Chauvel Charles: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeChauvel Charles: Armed Forces Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): It was interesting to hear the two previous speakers speak about the provisions of clause 148 and why the rationale for the exemptions they propose should apply to the jurisdiction of the Court Martial concerning the principle of open justice. We heard from both previous speakers aboutthe exemptions that might apply in respect of disclosure of information that would or might be useful to the enemy or to any foreign country or otherwise be harmful to New Zealand. There is of course another exemption proposed in the legislation and it does seem to be a sensible one—that is if the judge considers that the reputation of the victim of an alleged sexual offence or an offence of extortion needs to be protected or if the order is desirable in the interests of public morality then an exemption to the principle of open justice will be permitted given the unique circumstances of the military environment. It seems to be an appropriate exemption. That really deals with Subpart 1 of Part 5.Subpart 2 is restricted largely to machinery provisions empowering the registrar in certain matters allowing the administration of oaths and covering other such issues. Subpart 3 is interesting though because as a previous speaker indicated the issue of bail in the military environment is not one that has been previously been dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. Under Subpart 3 the bill provides that a judge may grant bail to an accused pending trial in a court martial or to a person pending that person’s appeal in the event there is an appeal against sentence or conviction or both to the Summary Appeal Court or to the Court Martial Appeal Court. It is interesting to note that the provisions relating to bail appear to be aligned quite closely to those in the Bail Act 2000 with obviously the modifications necessary to take account of the different legal framework and of the seven vital elements of the military justice system the Minister referred to in his second reading speech in the House.To conclude my remarks on this part I tell members that Subpart 4 relates to the findings of the Court Martial. This reflects the interesting division between the judges on the one hand and the military members on the other. The judge is responsible for ruling on every question of law or procedure that arises during any trial in the court martial but the military members are responsible for determining the finding of the Court Martial on a charge by unanimous vote—and that is an important point—between themselves. The sentence of the Court Martial must be passed by the majority of the votes being counted together of the judge and the military members. So it seems there are very sensible machinery provisions relating to the Court Martial and the Committee will agree that the select committee has done a good job of aligning the requisite procedures with those applicable in the civil jurisdiction.Part 5 agreed to.