Richard Prebble argues in the NZ Herald that New Zealand has come to “imprison the unconvicted,” focusing on remand prisoners NZ and what that means for the justice system New Zealand, prison reform NZ and criminal justice policy NZ. He frames the issue as a policy drift that now sees people held in custody before any verdict, and he says “it must stop.”

Argument and context

Prebble’s piece lays out how the current remand settings evolved and why unconvicted people are now routinely jailed while awaiting trial. He positions this as a systemic outcome rather than a one-off failure, signalling that decisions within courts and policy settings have combined to make pre-trial detention a default rather than an exception.

The emphasis is on credibility and principle. Prebble treats the situation as a challenge to the presumption of innocence and a test of whether the justice system New Zealand can maintain public trust while managing risk. His central claim is that the present approach undermines fairness by punishing people before any conviction.

Why it matters

The stakes are significant because holding unconvicted people in prison affects prison capacity, legal outcomes and confidence in the criminal justice policy NZ. The debate also intersects with broader conversations about accountability and proportionality in state power, especially when restrictions on liberty are applied without a verdict.

By insisting that the practice “must stop,” Prebble elevates the issue from administrative settings to a question of values, suggesting that prison reform NZ is not only about efficiency but about aligning policy with core legal principles. The broader implication is that decisions on remand shape how New Zealand defines justice and the limits of state coercion.