lawyer, the right to have all evidence heard in a court which is open to the public and has the right to be tested in the form of a cross-examination” (ExpatFocus). There are several other rights New Zealanders are granted in the Bill of Rights. Citizens of New Zealand are also granted the right to counsel and instruct a lawyer without delay. They are given the right to refrain from making any statement that could be used against them upon being taken into custody. They are also given the right to bail. However, according to the Bail Act of 2000, the defendants are only given that right if they are being charged with an offense that is punishable with no imprisonment or imprisonment that lasts less than three years.
France has also adopted the Common Law system. France also uses some parts of the past Napoleonic Code and Roman Law systems when determining their legal precedents. There are also several rights the accused are entitled to in France. Among these are the right to counsel in which “the accused can remain silent throughout all steps of process but expected to answer questions during trial” (Dammer & Albanese, 2014). The defendant is also required to have counsel at pre-investigation stage of the process. They can choose who represents them or the attorney would be appointed if the client in indigent. “Bail is allowable at any time, but can be refused by examining magistrate” (Dammer & Albanese, 2014).
These rights are similar to the rights the citizens of New Zealand have as well. Citizens of both countries are both informed of the right to counsel immediately upon arrest. Citizens of both France and New Zealand are also given the right to remain silent. They are different in that bail can be denied in a sentence longer than three years in New Zealand and a magistrate can refuse bail in France at any time.
Court Structure
Most legal issues in New Zealand are settled by their Courts of General Jurisdiction. The general jurisdiction courts decide both civil and criminal cases. Criminal matters are offenses that usually involve the police and result in imprisonment, fines or probation. Civil matters involve disputes between private citizens. There are four levels of general jurisdiction courts. District Courts are the lowest level of court in New Zealand. The court above the District Courts is the High Court. “The High Court deals with major crimes and the more significant civil claims” (New Zealand Now). The High Court also hears appeals from lower courts and specialist tribunals. The Court of Appeals is the third level of courts. This court is responsible for hearing both civil and criminal appeals from all levels of courts. “The Appeal Court determines the law of New Zealand and resolves conflicting court decisions” by listening to prior opinions and determining further courses of action (New Zealand Now). The highest court in New Zealand is the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court was established in 2004 to replace the London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and to reinforce New Zealand’s status as an independent nation with its own history and traditions” (New Zealand Now). New Zealand also has a number of specialist courts. There are over 100 tribunals, authorities, boards and committees that make up these specialist courts. These specialty courts handle a lot of different disputes, ranging anywhere from employment issues to taxation disputes.
According to New Zealand Now, judges in New Zealand are “appointed by the Governor-General based on the advice of the Attorney-General”. Lawyers are the only people who can be appointed judges, but first they must have practiced law for at least seven years. Judges and judicial officers are appointed non-politically in New Zealand. The primary goal is to protect them from political party affiliation and maintain independence from the government.
The courts in France are separated into two categories. There are the ordinary courts that settle criminal and civil cases and the administrative courts that apply public law to cases. All cases go to trial in France. There are also various courts at the trial level including police court for petty offenses, correctional courts hear more serious offenses and then assize court hears the serious felony cases. After matters are settled at the original or administrative court, they will go to the Courts of Appeal. “The court of last resort in the French hierarchy is the Supreme Court of Appeal” (Reichel, 2018, p. 213). Since every case in France goes to trial and judges are the ones leading the trial, their roles are very important. Judges are appointed “during their career at judging functions and/or at the office of the prosecutor” (justive.gouv.fr, 2012). France also established lay judges in 2002. They are appointed “after the approval of the Higher Council of the Judiciary for seven years” (justive.gouv.fr, 2012). Judges are supposed to decide cases as an impartial independent person.
Both New Zealand and France have various levels of courts. New Zealand has only one system of court structure while France has two. Judges are both appointed by members of the government however the qualifications are a little different. In New Zealand, judges had to have practiced law for at least seven years before being appointed as judge whereas there is no such requirement in France. France also has lay judges whereas New Zealand does not.
Corrections
Next, the structures of the correctional systems of both New Zealand and France will be discussed. New Zealand has a strong focus on community based sentencing. According to the New Zealand Department of Corrections, “over 30,000 offenders serving community-based sentences at any given time, compared to 9,000 offenders in prison”. The offenders on probation attend programs to address many different issues including violence, alcohol and drug abuse or even driving offenses.
For the roughly 10,035 prisoners incarcerated in New Zealand, there are different levels of incarceration. There are fifteen prisons in New Zealand for males and three for females. “The imprisonment rate in New Zealand is 202 people per 100,000 citizens” (New Zealand Department of Corrections). There are four categories of offenses in New Zealand. A category one offense is one that is punishable by only a fine. A category two offense is one that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than two years or a community – based sentence. A category three offense is one that is punishable by imprisonment for life or a maximum imprisonment of two or more years. Finally, a category four offense is a serious offense like murder or manslaughter that will only be heard in the high court.
According to Reichel, 2018, p. 243) 99 people per 100,000 are incarcerated in France. However, France has a strong emphasis in community-based sentences. In fact, the ratio for community based sentences in France is 9/10. There are three different categories of offenses in Frances. There are contraventions, delits, and crimes. Contraventions are petty offenses, including speeding tickets and other traffic violations. Delits are “classified as misdemeanors ranging from theft to bodily harm” (frenchlaw.com, 2017). Crimes are felonies in France. These are the most serious types of offenses such as murder. Those convicted in France are sent to one of their 190 prisons. There are several different types of prisons including “juvenile facilities, (for minors (6)), remand prisons, (for persons on remand and sentenced to less than two years (98)), security prisons, (provided for long term prisoners, that is to say over 10 years (6)), detention centers, (facilities for sentenced to medium sentences (25)), and day-leave centers (facilities for persons receiving a sentence adjustment (11))” (crimeandjustice.org, 2012).
Both France and New Zealand have an emphasis in community based sentences. France does have a much stronger commitment to community- based sentences. New Zealand has four different types of offenses and France only has three. New Zealand has six different classifications of offenders. France doesn’t classify its offenders but does mention the six different types of prisons that house the different types of offenders. The prison rate per 100,000 people in New Zealand is 202 while the rate per 100,000 people is 99 in France.
Juvenile Justice
The last topic to be discussed is the comparisons between the juvenile justice systems in the two countries. In New Zealand, an individual under the age of 16 is part of the youth justice system. “The youth justice system aims to keep children and young people out of the formal criminal justice system, while at the same time holding them accountable and encouraging them to take responsibility for what they’ve done” (govt.nz). At the age of 10, a youth in New Zealand can be tried for an offense. There are also two different age ranges in juvenile justice. Between the ages of 10-13, the New Zealand Youth Justice system deals with the people in this age range. The Youth Court deals with the offenders between the ages of 14-16.
In France, the juvenile justice system serves people under the age of 18. For serious cases like murder, there is a Juvenile Assize court that has jurisdiction to try individuals between the ages of 16-18. “No penalties can be imposed on minors before they are 10 as they are not responsible of law” (justice.gouv.fr, 2012). From ages 10-13, educational penalties are given out. From ages 13-16, minors may be sent to prison but are only responsible for half of what the sentence for an adult would be. From ages 16-18, “minors can be remanded in custody and, depending on the kind of offense they committed, the special provision for dealing with minors may be set aside by the judge” (justice.gouv.fr, 2012).
In New Zealand, people under the age of 16 are liable for their crimes. In France, the age is under 18 to be tried as a juvenile. In New Zealand, there are two different age ranges for various levels of penalties. In France, there are three age ranges with different levels of penalties. Both countries have a juvenile justice court and ways to deal with young offenders.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many differences and few similarities between the countries of New Zealand and France when it comes to their criminal justice systems and processes. The purpose of this paper was to compare and contrast the legal traditions, law enforcement practices, criminal procedure, court structures, corrections, and juvenile justice procedures in both New Zealand and France. It was interesting to see just how many differences and similarities there were between these two examples of populated first-world countries in the world.