Harawira Hone: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8251] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou te Whare. I have been in the unique situation probably among those in this Chamber of having defended myself on criminal charges on a number of occasions—and successfully so. One of those was on charges arising from the  
Patu! 
 trials of 1981 which went for 2 years. They did not finish until December 1983. That was a particularly difficult time for me because the charges added up to a term of something like 96 years. 
I know for a fact that I just did not have the resources to mount the kind of defence that the prosecution was able to mount. They had police officers for miles they had police photographers they subpoenaed records and photographs and photographers from mainstream media including television. They had the Crown Law Office supporting their whole case. Essentially they had the power of the State lined up against those of us in the  
Patu! 
 court cases. In the end we did not have anything. 
You know it worries me to think that with all of that power the Government is now suggesting that it can do it again. And if it can do it again what is to stop it from then passing another piece of legislation to do it again and again until it gets a conviction? Once we breach this dam—it is kind of like the criminal proceeds legislation we were talking about last night—the whole lahar will go. The whole thing will go not just a trickle. The whole thing will break. 
I am actually quite ashamed of Russell Fairbrother for what he said about double jeopardy—that maybe it is OK to charge somebody twice. He more than anybody else in this Parliament ought to know that if the prosecution has not put together a case to convict then maybe they should not have taken the case in the first place. If they think they do have a case and they take it all the way through and lose that is the end of it. I know that in the case of the  
Patu! 
 court trials it was not our great defence that won it; it was the fact that I was able to call a witness who really just won the case for us. So after 2 years we won that case on the basis of Bishop Desmond Tutu taking the stand to speak in our defence. Because of that the jury was blown away. When he came into the courtroom to give evidence for me all the police stood up all the prison wardens stood up and all the public stood up. The prosecutor stood up and even the jury stood up. I know that at the end of the day that is the reason why we all got off. We had Bishop Desmond Tutu speaking on our behalf. 
The fact of the matter is that it took 2 years before we got to the end of that case. I would be desperately concerned to think that with all of the resources the Crown had behind it if it could not get a conviction after that time it should have had the opportunity to drag it on again and again. I am particularly concerned to think that if we allow it once we allow it again and again. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 51 in the name of Kate Wilkinson to omit new section 378A from clause 7 be agreed to.