Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8250] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I think many people have had reason when looking at the principles around double jeopardy to question the value of it. I certainly did—for the first time really—when I read the court transcripts of the trial of Luke Donnelly for the killing of Chris Campbell. Members may remember that Chris Campbell was a leader of the Rastafarians in Ruatoria. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: A good man too. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Fairbrother. Chris Campbell was killed by Mr Donnelly. During a perhaps heated verbal interaction Luke Donnelly pulled out a shotgun and shot him. Chris Campbell fell to the ground and while he lay there wounded Luke Donnelly having used up the shotgun shells previously on his car and the like picked up a rifle and shot him again. Chris Campbell subsequently died from those wounds. Luke Donnelly was acquitted on all charges by a jury in I think the Hawke’s Bay. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Gisborne. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: In Gisborne. When I read the transcripts of the case I was convinced that Chris Campbell was killed in cold blood and that Luke Donnelly should have to go on trial again. This bill would not cover that case because it was not a question of tainted evidence nor was it a question of new evidence—so this bill would not apply. But on further reflection I had to come to the conclusion that it should not apply and that the law should allow the rule against double jeopardy. Regardless of my strong personal belief that Chris Campbell was murdered in cold blood I think it is enormously dangerous for us to allow the State to keep prosecuting a person with all of the powers of the State being used against the limited resources of an individual member of society. 
I thank Mr Borrows for his contribution to the debate because I think he outlined the concerns exceptionally well in relation to tainted acquittals and new and compelling evidence. I want to touch a little more on the subject of new and compelling evidence. It was interesting to read in the report of the Law and Order Committee: “The Attorney-General’s section 7 report says that the new and compelling evidence exception is a  
prima facie 
 breach of section 26 of the Bill of Rights Act; and that it can not be justified under section 5 …”. 
My principal objection to the new and compelling evidence provisions is that I am just not sure that I can see any constraint on what kind of evidence might be allowed. The select committee’s report indicates that other evidence besides physical evidence that meets the requirement such as a confession will also be covered by this provision. That interested me. Does that apply to a jailhouse confession? Like other members perhaps I have been enormously concerned about some of the cases where jailhouse confessions have been crucial parts of the evidence. I particularly refer to the Scott Watson case where it was a crucial element in his conviction. It left me as someone who was not present at the trial but who was a spectator through the media enormously concerned about the effects of that evidence. It left me with continuing disquiet about his conviction. 
The police in this country have been criticised more than once for a tendency in serious homicide cases to decide who the main suspects are then look for evidence to convict them. I think there is something in that criticism. We also know that there have been cases in this country where those kinds of conditions of investigation have applied where evidence has been fabricated to secure a conviction. I have just to mention Arthur Allan Thomas to remind members about that. 
So I have to ask what the real protection is from a disgruntled member of the police who is certain that he or she knows who did it but has failed to secure a conviction proceeding to fabricate evidence in order to have another go. I do not think there is much protection actually and that leaves me with an ongoing concern about this legislation. 
I thought Mr Fairbrother’s contribution was a powerful one—and I think Mr Finlayson was perhaps slightly uncharitable in his comments—and there was much in the argument to take seriously. Nevertheless on reflection I remain concerned about the danger of opening up the double jeopardy rule. For that reason among others the Greens will be voting against this bill. But in order to tighten some of those exceptions we intend to support Kate Wilkinson’s Supplementary Order Paper.