Dr Jordan Anderson, Lecturer in Criminology at Swansea University; Adjunct Research Fellow at Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)
This blog explores two case studies of the experiences of vulnerable defendants in New Zealand – the cases of Alfred Vincent and Teina Pora. Both cases are examples of vulnerable individuals who have experienced high-profile injustices at the hands of the state: Vincent became New Zealand’s longest serving prisoner, released after 52 years in prison just three months prior to his death in 2021; and Pora served 21 years in prison following his wrongful convicted of murder in 1994. In addition to telling the stories of the experiences of each of these two men, the blog both explores the systemic issues that led to the injustices these individuals experienced, and considers public understandings of them. Knowing these stories and bearing witness to the experiences of Vincent and Pora is part of what Scraton (2007, p. 5) refers to as our “moral duty” to shine light on injustices, and to investigate abuses of power.
Alfred Vincent
Alfred Vincent was New Zealand’s longest serving prisoner. He was convicted when he was ~30 years old in 1968 of seven charges of indecent assault (all perpetrated against 14-year-old boys). Vincent was among the first people sentenced to preventive detention under the new regime set out in the 1967 Criminal Justice Amendment Act. This Act reinforced preventive detention as a truly indeterminate sentence of imprisonment, removing the previous 14-year cap on incarceration and requiring annual reviews only after a minimum term of seven years. At these reviews, it was only when the Parole Board were satisfied the offender would commit no further sexual offences that they could be released on licence. Even under the current regime in New Zealand, individuals sentenced to preventive detention remain on licence for the rest of their lives, so even if released from prison, they are able to be recalled at any time. For Vincent, the indeterminate sentence equated to 52 years of uninterrupted incarceration. He was declined parole 48 times over the many years he served in prison. His eventual release in 2020 was approved on compassionate grounds, in part due to his advanced dementia, and he died just a few months later.
Vincent was intellectually disabled and had a recorded IQ of between 60-80. Throughout his 48 parole applications, it is clear that there was insufficient recognition of Vincent’s vulnerability and considerations of how he could be supported to live a pro-social life in the community. Vincent was not equipped at any point to navigate the justice system effectively, nor to self-advocate. Estimates by experts at the time of his release indicated that he had served at least 40 years longer than would have been appropriate or typical as a punitive sentence for his offending. Vincent’s extended (and indeterminate) period of incarceration is an injustice. There are complexities in discussing injustices experienced by individuals who have perpetrated serious harms. Vincent caused serious harm in the community – a reality he was aware of. However, the injustice Vincent experienced can be examined alongside understanding that he was also a person who had caused harm – as this does not diminish the injustice he experienced.
Teina Pora
The second case study being examined here is that of Teina Pora. Pora was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1994, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He entered prison at just 17, and served 21 years before his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council in 2015. Pora has Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and his wrongful conviction is well known as New Zealand’s worst ever miscarriage of justice.
Pora was arrested on warrants for minor offending (e.g. theft of motor vehicle) in 1993. At the time of his arrest, he had seen the notices posted by police offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to the case of the 1992 rape and murder of Susan Burdett being solved. Pora would later explain that he thought providing information to the police (even if he was fabricating it) would lead to him receiving reward money which he needed to support his young family. It is clear that Pora’s Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder influenced his judgment and decision making throughout the time he spent with police in 1993. In answering the questions of police in ways he believed they would want to hear, Pora quickly became the top (and only) suspect in the Burdett case, despite the inconsistencies between his evidence and the facts of the case. Following five days of police interviewing commencing after his arrest, all of which without legal representation and some of which not recorded by police, Pora was charged with the rape and murder of Susan Burdett – a woman he had never met
In New Zealand, an individual convicted of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment. The life sentence is indeterminate, however a judge can hand down a minimum period of imprisonment, and all individuals sentenced to life imprisonment remain on licence for life. Pora was convicted of rape and murder as a 17-year-old in 1994, and thus was handed a life sentence. At a retrial in 2000, he was again convicted and his life sentence was upheld. By the time his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council (then the highest court in New Zealand), he had wrongly served 21 years in prison – exiting as a 38-year-old man.
Discussion
The design of the criminal justice system in New Zealand is a significant factor that enabled the injustices experienced by both Vincent and Pora. Systemic factors contributing to these injustices included poor police practice; inappropriate and leading interviewing techniques; and what could be generally described as the lack of access to justice for vulnerable people. This lack of access to justice includes a lack of understanding of and accommodation for neurodiversity and intellectual disability throughout all stages of the justice system. In the wake of each of these cases becoming public knowledge, there was no specific preventive reform implemented, nor serious consideration of systemic measures to prevent such circumstances from arising again. It is important to note that Pora and Vincent are just two examples from a range of cases (including recent examples) of vulnerable people being wrongfully convicted, wrongfully imprisoned, or kept in prison longer than would generally be considered just.
The public understandings of both of these cases were largely driven by media commentary – particularly for Pora, whose initial conviction garnered significant coverage, as did his exoneration. Since Pora’s conviction was quashed in 2015, he has been well known by the New Zealand public as the face of the worst miscarriage of justice in this country’s history. Despite the public dismay over his case, no effective reforms have been implemented to prevent such an injustice from happening again. For Vincent, there is less public knowledge or understanding of his circumstances, as his case did not elicit the same significant public interest as Pora’s (though there was some in-depth coverage of his status as ‘New Zealand’s longest serving prisoner’ upon the announcement of his release). Also, as Vincent did cause significant harms in the community leading up to his 1968 sentencing, his experience of injustice is a more complex story to tell to an often punitively geared public. Nevertheless, reporting on Vincent’s 2021 death highlighted the injustice of his extended prison sentence, carrying forth the same message the message from the Judge who had ordered his release. Media coverage even provided commentary on Vincent’s situation from the individuals he was convicted of offending against, who were reportedly shocked to hear he had still been in prison for those crimes five decades later.
Although media coverage and public sentiment show general dismay over the injustices that were experienced by Pora and Vincent, this has not translated to widespread support for reform. The lack of public understanding of the construction of these injustices within the layers of the criminal justice system makes it difficult for the public to come together in favour of specific systemic reform. Cases of vulnerable people experiencing injustice within the criminal justice system appear to each be taken as deeply unfortunate individual incidents: acknowledged as unfair and against the ethos of New Zealanders, and then put down. Therefore, the reality is that on the basis of the systemic settings that set each of these events in motion, and the lack of subsequent action to prevent recurrence, we can conclude that the inaction in the wake of the injustices experienced by Vincent and Pora means that the systemic settings remain in place for the next such injustice to be a matter of when, not if.
References
Scraton, P. (2016). Bearing witness to the ’pain of others’ : researching power, violence and resistance in a women’s prison. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.288
Defending Vulnerability 