Wilkinson Kate: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16607] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Again it is my pleasure to stand and take a call. Part 5 basically relates to the abolition of oral preliminary hearings commonly known as depositions. We have heard arguments both for and against depositions and on whether they should be retained or abolished. Even the law profession itself is somewhat divided on this point. On the side of retaining depositions it is argued that oral pre-trial hearings frequently remove complexities thus narrowing the issues and often shortening trials. The display of evidence often results in guilty pleas by defendants and/or accommodations by the prosecution which may also lead to guilty pleas or withdrawals of charges. As a result there may be fewer trials trials may be shortened and the entire process may be streamlined. 
I was interested to have a response from the Minister for Courts to a question I lodged. In cases where depositions have been heard I asked how many of those cases resulted in the defendant or accused pleading guilty and how many proceeded to a hearing. In the 12 months to 30 September 2006 in the District Courts there were 1044 guilty pleas resulting from the depositions there were 485 guilty pleas after the defendant had been committed for trial and 736 cases proceeded to hearing or trial. 
On the side to abolish depositions is the argument that they are less important since the Official Information Act was passed and also since the Pearce decision relating to pre-trial disclosure. The arguments were also made that eliminating mandatory oral hearings will make the system more efficient and will eliminate preliminary hearings being used as delaying tactics and fishing expeditions and that witnesses will have to testify only once in court so the victim is not put through the ordeal twice thereby extending grief especially for families of murder victims. 
Further reasons to abolish depositions are that preliminary hearings are currently being used as a forum of disclosure—effectively a mini-trial—and that is not their intended purpose. I note that in other jurisdictions including the United Kingdom and Canada mandatory preliminary hearings have been abolished in favour of a robust disclosure regime. So if we are to abolish depositions we must ensure that our disclosure regime is also sufficiently robust. 
I also note the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in relation to depositions which provides for the parties to apply for oral evidence orders and also for a review in 2 years’ time of the Summary Proceedings Act and we welcome that review. Bearing in mind however that this bill passed its second reading over 2 years ago it is not exactly the ideal example of how to reduce delays. An article in the  
Dominion Post 
 nearly 2 years ago on 10 October 2006 referred to the number of court hours spent processing depositions hearings as having almost doubled in the last 10 years consuming an estimated 8500 hours of court time in 2005. That article in the  
Dominion Post 
 went on to say that depositions “have been accused of clogging the court system delaying justice and costing New Zealanders millions of dollars annually.” In fact the latest figures—which again I have obtained from the Minister—show that judicial JPs spent in the year to 30 September 2006 something in the vicinity of 5118 hours nationally on depositions. So those are somewhat interesting figures in the context of this debate. 
One of the issues however is really that this bill is designed if you like or is intended to reduce the delay in the court times. If as one senior law lecturer at Auckland University Mr Scott Optican suggests we should be focusing on trial delays then one would have to peer very hard at this bill to see any suggestion that it addresses such trial delays. We have horrific statistics of trial delays and we have horrific statistics of stays of prosecution and unfortunately they do not seem to be getting any better. Although I support the good things in this bill it is unfortunate that there are some opportunities that I think have been missed. Certainly the Government has missed the boat on addressing the issue of trial waiting-times. In fact the recent figures in relation to those trial waiting-times do paint a fairly grim picture. The median waiting-time for High Court jury trials increased by 70 percent to 304 days—that is almost a year—since 2003 and 10 percent in the 5 months from July. Waiting times in District Courts have increased by 27 percent to 270 days since 2004 and by 11 percent in 5 months. I am hopeful that avoiding the need for depositions may reduce some of that waiting time but I would have to say that I do treat that with some scepticism although also with some hope. 
Some courts have waiting times of more than a year. The High Court at Wanganui has a median waiting-time of 383 days—that is over 12 months. Whangarei has a median waiting-time of 382 days. Those times have doubled since 2003 in Auckland Blenheim and Gisborne. District Courts in Rotorua have a median waiting-time of 389 days. Blenheim has 384 days and Invercargill 369 days. The longer the waiting list the longer the victims have to wait for justice and the more chance there is of people avoiding trial as happened in 2006 and 2007 when 18 people walked free 10 of them because of systemic problems in the justice system. 
I would like the Minister for Courts to take a call and not just tell us how much he has spent on the justice system but give some explanation as to why trial waiting-times are not being addressed in this bill. Having said that that answer may be self-explanatory because with respect if I may quote the Minister on 7 September 2006 he said: “I do not agree with the member’s assertion” that justice delayed is justice denied. I would have to say that for a Minister for Courts that comment is a very sad indictment. 
Under this Government waiting times in outstanding cases have got worse and worse. The Government is failing to ensure that justice is served in a timely manner. This bill was introduced 4 years ago but frankly I would have to say that this Government simply does not regard efficient effective justice as a priority. After 4 years it is good to see that this Criminal Procedure Bill is before the House. I understand that it will pass by a majority of the House and I hope that it will make some difference to court waiting-times and to the effective efficient delivery of justice.