Bridges Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12369] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech given by Lianne Dalziel. She has done some book-dropping and I will do a bit of name-dropping. I have met Lord Bingham of Cornhill twice; once at Oxford and prior to that in his chambers and a finer judge would be very difficult to meet. He was and I am sure still is the best of the best. For him it was all about listening which was good for me because that meant I did a lot of talking. He— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have you read the book? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I have seen it but I have not read it. I am about to come to that. Like another great jurist Lord Cooke of Thorndon—not so far from here—our greatest jurist Lord Bingham had a very thick if you like conception of the rule of law. I intuit as Lianne Dalziel would that he attributed to the rule of law substantive concepts of what law should be about—that it should include rights to a certain kind of trial and the like. 
I make the point—I will link this to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill Mr Chair you will be glad to know—that there is another very distinguished school on the rule of law that includes Joseph Raz a very well-known jurist from Oxford. It says that the rule of the law is not so much those substantive concepts but a process and very much about—we can put it in one phrase—the rule according to law not men. In my view this bill which presumably will become law complies with the rule of law. We will all know in this House through a set of prescriptions in clauses 5 6 and 9 exactly what a substantive hearing is and the criteria by which judges are to judge whether an audiovisual link is to be used for the accused. So I come back to it being rule by law not by men. I think it would meet most definitions of the rule of law if not the thicker conception that the likes of Lord Bingham and Lord Cooke would have where they bring in principles— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He had a set of principles. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —I accept that—but they are principles that are contestable. Not all people can always sign up to them. Where law is multifaceted and where it is complex there are often areas where exceptions are needed areas where thick rules cannot be subscribed to. 
I want to pick up on something that Keith Locke raised. It is a misconception that has run throughout this debate from a number of speakers which is this issue of body language. I know that Kennedy Graham was doing so in jest when he referred to the Minister in the chair and his various mannerisms. But in jury trials in this country for decades—I will venture as I have not been around quite that long—there has been a standard direction in the judges’ Bench Book which they guard jealously that makes it quite clear that jurors should take body language into account. The direction says that by examining the witness and paying close attention to his or her body language eyes and so on one might get a good steer on what a witness is about. However the most recent research on this point and the best research makes it quite clear that body language mannerisms and language are inherently unreliable. I said in the first reading debate of this bill that the twitchy witness might well be the most honest witness and the witness who is stone-cold sober looking straight ahead—perhaps a professional witness; often a police witness—may nevertheless be the one who is shielding things. In that regard our Bench Book and the way we do things in New Zealand may need to be updated to take into account the science on body language. I accept we are losing something when audiovisual links are used and that will be taken into account under the legislation that we are passing in this House but we are not losing as much as people might think by losing body language. Body language can be notoriously difficult to interpret and can lead people down the garden path. 
We have been talking a lot about wins and losses. Hone Harawira has won most of his cases where he has been the defendant personally and Lianne Dalziel lost her one defended case as counsel. I do not often get to do this so when I do I make the most of it: I have been counsel in over 100 jury trials in the District Court and High Court in this country and I won over half of them. So there you have it.