Power Simon: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15753] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Over the past 20 years there has been growing criticism of criminal procedure in New Zealand. The historical answer to this problem has been to appoint more judges and to build more courthouses. It is clear that that approach has not worked. It is unacceptable that the median time to dispose of a summary case is 26 weeks the median time to dispose of a District Court jury case is 52 weeks and the median time to dispose of a High Court jury trial case is 69 weeks. Nor is it acceptable that according to officials there are at least 43000 unnecessary court appearances throughout the court system each year. 
Our key criminal procedure legislation dates from the 1950s and has become complicated by over 50 years of ad hoc reforms. Criminal procedure in New Zealand has been described as an impenetrable maze. This bill consolidates criminal procedure law and introduces a comprehensive package of reform to ensure that the criminal justice system is more transparent understandable and efficient. It represents the biggest reform and modernisation of criminal justice procedure in nearly two generations. It is part of this Government’s commitment to improving the criminal justice system for the benefit of all of those who use it and depend on it. 
This package has the potential to free up 16000 court sitting hours each year. It has the potential to take 5 to 13 weeks off the average time to dispose of a case. It has the potential to reduce costs by approximately $24 million over a 5-year period. 
There are a number of significant improvements in the bill. One improvement is that trial procedures will fit the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence. The bill seeks to raise the threshold at which a defendant is able to choose a jury trial from offences carrying a penalty of more than 3 months’ imprisonment to those carrying a penalty of more than 3 years’ imprisonment. This will strike a better balance between the defendant’s rights and ensuring that only cases of significant or sufficient seriousness or public interest are determined by resource-intensive jury trials. This and other changes is expected to result in up to 1400 fewer cases needing to be designated for trial by a jury. 
The bill places the onus on parties to progress cases as much as possible outside the courtroom facilitated by the preparation of case management memoranda. This will result in fewer adjournments shorter hearings and reduced time and costs. 
The bill requires the defence to identify and disclose issues in dispute before a trial. Focusing only on disputed matters at trial is I am advised expected to result in approximately 450 fewer court days. 
Further provisions allowing courts to proceed in the absence of a defendant when it would be in the interests of justice will also ensure that trials start on time and proceed in a timely manner. Similarly changes allowing greater flexibility to continue with a trial when jury numbers fall to 10 will reduce the need for retrials. 
The bill’s provisions to encourage court participants to cooperate with one another will help ensure that cases progress in a timely efficient and appropriate way. These provisions include an ability for the court to impose cost orders against parties—both defence and prosecution—and to impose bail conditions on a defendant to take the necessary steps for the timely progression of his or her case. It also includes a requirement for the court to take into account a defendant’s compliance with procedural matters as a mitigating or indeed aggravating factor. 
Other provisions in the bill reflect the need to amend existing provisions in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and the Crimes Act 1961 in order to simplify and modernise language and to ensure that court processes can take advantage of developing information technology as appropriate. 
This package builds on other changes under way to improve the criminal justice system. Those changes include legal aid reforms initiatives in respect of victims of crime and the roll-out of audiovisual links in courts and prisons. 
Like others in the House I am sure I am a strong believer that justice delayed is justice denied. This bill will ensure that timely justice is delivered for victims witnesses defendants and the community. It will benefit those people who are involved in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own while maintaining the defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial. 
This legislation is a major piece of work and has been in the making for more than 2 years. The bill reflects extensive consultation with the judiciary and lawyers and a trial of some of the new processes at Tauranga District Court and Manukau District Court. I thank the judiciary and the legal profession for the constructive role they have played in drawing this bill together. I also thank the Law Commission for its significant contribution to this bill. I look forward to the select committee’s consideration of this significant and comprehensive reform of criminal procedure. I commend the bill to the House.