Power Simon: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21418] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill be now read a second time 
. The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill underlines this Government’s commitment to modernise New Zealand’s justice system for the benefit of those who use it and are entitled to depend upon it. 
New Zealand’s criminal procedure is outdated and cumbersome. The current system may be working well from the perspective of those who earn a living from it but it is failing those who find themselves in our courts through no fault of their own. In the words of the late Chief District Court Judge His Honour Russell Johnson a lack of teeth in the current law has contributed to “an unacceptable degree of indiscipline inefficiency and delay within the criminal justice process as well as regrettably injustice where exhausted witnesses have abandoned cases because of excessive time delays.” 
This bill will fundamentally change criminal procedure making criminal processes much more efficient and accessible. It will deliver timely justice and provide sufficient flexibility to meet contemporary and future expectations of court processes. We can never completely remove the distress and anguish that victims and their families experience as a result of offending against them but through this legislation we can help them to move on with their lives by reducing and streamlining their exposure to the criminal justice system. 
I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee chair Chester Borrows for steering the committee through this 600-odd page bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended a number of sensible clarifications and refinements all of which the Government is adopting. The most significant changes recommended by the committee include widening the grounds for ordering a retrial for a defendant found guilty in their absence clarifying that the court may not sentence a defendant in his or her absence for imprisonable offences enabling costs ordered against a party for not complying with procedural requirements to be paid to people connected to the proceedings who incurred additional costs because of the non-compliance removing the requirement that second appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal must be on a question of law and providing that leave for appeal may be granted if the appeal is in the interests of justice removing the reverse onus provisions carried over from previous legislation that the Attorney-General concluded were unjustified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act splitting the bill’s single offence and penalty structure for publishing suppressed information into a two-tiered system to better reflect the levels of culpability relating to those actions and removing the proposed offence concerning the liability of internet service providers for breaching a suppression order. The committee also recommended a number of minor and technical changes to the bill which have also been adopted. 
In addition to these changes a number of further amendments have been made to the bill since it was reported back from the select committee. To this end I would like to thank the ACT Party United Future the Maori Party and Labour for their constructive approach to negotiations since the bill was reported back from select committee in July. Earlier today I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper—actually three but one in particular—that will give effect to the changes made as a result of those negotiations. I am confident the additional safeguards we have developed strike an appropriate balance between time and cost savings and the defendant’s right to a fair trial. 
The main changes contained in Supplementary Order Paper 282 are the removal of the requirement for the defence to identify issues in dispute pre-trial setting the jury trial threshold at offences carrying a term of 2 years’ imprisonment and above and amending the clause that gives the courts the ability to proceed in the absence of the defendant so that the court’s discretion is limited to proceeding in procedural hearings where no determination of guilt or innocence will be made. In respect of substantive hearings the bill will provide that if the court is satisfied that the defendant has a reasonable excuse for non-attendance the trial must not proceed in the absence of the defendant unless the court is satisfied the defendant will not be prejudiced by his or her absence. 
The bill also amends the reference to costs orders to make it clear that costs orders against the defence or defence counsel for unreasonable and significant procedural delay are expected to be used rarely and only for significant procedural non-compliance. The bill also removes the word “substantial” from the miscarriage of justice test and restores the current 6-month limitation period for the least-serious category 1 and 2 offences. 
I am pleased to report to the House that including the changes made in the agreed Supplementary Order Paper the reforms contained in the bill have the potential to free up up to 9000 court sitting hours each year by delivering benefits that include approximately 36650 fewer court events somewhere between 230 and 450 fewer jury trials significantly a 6 to 9-week reduction in the average time to complete a jury trial and millions of dollars in savings. 
In addition to the changes I have outlined the bill will address concerns about name suppression for so-called celebrities by providing that there is no presumption of extreme hardship solely on the ground that the defendant is well-known or famous or thinks they are. 
I am confident that this bill will ensure more timely justice for victims witnesses and defendants and will provide an enduring legislative framework for criminal procedure which will ultimately enhance public confidence in the justice system. I would like to conclude by saying that this bill has been 10 years in the making. Various Ministers of Justice and Courts over a long period of time have worked on this legislation and thanks go to them for trying to wrestle with this particular beast which is not insubstantial in size and content. 
In concluding what we have is a bill that will be broadly acceptable to a vast majority of parties present in the House and that is the way to move ahead with reform like this type of work. I am quite willing to conclude today by thanking those parties who have been involved in those discussions and by thanking the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission which acted as an adviser on the bill. I commend this bill to the House.