Jones Dail: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16778. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting the third reading of this legislation as I indicated in the Committee stage. During the Committee stage I indicated my disappointment that on my return to Parliament in February this year I discovered that the Criminal Procedure Bill was still on the Order Paper. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Ha ha! 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Tanczos was on the Law and Order Committee and as he will recall I was on the select committee for a little while in 2005 so he will know exactly what I mean. The bill could quite easily have been disposed of in all but one of its parts in 2006 but the Labour Government grimly hung on to the bill as a result of which we have had all the delays with methamphetamine cases in the High Court and other problems that have arisen in the administration of the justice system.  
I was wondering why the National Party capitulated on the question of depositions hearings. It seems to me very clear that the reason was that Mr Chris Finlayson based on the speech he has just made obviously does not understand the depositions system. In his comments he said he would like to see all the methamphetamine trials moved from the High Court down into the District Court so that the civil cases might then proceed. That indicates where his interest in the justice system lies. I would have thought that anyone who knows anything about the criminal situation in the High Court would like to see some of the criminal cases that will still be dealt with in the High Court by way of jury trial proceed so that people who are in custody can have their cases heard and victims who have been waiting endlessly can have their cases heard. But no the priority of the National Party would seem to be helping those people who want to deal in cases where tens of thousands of dollars of fees can be charged rather than being concerned about the victims of crimes and the people who are in custody. That was a very interesting disclosure on the part of the National Party and I am sure it will be borne in mind.  
New Zealand First was opposed to the removal of depositions hearings and really we can understand now why Mr Barker is in favour of removing them: he clearly does not understand them as he indicated in his speech. He said in his speech that it is very simple to see what is in written form and to take the evidence as it is in written form and believe everything that one reads in written form. Well as everybody knows the reason for depositions hearings is so that one can get the person in the witness box. It is amazing how once a person is in the box and is asked to confirm what is in written form that person realises that the words must be taken seriously. People realise that when they are in the box they cannot commit perjury. They realise they must tell the truth and lo and behold they change the version that is in written form and tell the truth. In many cases at depositions hearings the case is held to be no case to answer and that is the end of it and there is no need for a High Court trial.  
What will happen now is that something like 1600 cases which can be dealt with before a High Court trial and are dealt with via depositions hearings and on the papers will now require a High Court trial or a District Court jury trial. That will really clog up the system. Mr Barker Chris Finlayson and the National Party clearly do not understand that that is the case.  
The most serious thing that will come out of this will be the new disclosure system. We as practising lawyers in New Zealand saw when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act came out that about 8000 drink-driving cases were immediately dismissed because the prosecution had not complied with that Act. When we see this new criminal disclosure system as has been explained by Mr Chester Borrows in the Committee stage we realise there will be all sorts of problems on the part of the prosecution in terms of not complying with the new system. I sincerely repeat what I said in the Committee stage. I do hope the prosecution gets its papers in order makes full disclosure does not make mistakes as it did in the Kahui trial which the prosecution none the less still lost despite all the public support that was available for it and that we do not have cases being dismissed on the grounds that they fail to comply with the criminal disclosure system.  
Comment has been made on delays in the court and I would like to comment on that and refer to an excellent letter in the New Zealand Police Association magazine by Judge Russell Johnson. In a very recent issue I think April or May he comments on why we have the situation of delays. It relates in a way to new legislation that was passed in 1989 and we have to worry about that because of the new legislation that is being passed today. In responding to the question of what went wrong he makes this point: “In 1989 the Court of Appeal ruled that under the Official Information Act 1982 and the common law defendants were entitled to disclosure from the prosecution. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provided for speedy trials. But the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 knew nothing of these and provided no mechanism for enforcing compliance or overcoming delay. At the turn of this century in a series of cases—Keogh was one—the Court of Appeal affirmed that the District Court had no power to make pre-trial orders enforcing compliance. That set the scene for judicial tolerance of delays through non-compliance because without compliance cases would be struck out.” That is probably legal gobbledegook but it does make the point that when there is a serious change in the law that requires compliance things can go wrong.  
It is pleasing to note though that in the District Court system the Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson and other judges have already taken steps without this legislation—which makes one wonder whether it is even necessary for depositions—to do the following things. The New Zealand Police have developed the concept of a criminal justice support unit that will prepare files for court on behalf of officers in charge and will assess charges. The Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission are designing a new legislative replacement. From 1 July 2008 the Manukau and Tauranga District Courts will trial aspects of the new simplified procedure. The Auckland District Court from 1 June will assign the same five judges for extended periods to the five summary courtrooms to provide consistency and to reduce tolerance for non-compliance. And—this is important—even now the Auckland District Court has reduced the delay for the hearing of jury trials to 33 weeks from 54 weeks a year ago and is aiming for a reduction to 26 weeks. Plans are being finalised to establish three more jury trial courtrooms in the Auckland District Court by 2010. Work is going on for the development of the Manukau court to incorporate more courtrooms and behind the scenes a review of courthouse needs in Greater Auckland into the future is well under way.  
I just make those points and I would like to congratulate the Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson and the other members of the judiciary who will work together to ensure that there are improvements even within the present system without the necessity for this legislation immediately.  
I readily say and am pleased to say that this legislation in many respects will help to ensure that there is an even greater improvement than that I have outlined. A feature of a civilised society is that it has a very good and well-functioning judicial system and a well-functioning justice system as a whole. All the measures in this legislation except I suggest some amendments—in particular those to the Summary Proceedings Act—will ensure that that will take place. It is disappointing that we have had to wait so long for the legislation because most of the work could have been done in 2006 but at last it is getting under way. It is quite remarkable that we started on the Committee stage of the Criminal Procedure Bill on Tuesday of this week. Yesterday was a member’s day so we did not touch on this legislation but here we are on Thursday and after 2 days we have passed this legislation. Why was most of that work not done in a similar way in 2006? That very simple question should be asked.  
New Zealand First will be supporting the passing of the legislation and will be voting in favour of all of the bills. However we have made it very plain that we oppose the removal of depositions hearings which we regard as one of the cornerstones of an efficient judicial system.