Pillay Lynne: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8988] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of as the previous speaker said the second of three bills to come before this House today from the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee. I will start off again by thanking all the members of the select committee—it was yet another unanimous report—and also those who helped us both officials and the hard-working select committee staff. Their assistance is very much appreciated. 
The Succession (Homicide) Bill is based on the principle that nobody should profit from his or her wrongdoing. That is a settled principle in New Zealand’s law. However despite that there can be uncertainties as to how this principle should be applied in certain cases. These uncertainties have resulted in costly and time-consuming litigation. About half of all homicides are domestic thus the issue of profiting from murder for example through inheritance is very pertinent. The Succession (Homicide) Bill seeks to codify the law that prevents a killer from inheriting his or her victim’s estate. This will reduce the number and scope of disputes over the victim’s estate. 
The background comes again from a Law Commission report which was carried out in 1997. Again I thank the Law Commission for ploughing through case law and coming out with a very good recommendation on which the bill was able to be based. The commission recommended clarifying and codifying the law in regard to homicide and the bill follows that recommendation. The Law Commission was consulted during the drafting of the bill. In essence a perpetrator who intentionally or recklessly kills another person or an unborn child will now be excluded from any profit from that act. Thus the property of the deceased will be distributed as if the killer had died before the victim and the killer will be ruled out of any profit. Those who kill by negligence infanticide suicide pacts and assisted suicide will not be excluded from profiting. This is because they are not so morally repugnant. Those who kill their abuser—for example battered partners who are predominantly women and children—will also be able to profit if they are found not guilty of murder on the basis that the killing was self-defence. These exemptions reflect the definition of homicide in the Crimes Act. 
If someone is convicted of homicide the bill uses that conviction as conclusive evidence that the killer was criminally responsible for the victim’s death. Currently a criminal conviction is not conclusive evidence in civil proceedings of criminal responsibility for the victim’s death. Under existing case law it is well established that killers cannot inherit from their victims but how it should apply can be uncertain in individual cases. The new law will clarify the issues and reduce the scope for any disputes that may arise. In the decade before the report’s release about 50 estates were disputed in court and the Law Commission recommended that a new law would make trustees’ jobs much easier and avoid disputes at difficult times. 
As I said before two tricky areas addressed by the bill were mercy killings and whether battered spouses who killed their abusers could be disinherited. I believe that those matters have been canvassed and addressed through the bill. 
The select committee made some recommendations as has been acknowledged by the acting Minister Ruth Dyson to amend clause 8 which ensures that killers do not gain under the Property (Relationships) Act from a victim’s death and also to clause 10 which allows killers to receive benefits promised to them by the victim to ensure that the bill only stops killers from inheriting from the act of killing and does not rule out any pre-existing rights that are not related to the act of killing. A new clause 11A ensures that the victim’s estate is not prevented from bringing proceedings against the killer under the Property (Relationships) Act. Clause 15 is extended to include those acquitted other than on the grounds of insanity or where the prosecution has been stayed or withdrawn. 
In summary the Succession (Homicide) Bill will achieve many things. It set outs very clearly in legislation and clarifies with absolute certainty the general rule that a killer cannot inherit from his or her victim in any way. The bill also defines in a clear way when a killer is prevented from inheriting from his or victim. It ensures that a killer is not generally deprived of pre-existing property rights and in doing so—and I think this is important—it will reduce the number of disputes that need to be referred to the courts and it will reduce the scope of any disputes that do arise. That is a very important point not only as I said earlier because a number of cases have been before the court—up to 50—but also because bringing these cases before the courts having them heard and having them defended takes quite some time and frankly the courts’ time can be used much more constructively. 
It is worth acknowledging that these cases are extraordinarily tragic and generally involve families in terrible terrible circumstances. Those families have lost a loved one in dreadful circumstances. To then have the indignity the stress and the anxiety of going to court to assert what should not happen in relation to the property of their loved one who has been murdered by— to use the term in the legislation—a killer adds insult to injury in a very real way. 
I think the bill is very constructive. Certainly there is the logistics of the courts’ time not being wasted but also the bill is constructive in a very much empathetic way in that families do not have to go through the duress of a gruelling court case after their loved one has been murdered. To then have to face litigation and dispute because the killer believes that he or she has a case to inherit really does as I said before add insult to injury. This bill is very constructive. 
I thank the Law Commission and the members of the select committee. We heard a number of submissions. The issues surrounding this bill meant that it was quite an emotional experience and I thank the committee for its constructive approach. I believe that the good work carried out by the Law Commission the drafting of the bill and the work of the select committee have resulted in an excellent bill. As the chair of the select committee I am proud to stand in this House and commend the bill.