Borrows Chester: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7065. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. 
There has been a growing criticism of criminal procedure in New Zealand in the last few decades. It has been described as an impenetrable maze. It has been plagued by excessive delays and unnecessary hearings and costs have been mounting. The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and its 14 associated amendment Acts which passed in October last year modernised and simplified criminal procedure. In fact they represented the biggest reform in the modernisation of criminal justice procedure in nearly two generations. These Acts consolidated criminal procedure law and introduced a comprehensive package of reforms to make the criminal justice system more transparent understandable and efficient. The reforms are expected to result in over 31000 fewer court events per year. It is estimated that they will free up about 10000 court sitting hours each year. The reforms have the potential to take up to 9 weeks off the average time of cases that go to jury trial. The overall reforms have the potential to increase the efficiency of the courts to the value of about $15 million over a 10-year period. 
A small number of provisions including those relating to the name suppression and sentence indication provisions came into effect in March 2012. However the majority of the legislation will commence in July 2013. 
Since the enactment several technical issues have been identified in the Criminal Procedure Act and a small number of other Acts. Some may criticise the Government for needing to introduce this legislation but as members will know the bill giving rise to the Criminal Procedure Act and its associated Acts was complex and well over 500 pages in length. There is a high degree of interrelationship between the relevant legislation. Given the sheer scale and scope of the legislation some of the minor errors although regrettable are unsurprising. Further the bill was amended at the select committee and again at the Committee of the whole House to address concerns raised about aspects of the reforms. 
Some resulting minor cross-referencing and other technical deficiencies have been identified since enactment. The lead-in time from enactment of this legislation to its full commencement has provided for training and systems changes to implement the new criminal procedures and it is in that context that the need for a number of these technical fixes has been identified. The amendments in this bill are of such a technical nature that they would normally be suitable for inclusion in a Statutes Amendment Bill. However as the remainder of the 2011 criminal procedure legislation is intended to commence on 1 July 2013 these amendments must be in place by that date. This year’s stand-alone bill is not guaranteed to be enacted by that date which necessitates this stand-alone bill. 
The amendments fall largely into six categories. First there are some purely technical drafting and cross-referencing errors in the Act for example incorrect section references. Second in a small number of instances the bill enhances certain procedural provisions to ensure that they will be fully implemented and will operate as intended. Examples include the clause 6 amendment relating to the period to file a summons and the clause 7 amendments relating to the ability of a prosecutor to join charges without the court’s leave. Third the regulation-making powers in the Criminal Procedure Act are extended so that terminology and procedures in other legislation can be aligned with those of the Criminal Procedure Act by regulations. This will reduce the need for the House to devote its time to unnecessarily considering minor technical amendments. Fourth there are amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act to give effect to the intent that community magistrates have jurisdiction to receive guilty pleas for certain offences for which they will have sentencing jurisdiction. Fifth other legislation will be amended to align with the terminology and procedures of the Criminal Procedure Act. 
Finally a small number of enactments are amended to replace references to the term “crime” where that is required. Currently “crime” is defined in the Crimes Act 1961 as an offence where an offender is proceeded against by indictment. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh soft on the definition of crime. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Soft on crime that is right. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No soft on the definition of crime. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Soft on crime and the definitions of crime—let us put it that way. The Criminal Procedure Act replaces indictments with charging documents— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Careful Judith is listening from afar. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: —she is away—and offences are categorised by penalty level rather than by how they are proceeded against. Accordingly upon commencement the definition of a crime will be repealed—the Greens will vote for it no doubt. Several Acts contain references to a crime—for example the Crimes Act 1961. It is an offence without lawful authority or excuse to have one’s face covered or disguised with intent to commit a crime. The bill makes a small number of amendments to a few Acts to replace the term “crime” with a reference to the most appropriate offence type in the context of each Act. In the case of a person having their face covered or being disguised the reference to a crime is replaced with a reference to an imprisonable offence. This will align with a change already made to the burglary offence in the criminal procedure reforms. 
This bill is not contentious. It is a technical non-controversial piece of legislation. It will clarify and give full effect to legislation that this House has already approved. It will ensure that the largest criminal procedure reforms in 50 years can be implemented effectively and coherently and that the benefits predicted are fully realised. The amendments will enhance operational efficiency. This legislation will provide greater clarity for defence counsel prosecutors and the judiciary who will be required to apply the legislation. On that basis I expect the bill will receive wide support from all parties and I commend the bill to the House.