Locke Keith: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12366] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was looking for the motivation for this change in such traditional rights which we have defended over many generations and it seems to be all about money. We will save a bit of money. We will save the trouble of transporting defendants from their cells to the courts and save a bit of money here and there. Really we cannot sell justice like that. 
As I think Charles Chauvel pointed out we might save a few dollars by having the video links from prisons through to courts but we will lose a lot more because this law will not last. There will be all sorts of challenges to it including as Charles Chauvel said appeals to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. There is an international backdrop to justice now and it can be appealed to. As has been pointed out by my colleague Kennedy Graham and by Charles Chauvel the right to be present at one’s own trial is a fundamental right in both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights etc. 
There is also a phrase: justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It would be ironic if justice were seen to be done by those who happened to be in court at the time—the judge the lawyers perhaps some media and some people in the gallery who would see justice supposedly being done—but the person who it most affected the person who might be imprisoned and sent away for life were not in court to see justice being done. That would be such a huge injustice. Among those who were convicted in this way it would lead to a feeling that they had been wronged. They would be very bitter and they would be a problem—in some sense rightly a problem—in the prison system because for a long time they would be carrying the feeling that they had been wronged. In the community there would be a lot more cases like the Thomas case where people thought: “This person was wrongly convicted and one of the reasons they were wrongly convicted is that they were not present in the court and did not get a fair go.” 
Those who would suffer the most as my colleagues Metiria Turei and Hone Harawira have said would be the people who are most marginalised in society. It would be the people who do not have nice suits and well-appointed relations to in a sense give them some protection. It would be the people who do not have much money the people who have had problems in their past. So the bill would lead to only greater differences in the application of justice as my colleague Metiria Turei said. 
I have been on a jury in a fairly long trial. One of the things that struck me while I was on that jury and was part of deliberations was the body language—what was said directly the way people looked and the way their eyes flickered. All of those things when defendants are giving evidence are very influential on the jury; I could see it. In this case there were two people with two versions of the truth arguing quite passionately for their side of the case. I could tell from the jury I was on that a lot of the judgment of the body language and the subtleties of how they presented their case would not have been picked up on any video. Also their ability to see each other and the way each of them reacted was quite important in that case—or at least for the defendant and the main witness against the defendant. 
I think it is important not to proceed with this bill. I support a delay and I support the amendments put forward by David Parker and Kennedy Graham. Thank you.