Hudson Brett: Evidence Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Evidence Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2015. Volume:706;Page:5097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRETT HUDSON (National):It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Evidence Amendment Bill in its first reading. I am sure we will be canvassing some points that other members have raised. The changes proposed in this bill are extremely important and very very welcome—very welcome it seems in this House and I am sure very welcome across New Zealand—particularly as they relate to matters around the means by which children provide evidence and the way to deal with issues of the admissibility and presentation of evidence in cases of sexual and violent crimes. Of course we can never legislate away the pain and suffering that is faced by victims but we can at the very least make very sound pragmatic efforts to help to make the process of the justice system and particularly the giving and hearing of evidence as easy as we possibly can for those victims.I would like to first touch upon the provisions around child witnesses giving evidence particularly giving evidence in alternative ways and also their right to have a support person present with them when they are giving that evidence. I think this is an extraordinarily important area of the changes that are proposed in this bill. Although I am a father I am very fortunate that I can say that none of my children have ever had to find themselves in a position to have to give evidence in court on any matter one of great seriousness and great trauma or otherwise. So I do not pretend to be able to say that I can fully appreciate what that must be like but I think it is well acknowledged across our society and it is a very strong feeling I do get as a parent that it must be an incredibly distressing exercise for children to go through and to be put through. It is a means that is necessary as part of ensuring that a defendant gets a fair hearing but it must be very very difficult for a child in this situation when they are there to give evidence.So what this bill will do is it will allow a presumption that child witnesses can use alternative ways to give evidence such as pre-recording of evidence-in-chief or delivering evidence via closed-circuit television hook-ups or behind screens. Although it is fair and important to note that at the moment it is possible for child witnesses to give evidence through alternative ways it is possible today only if an application is made. I think that is quite concerning actually if we reflect on that for a moment. What it does permit at the moment is for a defendant’s legal team to actually present an argument to try to prevent the child or children in question giving evidence in a way that will be easier and more comfortable or less distressing for them. Ultimately I think we probably all have confidence in the courts that the courts will make the right decision in the case of those applications. It certainly compounds more and more stress and worry for those child witnesses to have to go through that process before ultimately the court will make the right decision and allow them to deliver their evidence through the most appropriate means.By taking away that need to apply and operating on the presumption that the child can deliver their evidence through an alternative means we are helping I think to ensure that what will still be a very difficult time for that witness will be that much easier for them. This is a very important consideration for all members of this House and certainly is in line with this Government’s objectives and actions where we are very much about putting the victim at the heart of our justice system and making sure that their needs and considerations are dealt with also.I would also like to touch upon the restrictions on video-record evidence. What this bill will do is it will restrict defence access to police videos of witness evidence in sexual and in violent cases and in fact of a child’s evidence or a complainant’s evidence in all cases. The fundamental reason for this is we want to help to ensure that the risk that the video records will be misplaced or misused will be minimised and that is I think a very laudable basis for this. I would just like to make the point that this will not restrict the defence’s access to the evidence. It may mean that the evidence will have to be viewed on police premises or that they will have to apply to the court for a copy of those types of records but it will not prevent the defence from gaining access to them and it will not prevent the defendant’s right to the information and access to the evidence to help them go about their case. I think it is another element that this bill introduces that will help to remove barriers perhaps to complainants bringing forward their case and will help to reduce the risk that the evidence they give may be misused or misplaced.Moving on from that I would also like to touch upon—and my colleague Mr Bishop I think talked a great deal about this in his fine contribution to this debate—the notice about requirements for evidence of previous sexual history. The requirement that the defence will have to give notice before the start of a trial if they intend to use the evidence about a victim’s sexual history with someone other than the defendant is I think very very important. Like the rest of society we do peruse a lot of the media available and we all hear I think cases where a complainant’s past activities are brought to bear by the defence in a way that is intended to place a certain colour on their character that may or may not bring a jury to view other evidence in another light. I think it is very important—not necessarily that we have a situation where such evidence is inadmissible but that the complainant can know in advance that they are going to be questioned on certain matters or that certain matters may be brought to light and that they can also prepare adequately to deal with those.One thing that springs to mind actually—I would suggest it is possibly not a complete match to the sort of example I just used—is that we do know that in the defence of Clayton Weatherston who was ultimately found guilty of the murder of Sophie Elliot his defence team absolutely did use the victim’s in that case the murder victim’s past behaviours. In fact I think what they held were some fairly recent behaviours that they used to cast a light on her character in perhaps an attempt to mitigate the actions of Mr Weatherston. I recall that the public reaction to that—certainly the media reaction—was a strong sense that it was a reprehensible sort of an approach to take in that case. So I think the measures that we are looking to put in place through this bill will give the complainants and their team a fairer playing field in that instance to actually address the sorts of issues that the defence might bring up and it will in fact allow tests of admissibility earlier rather than in the middle of proceedings. I think that is another piece that the bill will bring about that is very very good to see.Another element I will touch upon is around privilege for plea discussions. At the moment it does seem that perhaps there is some concern that there may not be clear privilege in respect of communication on plea discussions. There is this view and certainly the Law Commission held a view and recommended reform in the area to ensure that the defence and police can go through full and frank plea discussions in a means that may help to encourage early disposal of cases. That will also have an impact a positive impact on perhaps removing witnesses from a need to testify and therefore reducing the stress that may be placed upon them. So I think this is an extremely sound very welcome bill to be introduced to the House and I commend it to the House.