SpeechCRIMES (COWARD PUNCH CAUSING DEATH) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingMATT KING (National—Northland): I move That the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.Imagine arriving at hospital to find your beautiful son on life support. Imagine being told there was nothing anyone could do to save him. Imagine being told he was brain dead. Imagine being told he was king-hit from behind and never stood a chance. Imagine being told once you turn the life support system off he will die. Imagine that. These words came from a story by Duncan Garner in 2016.I got given some very good advice by my father advice very similar to what Duncan Garner received from his father: be careful there's always someone bigger and tougher than you. Don't go hitting anyone it could kill them. One punch can kill. This is one of the motivations for me bringing this bill to the House and to highlight the message that you can kill someone with one punch.I am honoured to have had a member's bill drawn out of the ballot in my first year in Parliament. I understand that some very good MPs in this House have gone their whole entire career and not had a member's bill pulled and I know that I have a few around me. So I'm appreciative of that.This bill creates a new offence that would allow for a specific king-hit or as I would prefer to call it a coward's punch" offence in response to a number of deaths where an individual killed was assaulted and tragically died as a result of their injuries. This offence has a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment which sits nicely between the offence of causing grievous bodily harm at 14 years' and manslaughter which carries a life sentence. It amends the Crimes Act 1961 being the principle Act and inserts section 168A "Assault causing death—(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years who—(a) assaults any other person with intent to hit the other person with any part of the person's body or with an object held by the person; and (b) the assault is not authorised or excused by law; and (c) the assault causes the death of the other person. (2) For the purposes of this section an assault causes the death of a person whether the person is killed as a result of the injuries received directly from the assault or from hitting the ground or an object as a consequence of the assault. (3) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) it is not necessary to prove that the death was reasonably foreseeable." and that is a key part of this bill. It covers situations where victims are subjected to unprovoked or unexpected assaults and therefore cannot defend themselves.Australia has in the last few years created a similar offence. They have an eight-year minimum mandatory sentence and it includes intoxication or impairment provisions that trigger that mandatory minimum. They've had over 90 deaths over the course of a decade. In our case as the bill stands now intoxication or impairment would merely be an aggravating feature for sentencing not triggering a mandatory sentence like Australia. It's really easy to prove. The two ingredients: you commit an assault and that assault causes a death or a death results as a result of that assault.My thinking behind this is that having a specific offence makes it easier for tracking and recording of this type of offence. It creates an alternative offence previously covered by manslaughter. In the cases of manslaughter there is a degree of mens rea or mental intent that the prosecution has to establish that a reasonable person in the offender's position would realise they were exposing the victim to significant risk of serious injury. In this bill there is no need to prove that death was reasonably foreseeable. It can be laid as an alternative charge to manslaughter so there is more opportunity to get a guilty plea as a 20-year maximum versus life imprisonment can be plea bargained out. Now I know we don't have plea bargaining officially in New Zealand but it happens all the time. So you have situations where a defence lawyer can negotiate the alternative charge and therefore save the court system the time the stress the agony and the grief that victims' families have to go through. So for that fact alone it's with bringing this bill in—for that fact alone.There's anecdotal evidence from overseas and around the country that juries are reluctant to convict for offences like manslaughter. In the case of vehicular manslaughter they're more likely to convict of dangerous driving causing death especially if the penalties are less. Guilty pleas can equate to less suffering for the affected parties as I mentioned and it negates the need for expensive trials. I've been through numerous High Court and District Court trials and I can tell you—and my colleague next to me Harete Hipango will tell you as well—they are very gruelling for the families and the victims if they're alive. Anything that can minimise court trials and the experience is worthwhile in my view. In some cases I've had rape victims tell me that the rape trial was worse than the actual event if you could believe that.I understand that when this bill was drawn from the ballot the likes of Joseph Parker the boxer he and his camp supported the thinking behind the bill. My view is if this gets through to become law I'll hopefully be involved in a public campaign to sort of publicise to people and specifically targeting young men because they're the high risk area that you punch someone once and it can kill them.I was a policeman in Kerikeri. I went to a job at the local Homestead Tavern. There was a man there who was in his late 60s he was about 50 to 60 kilos dripping wet a harmless man by the name of Lyle Rapana and he was hit by a guy close to my size. He hit his head on the bar's leaner as he went down and he never got up. In that case the offender was convicted of manslaughter but in those sorts of cases I think this bill would be specific to those sorts of cases where it's an unprovoked assault where the victim did not see it coming.So there's numerous cases I've been involved in in my time. There was another case in Kaikohe where there was a road-rage incident. The middle-aged man was followed home and was subject to a coward punch in his driveway and he dropped and never got up again. The offender got 10 months' home detention for that. As a result of that a petition was raised and there were 11500 signatures over a very short space of time—I think it was two weeks; 11500 signatures in support of tougher sentences and in support of the coward punch legislation that I propose to introduce.On one other occasion I was present during a serious situation where a guy was hit from behind. He didn't die so this legislation wouldn't be relevant but it was horrific. He fractured his skull and had major injuries. His life is never going to be the same again. I witnessed it. I gave the man first aid. I was one of the witnesses when it went to trial but luckily the guy pled guilty the offender pled guilty and was sentenced. But if that guy had died this bill would be perfect for that situation. So I commend this bill to the House."