Ryall Tony: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21120] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call on the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill has previously been spoken about by my colleague Richard Worth who is the National Party’s justice spokesman and also the MP for Epsom. The central premise of this bill is I think a contradiction. On the one hand the Government is saying that it wants more efficient use of judicial resource but on the other hand it is seeking to complicate and expand the number of cases that can on appeal be considered by the Supreme Court. Members of this House are being told that this bill is about providing more speedy justice yet the Government is also talking about providing more opportunities for people to appeal to the courts. Mr Worth made a very useful point. It related to the removal of the requirement for Court of Appeal decisions to be given in open court. [ 
Interruption 
] This is absolutely correct I would observe for the member for Christchurch Central. She can rely on my word on that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Christchurch East. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: She is from Christchurch East. It was very helpful to be corrected on that. 
As Mr Worth pointed out this bill provides that Court of Appeal judges will no longer be required to give a short summary of their reasons in open court. The Government’s policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill states that this might in fact mean that judges give their decisions to an empty courtroom. Well I would like to know how many cases there have been when that has actually ever happened. When the Court of Appeal judges read a decision how often has there been no one in the courtroom? It is my understanding that counsel representing the appellant—the person appealing—would be before the court when a judgment was given. Similarly the Crown would be there as well. So although the Government may say in its note that that could lead to the judgment being delivered to an empty courtroom in actual fact that is probably more imagined than real. The point is that sunlight is the best disinfectant in the country and I would have thought that such matters relating to justice would be openly decided and that decisions would be given in an open way. I do not know whether judges wanted this change to be made but I certainly doubt it. Although the Government is arguing that judges will no longer give their decisions in open court at the Court of Appeal level and that that will somehow provide more efficient and timely justice in the next part of the bill the Government makes justice and the finality of justice even further away. 
In most parts of the world there are two rights of appeal. Yet the Government is providing—for no reason that any Minister has given an explanation for—a point whereby a third right of appeal should be given and what the reason for that should be. No member of the Government has given an explanation for that reason—no explanation whatsoever. So the Government’s response to this issue is one that is very wanting. There is a real crisis in our nation’s courts and that is the time it is taking for all cases to be heard. 
Despite what the Government may say defendants and victims are still waiting longer and longer for their cases to be heard. Why should people be worried about that? People should be worried about the delays in the nation’s courts for a number of reasons. The first of course is how genuine victims get any closure when the person who may have assaulted them or who has certainly impinged on their rights and freedoms still has not come before the courts. Secondly what about the effect on the defendants? If they are guilty there is a delay in respect of when they can begin their sentences and if they are innocent there is a delay in respect of when they can clear their names. That is of great concern. 
New Zealanders should be further worried about delays in the court system by the case that came to light in Whangarei only a few months ago. A man was charged in the court at Whangarei with the very very serious offence of drink-driving. In fact he was a repeat drink-driver; someone with a long list of drink-driving offences. The defendant drove up from Auckland to appear in the court and because of delays he was told to go home and come back again another time. He was then given a new date. He had to drive from Auckland to Whangarei yet again and yet again the Crown was unable to argue its case before the judge. This happened I think a third time. Finally because of one of these never-ending series of delays in the justice system the judge dismissed the case. A recidivist drink-driver was up on another set of serious drink-driving charges and the case was dismissed because of delays in the justice system. 
Information we produced last year showed that the number of cases being dismissed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because of delays was increasing dramatically. What was the Government’s response? Nothing. So it is important that the House seeks to improve the speedy delivery of justice. It is important for the defendants it is important for the victims and it is very important for the justice system in general to be seen to be providing that swift justice. The point was made quite clearly by my colleague that this bill fails in all those tests. It fails to deliver speedy justice because it simply expands the number of appeal options and it does not provide the openness that we would expect from the justice system. 
Debate interrupted.