This is a factual reference published by Precision AOD Solutions Ltd, a New Zealand provider of AOD assessments and forensic reports for sentencing and parole. It consolidates, in one place, what s 27 provides, who can prepare and present cultural material, how funding works after the 2025 changes, and what the report must cover to be useful to the court.

What Section 27 Provides

Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 lets an offender ask the sentencing court to hear a person or persons called by the offender on their personal, family, whanau, community and cultural background. The section lists five matters the speakers may address, requires the court to hear them unless there is a special reason not to, and lets the court adjourn so the arrangements can be made.

Sentencing Act 2002, s 27(1):

If an offender appears before a court for sentencing, the offender may request the court to hear any person or persons called by the offender to speak on— (a) the personal, family, whanau, community, and cultural background of the offender: (b) the way in which that background may have related to the commission of the offence: ... (d) how support from the family, whanau, or community may be available to help prevent further offending by the offender: (e) how the offender's background, or family, whanau, or community support may be relevant in respect of possible sentences.

Sentencing Act 2002, s 27(2) and (4):

The court must hear a person or persons called by the offender under this section on any of the matters specified in subsection (1) unless the court is satisfied that there is some special reason that makes this unnecessary or inappropriate. ... Without limiting any other powers of a court to adjourn, the court may adjourn the proceedings to enable arrangements to be made to hear a person or persons under this section.

If the court declines to hear a speaker, it must give reasons — s 27(3). And if the offender does not make the request, the court may suggest that hearing such a person would assist it — s 27(5). The statutory design is clear: the cultural record is meant to reach the court in sentencing, not to survive only as background.

Who Can Write a Section 27 Cultural Report

The Act does not license a single class of cultural reporter — and that is the point. The material heard under s 27 comes from several sources:

  • Whānau and community members called by the offender to speak to background, the link between background and offending, available support, and sentence relevance — the speakers the section contemplates directly.
  • Cultural experts and community leaders — kaumātua, kuia, Pacific community leaders and cultural practitioners — who can place the offender within a whakapapa, migration or community context the court would otherwise not see.
  • Independent providers who prepare written cultural reports for the court: a cultural investigation that interviews the offender and whānau, documents background and connection, and addresses the s 27(1) matters in report form. AOD and forensic providers with cultural assessment capability prepare these alongside the clinical work; the written report gives counsel a durable exhibit rather than an oral record alone.
  • The clinical overlay. Where substance use intersects with cultural context, an AOD assessment with cultural framing can answer the s 27(1)(b) question — how background related to the offending — with clinical evidence behind it.

What the court will accept is a report that answers the statutory matters: background, the background-offending link, processes tried or available to resolve issues, support available to prevent further offending, and relevance to possible sentences. A report that does those five things is doing the s 27 job, whoever prepares it.

How Section 27 Cultural Reports Are Funded

Funding is the part that changed. Section 27 cultural reports do not qualify for legal aid funding, so they proceed through court-directed processes and private instruction. Availability now depends more closely on judicial direction and counsel applications than on earlier blanket funding arrangements. In practical terms:

  • Court-directed process: where the court adjourns under s 27(4) and directs a report, the report is made through that direction.
  • Private instruction: counsel or the family engages a provider directly, at the family's cost, with scope agreed up front.
  • Related funded reports: AOD assessments and risk assessments in the same matter can be legal aid funded where the client is eligible — the cultural report itself is the component without the aid pathway.

Counsel should also note the wider landscape: the future of the s 27 framework has been publicly debated — funding cuts, cost concerns and proposals for reform have all been reported — but the section remains in force and the court's duty under s 27(2) stands. Our 2025 funding changes analysis covers the timeline in detail.

What a Cultural Report Covers

A well-built s 27 report tracks the statute. It documents the offender's cultural identity and whakapapa or community connections; the dislocation or loss of connection where that is the story; how the background relates to the offending — the s 27(1)(b) link that gives the material sentencing relevance rather than sentiment; the processes tried or available to resolve issues relating to the offence, including restorative options; the support whānau and community can provide to prevent further offending; and how the background bears on possible sentences, including supervision, programme and rehabilitative options that connect to the offender's culture.

Cultural Reports and the Mitigation Framework

The reformed sentencing architecture sets guilty-plea discounts under ss 9G to 9K with the s 9H sliding scale, capped at a combined 40% personal mitigation under s 9Q. Cultural material does not sit outside that framework — well-evidenced cultural reports remain central to how courts reach the figures they apply. The report's contribution is evidentiary: it converts background into a documented, testable record the court can weigh, and it evidences the support and programme pathways that reduce assessed risk.

Requesting the Section 27 Hearing

The request comes from the offender, made to the sentencing court. Counsel should flag it early — before the sentencing hearing where possible — because s 27(4) contemplates an adjournment to make the arrangements: identifying speakers, commissioning a written report, and coordinating whānau availability. Where the request is refused, s 27(3) reasons must be given, and counsel can consider whether the refusal itself is reviewable. Where the offender has not requested, the court may itself suggest that hearing a speaker would assist — s 27(5) — so a well-prepared proposal from counsel is rarely wasted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who can write a Section 27 cultural report?

The statute does not licence a single class of writer. Whānau members, cultural experts such as kaumātua and kuia, community leaders and independent providers with cultural assessment capability all prepare s 27 material. What matters is that the report answers the s 27(1) matters — background, the link to offending, resolution processes, support, and sentence relevance.

How is a Section 27 cultural report funded after the 2025 changes?

Cultural reports do not qualify for legal aid funding. They proceed through court-directed processes and private instruction, with availability depending on judicial direction and counsel applications. Related AOD or risk reports in the same matter can still be legal aid funded where the client is eligible — it is the cultural component that lacks the aid pathway.

What does a Section 27 cultural report cover?

It documents cultural identity and whakapapa or community connection, how that background related to the offending, processes tried or available to resolve issues relating to the offence, the support whānau and community can provide to prevent reoffending, and how the background bears on possible sentences. A report that answers those five statutory matters is doing the s 27 job.

Does the court have to hear the cultural speakers?

Yes — s 27(2) directs the court to hear the person or persons called by the offender unless it is satisfied there is some special reason that makes this unnecessary or inappropriate. If it declines, it must give reasons under s 27(3), and it may adjourn under s 27(4) so the arrangements can be made.

When should counsel request a cultural report?

As early as possible before sentencing. The s 27(4) adjournment exists precisely so arrangements can be made, and a rushed report rarely covers the five statutory matters well. Flag the request at the earliest fixture, agree scope with the provider, and align the report's hearing date with the rest of the sentencing evidence.

Instructing a Cultural Report

Precision AOD Solutions Ltd prepares cultural reports and culturally framed AOD assessments for sentencing courts across New Zealand. Contact us with the hearing date and the background in scope, and we will confirm approach, turnaround and cost the same day. See also our statutory reference matrix for who prepares every other report type, and our cultural reports service for the instructing detail.