Chauvel Charles: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8300] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak in the Committee stage on Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Bill which will make amendments to the District Courts Act 1947. The interesting aspect of this part of the bill is that it will deal with the jurisdiction of District Courts over a number of offences. 
Under section 28A(1) in clause 60(1) these offences are: “(a) any offence for which the accused elects under section 66 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to be tried by a jury: (b) all indictable offences under any enactment (other than the offences referred to in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1A): (c) the indictable offences referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 1A in any case where— (i) the proceedings are transferred to the Court under section 168AA of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or (ii) a person pleads guilty under section 153A or section 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 before he or she is committed for trial or sentence to any such offence: (d) conspiring to commit an indictable offence to which paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) applies—” 
Kate Wilkinson 
: What does that mean? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am sure the member will be able to ask the Minister Mark Burton for a full explanation. Clause 60(1) continues: “(e) attempting to commit an indictable offence to which paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) applies or inciting or counselling or attempting to procure any person to commit any such offence which is not committed: (f) being an accessory after the fact to any indictable offence to which paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) applies.” The bill also goes on in clause 61 to deal with maximum sentences in clause 62 to deal with appeal against sentence and in clause 62A to deal with regulations. 
It is clause 62A that I would like to speak on. Clearly under the legislation offences will be able to be added or removed from Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1A and transitional arrangements will be able to be made for the trial and sentencing of persons charged with those offences. This will be able to be effected by regulation. So middle banding will be able to be dealt with by way of Order in Council rather than by primary legislation. Although that is in one way offensive to the general principle that primary legislation ought to be amended only by further primary legislation it does seem to be a sensible move. 
I note that in the report of the Law and Order Committee the move is one that would be supported by the Chief Justice and would prevent officials from encountering the position they have told the committee—according to its report—they currently encounter which is that the schedule relating to middle banding and indictable offences rapidly falls into inaccuracy because of the frequency with which it is amended. It is much better to be able to do it by regulation to have the scrutiny of the Regulations Review Committee and the other safeguards that exist and to be able to get on with it as the jurisdiction of the District Courts evolves. 
I note in that regard—with great respect to the District Court bench—it does seem to me to be sensible to be expanding the jurisdiction of that court by reference to the numbers of different types of more serious offence that that the court can hear and try. After all the ranks of the District Court bench in recent years have been swelled by former Crown counsel former partners in Crown solicitor firms and former employees of those firms. They clearly represent a very very strong level of expertise in criminal matters. It is appropriate to continue to expand the jurisdiction of the court in criminal matters in light of the expertise that the court has. 
We also know that the High Court prefers that that should be the case—that more criminal matters should be dealt with in the District Courts than in the High Court. It is better to leave the High Court for serious civil matters and appeals on decisions of registrars and what have you and to have most matters of crime in principle dealt with in the District Courts. That is the direction that this legislation will take and the schedule will be able to be updated—as I mentioned—by regulation. Thus middle banded offences can more easily be kept up to date as society determines and as the House decides is appropriate.