Mark Ron: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2878] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Well at this point in the evening I think that pretty much most of the points that need to be covered in this bill have been covered. I can see from the line-up of National speakers yet to address the bill that there are some people who are well qualified to speak further on it. 
I have to start by saying that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill in going through its second reading. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Dail Jones QC who replaced me on the Law and Order Committee for the hearing of submissions on this bill and who saw most of its progress through the committee. The bill actually went to the committee on 29 June 2004 so it has been there a little while and quite clearly has been a contentious bill for many reasons. 
I also want to acknowledge right now the work done by our deputy leader Peter Brown. New Zealand First tends to be ahead of this Parliament on law and order issues as on a lot of things and in fact it was in 2003 that Peter Brown visited the United Kingdom—almost a year before this bill was introduced into Parliament—and took the opportunity to discuss with a number of British members of Parliament the question of double jeopardy and the law changes they were considering at the time. 
It was interesting that Peter Brown came back and reported to our caucus that some problems had finally been acknowledged by the British Parliament—problems that were based around the activities of organised crime. It was quite alarming to hear from him his description of how police were having to deal with situations where new evidence had been produced that would secure a conviction of criminals from the world of organised crime. They had been acquitted or found innocent of crimes in the first instance yet the police were powerless to take those people back to court and retry them. Particularly nasty was the fact that many of those people had gained their acquittals or innocent verdicts by using intimidatory tactics on jurors and on witnesses. I guess the real salt in the wound was that some of those people having been acquitted then went on to write books and boast about how they had cheated the justice system. That was the hot topic of discussion within the British Parliament at the time. Quite clearly Britain decided that it had had enough and I guess it was not too surprising that eventually the New Zealand Parliament would catch up with the play. So it has done and here we have this bill. 
I acknowledge that among the points strongly discussed by New Zealand First was firstly the provision to allow juries to convict by majority. That was not an easy issue and there was quite some discussion about it but at this present point in time we are happy to continue the process as laid out in this bill. 
Another point was trial by judge instead of by jury—something that has been brought about and noted because of the chances for juror intimidation. There are those people who say that that situation is not very likely and that we should not be passing such legislation and denying some people the right for a trial by jury. But I need to remind the House of what happened in Christchurch in 1997 which was not so long ago—9 years ago—when the Road Knights white power gang members openly intimidated witnesses outside the Christchurch District Court to such an extent that this Parliament during the time of the National - New Zealand First coalition took steps then to pass anti-harassment and criminal association legislation. The idea that organised criminals gangsters and thugs should be permitted to pervert the course of justice and advantage themselves in the courts by intimidating witnesses flies totally in the face not only of the justice system but of democracy and of what law-abiding New Zealanders demand. So we are not averse to those changes. 
New Zealand First understands the dilemma raised by double jeopardy and on looking through the select committee’s report I note that Dail Jones whilst acknowledging the concerns held by New Zealand First and the work done to research what had happened in the UK was at pains to point out the deep consequences of the proposed changes. I go to the report itself which deals with the rationale for the change. It deals with the tainted acquittal exception and with the intention that it should apply to persons who escape probable conviction for a serious crime by committing an administration of justice offence that leads to an acquittal. An example is the  
R 
 v  
Moore 
 case. Obviously I am not that familiar with that case but clearly Dail Jones was. 
I notice that the National Party and New Zealand First stated in the commentary on the bill: “National and New Zealand First consider that the proposed exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy have not been justified and should not proceed. Such a hard-won right which has withstood the test of time and forms a cornerstone of our legal system should not be undermined on the basis of scant evidence and research.” My colleague Dail Jones further inserted the statement: “New Zealand First believes there should be a minimum 10-year sentence without any remission for cases such as those illustrated by  
R 
 v  
Moore 
.” 
I guess that highlights to me that there has been some very serious discussion particularly among members of the legal fraternity over the issue of double jeopardy. I know that some very strong representations were made to my colleague Dail Jones and most certainly those representations have been made to me. I hear and take on board the comments of some speakers here in the House today but we will address this issue in the Committee stage with a very open mind because at the end of the day I do not want to wake up and find that incidences are occurring in New Zealand such as have happened in the United Kingdom. To people who say that those things are not possible I simply say that we have an unfortunate habit in this little country of ours of catching up on things 5 years after the fact and regretting that we did not take opportunities to make changes earlier. I would hate to think that that should be the case 5 years from now with Parliament having not actually passed this legislation. Having said that I say that the implications of allowing a person who has been found innocent to be subsequently brought back to court and retried are serious and we acknowledge that. I do not have anything further to add other than to say that we will be listening intently to the debate. As long as that debate is serious and is not filibustering for the sake of filibustering—we all hear far too much of that in this House—then we will take on board any relevant points made.