The Sensible Sentencing Trust has launched a blistering attack on The Opportunity Party’s policy to raise the age of Youth Court jurisdiction, describing it as one of the craziest ideas it has seen in years.

Opportunity’s “Smart on Crime” policy promised until recently to “raise the age of the youth court jurisdiction to 25, in line with developmental science”.

The words “to 25” were quietly removed from the party’s website between March and late July, while the commitment to lift the age remained.

Party leader Qiulae Wong was unable to say last week where the new limit should be set.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokeswoman Louise Parsons said the original proposal was extreme and dismissed the suffering of victims on the basis of an offender’s age.

“Around 25 percent of all sexual violence and 30 percent of all crime is committed by offenders aged 18 to 25,” she said. “Sending them to the Youth Court will only reduce consequences, hide offending from the media and the public, and will incentivise more crime, because there are far fewer consequences.”

The Trust wants the jurisdiction to stay where it is, covering offenders up to the age of 17, with some reservations and reforms. Parsons rejected the argument that a higher age limit could be justified for younger or less serious offenders.

“First time or low-level offenders are already treated very softly in the Adult Court. Under 25s often get discounts on their sentences for their ‘relative youth’ already.”

Opportunity has argued its position is backed by developmental science and would reduce reoffending. Parsons was unconvinced.

“That’s just an excuse to justify exposing fewer criminals to real consequences for harming other people. There is no evidence a soft-on-crime approach would reduce reoffending or the number of victims.”

She said the effect on victims and their confidence in the justice system would be devastating.

“A huge cohort of violent and sexually aggressive young people, mainly men, would be virtually immune from consequences, no convictions, no media reporting, no enquiry. Would you think your daughter (or son) was safer under these conditions?”

The Ministry of Justice already runs a Young Adult List for defendants aged between 18 and 25 in several District Courts, which adapts court processes while keeping those defendants in the adult jurisdiction. The Trust said it had no issue with that approach in principle.

“Everyone is entitled to fair process and a defence,” Parsons said.

On the removal of the age from the party’s published policy, she said the wording change had fooled no one.

“Obviously, someone with more experience than the original author has identified being so open about their intentions could show how extreme their policy is. Their policy intent is clear.”

Asked what the Trust would do instead about serious and repeat offending by people aged between 18 and 24, Parsons pointed to the ACT Party’s Three Strikes for Burglars policy, which she called the best law and order policy in years.

“It focuses on that group of offenders who cycle in and out of the justice system, prisons and courts, creating dozens of victims and eating up valuable police time, only for the weak Judge to hand down a soft sentence.”

Recidivist burglars had the highest reoffending rate of any offender type, she said, and the policy would be even more effective alongside a dedicated police burglary investigation unit with its own staffing.

“An ‘opportunity’ perhaps?”

Opportunity did not respond to three requests for an interview.