Little Andrew: Bail Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Bail Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to speak on the Bail Amendment Bill. In acknowledgment of the last speaker Jacqui Dean I just say what a pity it is that when the House is able to come together and talk with almost one voice on a very important measure—a criminal justice measure a measure that deals with trying to strike the very important balance between the liberty of the individual and the protection of public safety—a member should rise to try to score cheap political points about criminal justice. The truth is that the only real toughening of our sentencing laws and bail laws in criminal justice happened under the last Labour Government. We have a lot to thank the Hon Phil Goff for for that work which he himself gave an account of.When the bail laws were changed in 2000 about 500 defendants were denied bail. That number increased to 1700 over the 5 or 6 years following the implementation of that legislation. Look at the National Government’s change to the bail laws in 2011 and you see that the impact was on 10 people. Ten people were detained who otherwise might have got bail. Then if you have a look at the assessment of the impact of this bill it is that it will affect possibly around 50 people. But we come from the principle of justice where if an innocent citizen is harmed hurt or negatively affected by another citizen committing a crime when the justice system might have prevented that harm through proper risk assessment and properly managing a previous charge of that offender that is still an injustice. So any measure that takes us a step further towards ensuring that that sort of injustice does not happen is a step worth taking and that is why we support this bill.The way we handle criminal offenders is vital to public safety. It is the public safety aspect that underpins this legislation that cries out for proper consideration and ultimately for our support.We note and acknowledge of course that offenders on bail either have merely been charged or of course are in the situation where they have been convicted but not sentenced. But in those situations where a defendant has simply been charged and has yet to be tried or to admit the guilt of their offence then they are entitled ordinarily to a presumption of innocence. However when we look back over the last couple of decades the reality is that there has been an increase in the reported instances of those on bail committing other offences and in some cases very serious offences. It would bea neglect of our duty as a Parliament if we did not take note of that and ensure that the courts and the judges have the tools to make a proper assessment in a bail application of a defendant who comes before them of whether that defendant poses a continuing or real risk to the community in terms of further serious harm.Clause 8 of this bill expands the number of offences to which the reverse onus that originally appeared in the Bail Bill of 2000 applies. Somebody charged with murder faces the reverse onus regardless of whether or not they have any previous convictions. That is a sensible balance. Murder is a serious charge and I think the track record of the New Zealand Police now is that the police do not charge somebody until they are satisfied that there is at least a strong prima facie case. So I think a judge is entitled to look at the prima facie evidence and decide whether or not the defendant poses a further risk to the community.Then of course the reverse onus applies in relation to other serious offences where there have been previous convictions. In my view that is a good balance to strike in terms of the court exercising its discretion over bail and having the ability to make a proper assessment of the risk posed by a defendant. The new serious offences added by the bill include kidnapping and aggravated robbery and a handful of others as well. In this situation the defendant must satisfy the judge that they will not commit any other violent offence or pose a danger to any other person.These changes as I think the Minister correctly pointed out arise largely out of the killing of ChristieMarceau and the petition that arose out of that. I think it pays to dwell for just a moment on the details of that case. There is no question that it was an unspeakable tragedy for the Marceau family to lose their daughter and sister and granddaughter in that way.The facts known about that case ultimately resulted in the defendant pleading guilty to some kidnapping charges for the first incident and then being found not guilty by reason of insanity for the ultimate act that he committed which took Christie Marceau’s life. There is no question that the defendant’s poor mental health played a large part in that offending. The sequence of events was that the defendant had committed a very serious set of offences when he detained effectively kidnapped and threatened other serious offences on Christie Marceau. Then when he was arrested he was detained denied bail and kept in custody for a period of time because the court was aware and the police knew that his mental health was an issue. Through the detention he had at that time in custody he had his mental health issues addressed and he was placed on medication. Some weeks later when he had a subsequent bail application which at his age he was entitled to make the judge faced with a call about whether or not the defendant should be given bail because this was not a defendant who had any previous convictions made a judgment call that was in accordance with the law at the time.Without wanting to detract at all from the pain and the suffering and the trauma that the Marceau family has felt there are others who have peddled those events into a case for something other than what appears in this bill. The truth is that the balance that has been struck in this bill means that were there to be another tragic event such as this case—and hopefully there will never be—the reality is that even under this bill it is likely that the court would find it difficult not to grant bail for a defendant of the nature of the defendant involved in the Christie Marceau killing in the circumstances in which that defendant was. That is not about avoiding giving comfort to the New Zealand public at large but it is a reality about legislation like this drawing an appropriate balance in the criminal justice context.This legislation also puts tighter restrictions on defendants charged with more serious drug crime and given the prevalence of it and given the prevalence of criminal offending in relation to drugs such as methamphetamine that is an entirely appropriatepath to take. Then finally the bill deals with making more explicit the management of and the risk assessment associated with the granting of electronic bail.When it comes down to it that is what we in this day and age call on the courts to do. When they are dealing with offenders in this modern age we need the courts to have the confidence to make an appropriate assessment of risk that those defendants—and some are former offenders they are convicted offenders—pose to the community as the judge considers whether or not an ongoing detention is an appropriate status for the defendant to face. That poses for judges an enormous responsibility. They are responsible for community safety as much as they are responsible for ensuring that the defendant has and can get a fair trial and is not presumed to be guilty before the facts of their charge are properly tried in the court. This is always a difficult balancing act to achieve. So on that basis and with those comments we will support this bill.