Twyford Phil: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:676;Page:21602] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Also as a non-lawyer I must say I have found this debate very interesting. Like Chris Hipkins I have been following the public debate as this Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill has progressed and observed the negotiations with a great deal of interest. I really appreciated the Hon Rick Barker’s comments about the provenance of this bill and the impassioned plea that Rick Barker made about the need to modernise the administration of justice. 
I will confine my comments to Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 286 and invite the Minister in the time remaining to get up and respond to some of the clauses proposed in it. For the benefit of people at home let me just speak briefly about what is contained in the amendment Labour has put on the table in the name of Charles Chauvel. Included is new clause 25A which inserts a procedure modelled on clauses in the Summary Proceedings Act which would provide for an on-the-spot summons procedure to apply in certain limited circumstances. Clause 26 would clarify the procedure to be followed following an evidential breath test. The changes to clause 35 would ensure that the defendant is not required to plead unless the defendant has had at least 21 days to consider the material obtained under disclosure from the Crown. 
There are a number of minor things in the Supplementary Order Paper but it is worth probably mentioning the changes in clauses 58 to 63 which substitute the word “undertaking” for the word “indication” which is I think designed to ensure consistency with other statutes. The changes to clause 105 set out to modernise the law as to when the court may be addressed on evidential issues. 
Probably the most substantial part of the Supplementary Order Paper is the additions to clause 128 which have the aim of confining further the circumstances under which trial and sentencing can continue in the absence of the defendant. This is to ensure that the court may not proceed in the absence of the defendant when a reasonable excuse for that absence has been given. The court is asked to consider a number of factors when making a decision about whether to proceed in the absence of a defendant and these things would include any information available to the court about the reasons for the defendant’s absence any issues that the defendant has indicated that are in dispute and the extent to which the evidence is critical to an evaluation of those issues and the likely length of an adjournment. In spite of the fact that the court can consider and decide whether to proceed in the absence of the defendant the court must not proceed under these provisions if it is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. So we would particularly appreciate a response from the Minister on the additions to clause 128. 
The final two elements include a new clause 176A which would prevent the prosecution from offering new evidence or correcting deficiencies where earlier offering or correction was reasonably foreseeable and amendments to clause 361(1) and (2) which would restrict the circumstances in which a costs order against a defendant or the defendant’s counsel may be made to cases where a failure is exceptional intentional and done without reasonable excuse. 
Those are the elements in Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper and in the time remaining we would really appreciate a response from the Minister.