Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13129] 
1.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 to the  
Minister of Justice:  
What changes are being proposed to the rule of double jeopardy and why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government is proposing two limited exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy. Firstly a retrial will be allowed where it is found that an acquittal at the original trial was tainted by the accused perverting the course of justice. Secondly in very serious cases there may be a retrial when fresh and compelling evidence comes to light that strongly suggests that an acquitted person was in fact guilty. These changes will appropriately balance the general principle of double jeopardy with the principle that the victim and the public have the right to see justice done. 
Darren Hughes 
: What safeguards are proposed for the new “fresh and compelling evidence” exception that he is proposing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of safeguards. Firstly the exception applies only to the most serious crimes—that is those crimes where the maximum penalty is up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Secondly the evidence must be new and unable to have been discovered at the time by due diligence in the original investigation. In other words poor police work will not be enough to reopen the case. Thirdly the evidence must be compelling—that is highly suggestive that the acquitted person is in fact guilty. Finally the reinvestigation by the police must first be approved by the Solicitor-General on the basis that it is in the interests of justice and the retrial can take place only with the agreement of the Court of Appeal; again if the retrial is judged by the Court of Appeal to be in the interests of justice. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by Victoria University criminology lecturer Trevor Bradley that: “I don’t think it’s too cynical or sceptical to say that the political impact is one of the motivating factors for the change”; if not would the Minister name one New Zealand case in say the last 10 years that would fit the Minister’s so-called second exception—becausethere are none? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not agree with that particular statement made by the university academic whom the member named but the academic made another statement in which he said: “We seem to be living in the era of the victim and protecting the victim.” I agree 100 percent with that statement. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How does the Minister propose to deal with and protect against the perverse incentive this may provide to fabricate new evidence when a conviction fails given that we have some highly publicised cases of police planting evidence such as the Arthur Allan Thomas case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It can never be ruled out that evidence could be planted but the member has mentioned the exception fortunately rather than the norm in New Zealand. We have every reason to have confidence in the integrity of the police; for the police to fabricate evidence is to pervert the course of justice. That is a serious offence and the full weight of the law would come down on any such person who tried to do what the member has suggested. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he intend to compensate people who having been found innocent a second time because the so-called new and compelling evidence does not stack up and who many years later had to again suffer the stress and anguish of a lengthy trial a huge legal bill to defend themselves and renewed public humiliation; or is he suggesting that the Solicitor-General and the Court of Appeal are quite capable of reliably determining a person’s guilt without the inconvenience of subjecting the evidence to the rigours of a defended hearing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am confident that the protections that are built in and that have been advised to the House will prevent such a case from happening. In terms of compensation compensation is available to those who have been wrongly convicted and who serve a term of imprisonment. Inevitably quite a percentage of people face trial and are acquitted. Those people may be eligible for compensation for court costs. Right now they are not automatically eligible for any other compensation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To avoid saying whether there is truth in the academic’s comments—that this is pure political window-dressing—can the Minister advise what percentage of perjury cases known to the police have the police failed to prosecute in say the last 10 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In terms of perjury cases there is a very clear case involving a man by the name of Kevin Moore in New Plymouth a gang leader who murdered somebody and then had a witness give false testimony as to where he was at the time of the murder. That came to light. He was convicted of an administrative crime and he is serving 7 years for that. But of course he should be serving life for murder because that is what he was guilty of. Because of double jeopardy that man can never be brought to trial for the crime he committed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was all very illuminating except it did not answer the question. In last 10 years what percentage of perjury cases known to the police have the police failed to prosecute? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously I do not have that figure at my fingertips but I can say that I would expect the police always to prosecute where they are aware that perjury has been committed.