Wilkinson Kate: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16604] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call in relation to Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. I find there is some irony that a bill designed to address delays albeit in the judicial system has itself been delayed more than 4 years. Having said that it is my pleasure to address Part 4 which in essence refers to juries and in particular to changes to the current requirement for a unanimous verdict in criminal jury trials to a majority verdict of 11:1. If the jury has deliberated for at least 4 hours and the jurors have been unable to reach a unanimous decision the foreman has stated there is no probability of the jury reaching a unanimous decision and the court considers that the jury has had a reasonable time to deliberate bearing in mind the complexity and the nature of the trial then in that case a majority verdict may be allowed. 
It was interesting to look back at some of the anecdotal situations way back in 2004. I have here an article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
about a situation with a jury in which comments were made that “ ‘People wanted to get home to watch Coronation St or see the kids or whatever they do. After 5 o’clock the whole situation became irrational beyond your belief.’ The last two to desert his viewpoint were smokers one of whom had been more adamant than himself at the outset that the accused could not have committed the crime. ‘But after 10 hours without a cigarette he would have locked his own mother up.” I think if one looks at anecdotal situations like that one can certainly see the merit in not requiring the unanimous verdict of a jury. There are obviously situations where one of the jurors may be intransigent for whatever reason or may not be responsive to logical argument—and often we see that even in this Chamber—and this amendment may certainly overcome that. 
In civil cases under the bill the majority verdict may be by at least three-quarters. I note that the New Zealand Law Society submitted that juries should not comprise fewer than 10 jurors but this submission was not carried forward in the bill. I would certainly be interested in the Minister’s comments as to why that recommendation was not listened to. 
There are also provisions for certain persons to be excluded from jury service—for example lawyers which is a fairly obvious exclusion—and for restrictions on the use of the jury panel list in an attempt to address juror interference or intimidation. Defendants in the case may be shown a copy of the list but it may not be left in the possession of the defendant or any witnesses or victims and reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the list is not copied. Again anecdotally we hear of instances of juror intimidation which is a situation that really should be avoided wherever possible. 
There are also provisions whereby judges may discharge persons being summonsed for jury duty on the additional ground of having difficulties understanding or communicating in the English language. Again anecdotally we have heard of jurors who have sat through the duration of a trial but are unable to understand what is happening. That situation should be remedied by Part 4. 
Also of note is the reduction in the number of challenges available without cause. That has gone from six down to four although we are not sure why. Under the bill the jury districts are being expanded and the pool of jurors is being increased so why then reduce the number of challenges? Again I would appreciate the Minister taking a call on that point as well. 
I return to juror interference. If the Law and Order Committee and others were concerned about the possibility of juror interference or intimidation then the provisions of clause 82 in relation to sequestration of juries seem somewhat anomalous. Why let jurors leave before reaching a verdict and return to resume deliberations? Surely that is the very time that they may be subject to intimidation and subject to influence. They may be subject to uninformed opinions of family and friends. They could be swayed by external influences. Again I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call on the benefit that he perceives there is in abolishing that sequestration requirement which has worked in the past.