Bridges Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 This has been an interesting and at times thought-provoking and high-minded debate. We have heard some interesting comments on the principles of criminal law. But I have to say that from where I have been sitting there has also been to some extent a degree of unreality in the debate. 
We have heard from a number of speakers now for example that there is an absolute right for an accused person in this country to be present at his or her trial—an absolute right. Well I tell this House that that is not the case. There is not much in criminal law that is absolute. Although the circumstances where an accused person would not be present at his or her trial are I accept rare indeed that should not be elevated to a fundamental absolute never-transgressed right. For example there is a strain of cases in this country in the High Court often in multi-accused trials where in order not to hold up the trial and also because the accused may be seen to be trifling with the case—perhaps he or she has not appeared for his of her case—the trial proceeds in his or her absence the evidence is called and he or she will be found guilty or not guilty at the end of that case and rarely with very significant penalties imposed. 
Hon David Parker 
: But not if they want to be there. That doesn’t apply if they want to be there. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is not true. There is a strain of cases and I accept that this is exceptionally rare where the trial can proceed without the accused. 
The other thing that we have heard from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and I think also from Kennedy Graham is that this should be about the victims. I agree that it should be about the victims. Lianne Dalziel said that the victim has a right to be heard. I entirely agree with that but I can tell that member that there is not a defence counsel in this country in a case where it mattered that would not want the victim or the complainant there in person. Really we are only ever going to have it on application from the Crown or police that the victim would give evidence by audiovisual link. Again I say that there has been an air of unreality in some of the things being said. 
I will pick up on some of the things that Kennedy Graham said. He said that audiovisual links in relation to victims—or complainants as they are actually called at trial—could have some real problems. Again I say that there are many many cases in this country today before we pass this law where complainants in criminal cases give their evidence by closed-circuit television. They are giving evidence from other rooms by video link. They are not physically in the court. That happens I can say with confidence every single working day in this country. So we are not dealing necessarily with absolutes. Criminal law is often developed by experience and on a case by case basis. 
My real criticism of the Labour Party’s position is that—if I can put it this way—it is a bit simplistic. It is a blanket-rule approach. National is not saying that all substantive hearings will now be held by audiovisual link—it is not saying that at all. We are saying that the courts should work through the range of what I think are quite strict criteria that we have put into this bill for them. We are saying that for trials where there is an audiovisual link for the accused—and I think the Minister put it more judiciously than this—legitimate caution would be shown by judges. I think and I am not trying to in any way fetter what judges do—and they will see this if they look back at this debate—that it will be exceptionally rare if at all that accused people will be giving evidence by audiovisual link at their court case. But there we have it; we have left the door open. I think that is the right thing to do and to leave it to the judges who may well take a more sophisticated approach—and I think this bill allows for this. 
It has been said that there is absolutely no mischief that we are remedying. In fact I can perceive of cases where it would perhaps be in the interests of justice that we have accused people giving evidence by audiovisual link. It will be very rare but there will be occasions. There may be cases in this country where the accused are harming themselves or are a real danger of causing harm to themselves and others—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Kennedy Graham laughs. In fact that is not necessarily something that we should laugh at. It happens. There are cases like that where the accused are not insane where they have not met those legal tests but where they are in court with really serious issues. I am not saying that it is likely; it may never happen. But we are not closing the door in this case. 
There are other things I will say very briefly in considering all of this. Members should remember that the definition for “substantive hearing” is very wide. When we talk about substantive hearings we are talking about any hearing where evidence is called. The matters can be very minor and in those cases it may be absolutely right that the accused gives evidence by audiovisual link as on a minor bail matter where the accused just wants his or her address changed from say 63B Grove Street to another address. Using an audiovisual link may be the appropriate way in which to have the evidence heard in that matter. 
Secondly we must remember—and I have said it before but I just want to reiterate and emphasise it—that we have set the bar high in this legislation. For audiovisual links to be considered and adopted in a substantive hearing the courts will have to consider clauses 5 6 and 9 of the bill. Clause 6 is effectively the most significant one. Court officials must take into account—I will not go through them all—“(a) the ability of the defendant—(i) to comprehend the proceedings; and (ii) to participate effectively in the conduct of his or her defence; and (iii) to consult and instruct counsel privately;”. It goes on. Certainly when we get to the business end of a trial by jury or by judge alone and when someone’s guilt—or non-guilt as it may be—is on the line judges will go through those factors very seriously. As I say my personal view as a former lawyer is that it would be a very rare case where audiovisual links for the accused in a trial would be granted. As the Minister said judges would show legitimate caution. That is their culture; that is the way they do things. 
I do not think that we are being simplistic; we are leaving it to judges to take a more sophisticated approach. I think there has been an air of unreality in this debate and when we actually consider things in the cold light of day we will see that this bill is a good thing. It will make courts more efficient and it will lead to better safety in courts. I commend the bill to the House.