Barker Rick: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2867] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Criminal Procedure Bill be now read a second time 
. The Criminal Procedure Bill has been reported back from the Law and Order Committee which recommended that it be passed with amendment. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The bill reforms criminal procedures relating to juries double jeopardy pre-trial disclosure and preliminary hearings. It makes minor amendments to other areas of criminal law. These reforms will improve public confidence in the criminal justice system by making it more efficient and fair. 
I now turn to the important changes to our jury system. After enactment a judge may order a trial to take place without a jury where the trial is likely to be long and complex or where there is evidence of jury intimidation. The Law Commission’s report on juries concluded that juries had difficulties in coping with long and complex trials that it is difficult for some jurors to be away from their families and businesses and that sometimes jurors become confused with lengthy evidence and complex legal issues. The Law Commission did not conclude that jurors have short attention spans or are not smart enough; nor did the Government or the committee. However to emphasise its conclusion the committee reworded the provision referring to jurors’ ability to understand complex issues as one of the factors to be considered when a judge exercises such an order. Instead it now refers to “the nature of the issues likely to be involved”. This is an excellent clarification. 
This new limit to the general right to a jury trial applies only to offences punishable by less than 14 years’ imprisonment. Offenders who face higher penalties will remain entitled to be tried by a jury unless there is evidence of jury intimidation. It would not make sense if jury intimidation in serious cases could not lead to a judge-alone trial but in less serious cases it could. In future a judge could order that a trial take place without a jury if there were reasonable grounds to believe that intimidation of a juror could occur and that the intimidation could be avoided by a trial without a jury. The committee recommended giving the accused the right to apply for a judge-alone trial so any juror intimidation whether it is for the purposes of convicting or acquitting the accused is covered. 
The second issue is the significant move to majority verdicts as proposed by the Law Commission in its report on juries. The committee concluded that majority verdicts uphold public confidence by making bribery or intimidation of jurors more difficult and did not recommend amendments to this initiative. The longstanding double jeopardy rule provides that no one who has been tried for an offence may be tried or punished for it again. Submitters objected to changing the rule as a matter of principle. The proposed tainted acquittal exception to the rule applies to persons who escaped probable conviction by committing administration of justice offences like perjury. Some submitters saw the tainted acquittal exception as an overreaction. Others thought that a better response to such abuses is to increase the penalties for administration of justice offences. The committee concluded that the law must respond to the changing social values and that increasing administration of justice penalties was a flawed approach. The committee did not recommend amendments. 
The new and compelling evidence exception will secure factual accuracy in the prosecution process and enhance public confidence in the justice system. New technologies have made the possibility of discovering new and compelling evidence after a trial more likely. Despite the Attorney-General’s view that this exception was not justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the committee concluded as did the Government that the proposal is a principled balancing of the competing interests of finality and of justice. When new evidence emerges after an acquittal that undermines its legitimacy it is in the interests of justice to retry the acquitted person particularly in respect of the most serious offences. 
The bill establishes a criminal disclosure regime requiring initial then full disclosure by the prosecution disclosure of certain information by the defence and disclosure in certain circumstances by third party. The bill proposes that initial prosecution disclosure be triggered at the start of criminal proceedings and involves a mandatory disclosure of initial information and further information on request by the accused. The committee believing that the proposal could prejudice an accused by excluding information extended the list of additional information that the defendant may request. The committee also recommended that a defendant should receive a summary of his or her right to apply for further information before a plea is entered. The bill limits defence disclosure to alibi and expert witness evidence. The committee considered the time frame for producing the notice of an alibi as unrealistic. People facing indictable charges may not have received legal advice in the time allowed. The bill now provides for more time for producing the alibi notice. 
This bill reforms the preliminary hearings. These pre-trial hearings enable the Crown’s evidence to be examined before committing a defendant for trial by jury. The bill limits oral preliminary hearings and moves indictable criminal cases to trial on the basis of written statements unless the District Court orders an oral hearing. Preliminary hearings will be used in cases where the defence applies to examine the witness orally. The proposal retains the ability for the defence to apply to test the prosecution’s evidence particularly the oral examination of witnesses who have not provided signed written statements. This ensures that the prosecution can present evidence to deal with applications for discharge. The court may hear oral evidence on its own motion. 
The committee did not consider that the media should have automatic access to written statements and records of oral evidence noting that such uses of such statements are at this stage untested. The committee recommended staying with the status quo. This enables the court to suppress details of certain proceedings excluding the public in certain circumstances from the courtroom and provide access by the media to written statements where allowed by court rules. 
The committee made useful minor recommendations to improve the efficiency of our courts. These include repealing the requirement of the Court of Appeal to deliver single judgments giving the District Court jurisdiction to try all indictable offences except those listed in the schedule and providing the changes to the lists of indictable offences trialable in either the District Court or the High Court may be made by an Order in Council. 
The Criminal Procedure Bill amends many Acts. However it has a single policy goal—to maximise efficiency and fairness of our criminal justice system. I commend the bill to the House.