Ardern Jacinda: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15766] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to join my colleagues in commenting on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It is a very significant bill as indicated not necessarily just by the size of the bill itself but by the really weighty issues it addresses and by the fact that it touches on some of the most sacred elements of our criminal justice system. That is why Labour is very cautiously supporting this bill through to select committee so that we have the opportunity to give it the really hefty consideration it deserves. From our perspective as a party there will probably be a couple of really key principles we will be keeping in mind when considering the content of this legislation. They are the core principles we take into account when considering most justice bills. 
They include first and foremost the notion of access to justice which is the idea that our criminal justice system should keep in mind its interface with both the defendant and the victim. That means that justice should be speedy and efficient without compromising the second core principle which is the importance of public confidence in our criminal justice system. I would hope that each and every one of us in this House when approaching justice legislation would keep in mind the perspective of the victim and the possibility of being a defendant. We simply cannot side with either party when considering justice legislation; we must ensure that both defendants and victims are kept in mind when considering such weighty legislation. I fear that we may not be doing that in some of the provisions we are seeing early on so we are approaching this bill very cautiously. 
I want to touch on some particular elements of the bill but before I do I will reflect on some of the context to this bill. It has been developed after some quite hefty consideration. In the past the Ministry of Justice has acknowledged that our current system suffers from excessive cost complexity and delays which of course have an impact on defendants victims and other participants. But as my colleague Lynne Pillay mentioned earlier there have been other opportunities for us in this House to deal with some of those matters through other initiatives that have not been taken up some of them far less controversial. I believe that a bill relating to Family Court matters gave the option of a Family Court judge using judicial officers to clear some of the caseload they were facing. Of course those cases often involve children so speed is even more important than usual in those cases. That bill has been passed yet that power available to them is unable to be used because the Government did not believe that it was something that should be enacted and I find that disappointing. In fact the Ministry of Justice told us that it was not a priority yet that provision could have aided in removing some of the excessive delays we are seeing in our court system. 
The Ministry of Justice probably would have also made the point about excessive complexity delays and cost if it had been given the privileged opportunity to be the adviser when we considered the “three strikes” legislation but as we all know for some bizarre reason it was the police who advised us on that important criminal legislation. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What? That seems a bit odd. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It was extraordinarily odd and I wager that that was done because the police were part of the very small group in support of that legislation; the Ministry of Justice I imagine would have advised against it. 
Coming back to this bill I say that it results from the Criminal Procedure (Simplification) Project which was established in October 2007 and was a collaborative piece of work between the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission. We have seen a series of quite controversial recommendations translated from that work into this bill that we are considering. In fact pointing directly to that is the fact that the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has released quite a scathing report on this bill. He states that in a number of ways by allowing criminal trials to proceed particularly without the accused being present and by allowing the courts to order the retrial of an acquitted defendant if new evidence comes to light the bill is in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is interesting given that he himself has been one of the individuals calling for drastic reform of our justice system. To have one of the individuals who have promoted reform then come out against some of these provisions points to the fact that we may not have got it right on every element of this bill and we certainly will be applying very close scrutiny to our consideration of that. 
Earlier this year we considered the use of video link technology in our court systems and Labour spoke very strongly against the idea of having defendants able to access their own court case via a video link. From our perspective that did not hold true to one of the most important elements of our criminal justice system: the ability to attend one’s own trial in a substantive trial not a procedural hearing. We will continue to hold that principle when considering some of these proposals. 
I will touch very quickly on some of the most significant proposals some of which have been canvassed by my colleagues. One proposal that I have already mentioned goes to the heart of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is the change to the threshold for jury trials. I heard one member of the House—I believe it was Simon Bridges—refer to the idea of using a jury hammer to crack a nut. I think he was alluding to the fact that we are perhaps using jury trials for cases that he might consider to be insignificant relatively speaking. Of course that is taking the perspective of someone who is not a defendant in a case when considering whether a case is insignificant. When someone is before our criminal justice system the case is significant. On every occasion it will be a significant issue particularly for that individual. Finding an appropriate threshold where we remove that fundamental right is a very delicate thing. Labour will be considering that proposal very very closely as we will the notion of proceeding with 10 jurors. 
It was under I believe Phil Goff as the Minister of Justice that we had some considerable reform of the way our juries operated in New Zealand. At that point we probably got the balance right. Moving forward to these proposals I would like to see some consideration as to whether those we have already gone through have been the success we needed them to be and whether moving to allow jury trials to proceed on a routine basis with fewer jurors will provide the improvements to our system that the Minister of Justice assumes it will. I hold a bit of a question mark over that. 
We then have the defence disclosure of issues—the idea that the defence would have to identify and disclose issues in dispute before a trial. I think probably on the face of it those listening may assume that that sounds like common sense but we have to be very very cautious in the way we proceed with that significant change as well. The same applies to exceptions to the double jeopardy rule. With reference to a court proceeding in a defendant’s absence this bill gives not only the ability for a court to proceed in the absence of the defendant when there is no reasonable excuse for that absence but also the power for the court to proceed even if there is a reasonable excuse. I am quite concerned—in the same way that we were concerned about audiovisual technology—that someone not being present when their trial is taking place even if they have a reasonable excuse undermines notions of natural justice. I think we should exercise extreme caution again with the notion of a reverse onus of proof. 
I have touched on some of the key elements of this bill to which Labour will be paying close attention. Again that core principle for us will of course be access to justice. That includes efficiency but also public confidence. Whether an individual member of the public is a victim or a defendant at any point in his or her life our justice system must serve both and that will be our focus.