Finlayson Christopher: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2180. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. I nominate that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration. This bill makes a series of improvements to bail laws to improve public safety and ensure the overall integrity of New Zealand’s bail system. The changes will make it harder for those accused of serious offences to get bail. When this Government took office we made a promise to review all aspects of the bail system and we started by reversing Labour’s 2007 amendments that made it easier for defendants to get bail. In 2011 we released a consultation document seeking the public’s views on what else needed to change. This bill makes the changes that are necessary to improve the operation of the bail system. We want to ensure that bail decisions strike the right balance between keeping the public safe and maintaining fundamental criminal process rights such as the presumption of innocence and freedom from arbitrary detention.  
The changes in the bill fall into six categories. First the set of changes reverses the burden of proof in certain bail decisions to target defendants charged with the worst offences and those with the highest risk of offending while on bail. In most cases the prosecutor is responsible to prove that a defendant should not get bail. A reverse burden of proof means that the defendant must instead prove that he or she should be granted bail. The bill imposes a reverse burden of proof on defendants charged with murder recognising the extremely serious nature of such a charge. These defendants will need to satisfy the court that they will not commit any violent offences while on bail and public safety will be the court’s primary consideration in such cases. 
The bill also extends the list of offences that qualify a defendant to be subject to a reverse burden of proof when the defendant has a similar previous conviction. In addition to the offences that already qualify such as sexual violation and aggravated robbery the following offences will also now qualify: kidnapping including abduction for the purposes of marriage or sexual connection; aggravated burglary; assault with intent to rob; and sexual conduct with a child under 12 years or a young person under 16 years. 
Secondly the bill improves the court’s ability to deal with defendants who are charged with serious drug offences. Currently one-third of defendants charged with class A drug offences offend while on bail. Those defendants will now be subject to a reverse burden of proof in bail decisions. The bill also removes impractical and unnecessary limits on the District Court’s jurisdiction to deal with the bail for defendants charged with drug offences. At present certain decisions about bail must go to the High Court regardless of which court will eventually conduct the defendant’s trial. There is no reason why these decisions could not be made in the District Court along with the rest of the defendant’s case. 
 Thirdly the bill strengthens the ability of police and courts to deal with young defendants on bail. There is currently a strong presumption in favour of bail for defendants aged 17 to 19 years. The bill removes the presumption for those who have previously been in prison as this group shows an extraordinarily high rate of offending on bail. This means that 17 to 19-year-olds who have previously been in prison will now be subject to the standard adult tests for bail. To ensure that bail is taken seriously by young defendants the bill also gives police new powers to deal with defendants under 17 years of age who breach their bail conditions. Police advise that they have difficulty at present enforcing the bail conditions of some of these young people. These defendants are often aware of the difficulties faced by police and therefore treat their bail conditions with indifference. This increases their risk of offending on bail and also undermines the authority of the police and our justice system. 
The bill will enable police to uplift and return home any young defendant found in breach of a bail curfew. Police will also be able to arrest a young defendant without first seeking a warrant from the court. This new power will be used sparingly and is targeted at those young defendants who repeatedly or significantly breach their bail conditions. After arrest police will have to bring the defendant before the court within 24 hours. The court will be able to order the detention of a defendant under 17 years old who has repeatedly or significantly breached their bail and is likely to continue to do so. 
The fourth significant group of changes are to police bail. This is bail granted by police before the defendant appears in court for the first time. The penalty for failure to answer police bail is increased so that the offence is punishable by up to 3 months’ imprisonment in addition to the existing maximum fine of up to $1000. This brings the penalty into line with penalties for similar offences and gives the court a wider range of options for dealing with defendants who fail to appear in court when required. The bill also abolishes monetary bonds and sureties for defendants on police bail. These bonds and sureties are not available in the District Court. They were seldom if ever used by police because they are very difficult to enforce. 
The fifth group of changes legislates the use of electronically monitored or EM bail. Since 2006 the courts have been able to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. The Government has reviewed electronically monitored bail and it appears to be an effective and safe way of managing defendants in the community. However we believe that it is important that we have legislation that specifically covers this type of bail condition thereby ensuring that the regime will continue to be administered consistently and effectively across the country. The legislation will ensure that courts have all relevant information about the suitability of the defendant for electronically monitored bail as police will be required to submit a report to the court before electronically monitored bail can be granted. Courts will be required to consider any history of violence between the defendant and the occupants of the electronically monitored bail residence to avoid this type of bail being granted inappropriately—for example in domestic violence situations. The bill will also ensure that time spent on this form of bail is taken into account in a consistent way if and when a defendant is sentenced. 
The final set of changes promotes the integrity and operational effectiveness of the bail system. The bill makes it clear that bail should not be granted in return for information. Under this Government public safety is paramount and it will not be compromised. The bill also reduces situations where a defendant will be bailable as of right which means the court has no option but to release a defendant on bail. 
Finally the bill restores the jurisdiction of justices of the peace and community magistrates to deal with certain defendants who breach bail. This jurisdiction was unintentionally reduced when the Criminal Procedure Act was passed last year. 
The Government is committed to bail laws that make New Zealand a safer place and keep victims at the heart of our criminal justice system. This bill reinforces our commitment. The New Zealand public deserve bail laws that protect them. The Government recognises that a person charged with a crime has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. However these rights must be balanced against the safety of the public. This bill helps get that balance right. I commend the bill to the House.