English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper provides a critical analysis of the sentence of reparation in New Zealand, as set out by s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The scope of the sentence is examined with particular regard to the recent Supreme Court decision, which limited reparation so that only victims of offences can benefit from the sentence. The definition of “victim”, as determined by the Sentencing Act, is confined to direct victims of criminal offending. Thus, any indirect victim suffering harm or loss from criminal offending cannot benefit from reparation. This paper questions whether that limitation gives reparation an appropriate scope, or whether some extension should be made so that the sentence is not restricted in its application to only benefit direct victims. In so doing, this paper argues that the criminal law is the suitable domain to address such issues of compensation and therefore, an extension of the reparation sentence is required. Alternative ways of limiting reparation to address this compensation issue are outlined. Ultimately it is proposed that an additional provision should be included within the definition of “victim”, for the purpose of s 32, so that indirect victims can also benefit from a sentence of reparation.

Unrewarded donors: The search for victims in the wake of Kapa