Power Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill provides a legal framework for any participant in any court proceeding to appear by video link provided that certain criteria are met. I would like to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its prompt consideration of the bill and for the sensible amendments it has proposed which the Government supports. The committee received eight written submissions on the bill and heard one oral submission. 
I note that some submitters and a minority on the Justice and Electoral Committee were concerned about the use of video links in criminal substantive matters where evidence is being presented. In particular there was a concern that this legislation might be used to prevent a defendant from being physically present at his or her trial. I do not accept that allowing a defendant not to be present at a trial by video link is an erosion of his or her fair trial rights. A fair trial is about the ability of defendants to participate in their proceedings. Physical presence alone does not ensure participation and it certainly does not ensure effective participation; it merely provides an opportunity to participate. 
Under this bill each case will be examined by a judge on its merits. In some cases the judge may decide that the physical presence of a defendant will ensure effective participation. In other cases the judge may find that the defendant can participate just as effectively by video link. Clause 5 of the bill sets out the criteria that a judge must consider before deciding to use a video link in any proceeding. Clause 6 provides even more safeguards if the video link is to be used in a criminal proceeding. In criminal proceedings a judge will have to consider the impact of the use of video links on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Specifically the judge must consider the defendant’s ability to comprehend the proceedings participate in the defence consult and instruct counsel privately access relevant evidence and examine witnesses for the prosecution. Where the judge is not satisfied that those criteria can be met through the use of audiovisual links then he or she will not allow them to be used. 
Before this bill was introduced it was reviewed by the Attorney-General and the Crown Law Office. The advice provided by the Crown Law Office—which is publicly available on the Ministry of Justice website—was that the bill complied with the right to a fair trial and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In addition each time a judge permits video links to be used that decision must comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. No defendant will lose the ability to participate in his or her trial as a result of this bill. The safeguards in the bill ensure that the defendant’s right to a fair trial is preserved. Equally the rights and interests of other participants such as victims and witnesses can be taken into account in any decision to use video links. Video links can already be used for the evidence of witnesses including that of the defendant. 
I do not accept that New Zealand is going beyond other countries in allowing defendants to appear at their trial by video link. Video links can be used in criminal substantive matters in New South Wales Victoria and the United Kingdom. Bodies such as the Yugoslavian war crimes tribunal have also recognised that there is a legitimate place for the use of video links at trials. 
I expect that there will be legitimate caution over the use of video links in substantive hearings. However as the technology improves and the courts become more comfortable with its use this bill will enable video links to be used in a wider range of situations without the need for further amendment. I see no reason why video links cannot be routinely used for the appearance of defendants in procedural matters. The use of video links in these situations is a sensible and safer response to significant court pressures. It would reduce the need to transport prisoners to and from court which can have tragic consequences as it did in the case of young Liam Ashley. 
The Ministry of Justice anticipates that by 2014 some of New Zealand’s busiest courts could each see up to 2000 remand prisoner appearances by video link every year. This represents significant savings for the justice sector—and I might add it will increase the speed with which these matters can be heard—without compromising the rights and interests of defendants. To bring it down to the level of an individual offender I tell the House that in early 2007 it cost the taxpayer $16000 or $4000 each way to transport Graeme Burton from Paremoremo to Wellington for two court appearances. I am pleased that around $2 million will be made available in the coming financial year to fund the installation of video link facilities. 
I will highlight two of the more significant changes to the bill recommended by the select committee. Clause 8 contains a presumption in favour of the use of video links in criminal procedural matters where no evidence is being presented. This presumption has been strengthened by the committee. This is an important point. Although the use of video links remains properly at the court’s discretion clause 8 now requires a judicial officer or registrar to consider using video links in criminal procedural matters if the technology is available. Although video links are not entirely new to the courts this presumption will encourage a culture change among the judiciary court staff and court users to enable greater use to be made of video links. We should not be afraid to use what is now well-established technology to help make our system run more smoothly. 
Video links may also be used in civil matters under clause 7. This clause has been amended by the committee to ensure that the interests of other participants can be taken into account in any decision to use video links. For example in custody proceedings in the Family Court although the parties may consent to the use of video links the child is not a party to the proceeding. The amendments to this clause ensure that the views of the child about the use of a video link can be taken into account. 
Once again I thank committee members for the work that they have done on this bill. I know that they applied themselves in a rigorous way to many of the issues that were brought up during the hearings and evidence that was presented and the House and I are grateful for that. I commend this bill to the House.