Pillay Lynne: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15764] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to join my colleagues to speak on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. It will come as no surprise that along with my colleagues and indeed the Maori Party we are supporting this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I also put on record that we see that process as very important. This bill is a glowing example of how important the select committee process is if ever there was one. We have heard most of the reasons from the Government side relating to support for this bill and they are about efficiency and haste. We along with the Maori Party do not accept that haste should be the top priority. 
We have some really good examples of haste being used or a hasty efficiency process being used in this House that have not seen justice served. If we look at the 90-day sack-at-will bill that was pushed through under urgency then extended under urgency in this House the cutting of 4 weeks’ holiday the abolishing of Environment Canterbury and the Auckland super-city legislation we could certainly argue how efficient and how quick the process was but it would be very hard to argue from our point of view and the view of the majority of New Zealanders that justice was served. What is paramount certainly is efficiency and we commend any efficiency in the system but we also have concerns because what must be paramount is for justice to be served—not just seen to be served but to be served—and for all New Zealanders to have confidence in New Zealand’s judicial system. 
As I said we will be voting for this bill. We acknowledge that it was the result of the Criminal Procedure (Simplification) Project which Labour launched while in Government in 2007. It was carried out by the Ministry of Justice but it also had the Law Commission alongside. The purpose of the bill is to set out the procedure for the conduct of criminal proceedings allowing for electronic filing and management of the permanent court record which is obviously very efficient. I have heard other speakers say before me that this bill is some 526 pages. I have to put on record that I have not read all 526 pages but I know the select committee will be receiving a lot of advice and very detailed submissions. This bill will have to have very careful consideration. From Labour’s point of view we will have to give careful consideration and have discussion within our caucus about some of our key concerns that my colleagues have already highlighted. 
One of our concerns is that the Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson has released a scathing report on this bill saying that it contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in many ways. One of the concerns we have is allowing criminal trials to proceed without the accused being present and allowing the courts to order the retrial of an acquitted defendant if new evidence comes to light. I want to put on record that when we undertook the victims’ rights inquiry when Labour was in Government one of the most compelling parts of the evidence we heard from many victims was about the anguish they were already suffering when they had in many instances lost a very dear member of their family or a friend whatever the case may be and the complexity and the delays that happened during the trial. Many of those delays may have been justified but in many instances it would appear that they were not justified. So we understand from what victims have told us how difficult that can be but we also want to see that justice is served and that there is a fair process. Delivering a hasty process that causes a defendant to not have a proper trial—a worst-case scenario—is in itself is a real concern. 
Other things that we will be carefully looking at include putting the threshold for jury trials to proceed at 10 jurors. This bill will allow jury trials to proceed on a routine basis with as few as 10 jurors. In light of the most recent changes to the threshold for jury trials which Labour supported this change is a further curtailment of the right to be tried by jury. We hope that the Government will carefully consider this. We want to put on record in this House that at the select committee we in Labour and the Green Party which is also opposing the bill will be listening very carefully to submissions. 
Another concern we have is the defence disclosure of issues which is the requirement for the defence to identify and disclose any issues in dispute before a trial. We know that some in the legal profession have suggested that that would in effect be requiring the defence to help the prosecution build its case. We await with interest the views of the legal profession and other submitters apart from the legal profession at the select committee. There are the exceptions to the double jeopardy rule which as we all know prevents people being tried again for an offence after being acquitted. The bill now provides that a person can be retried if new evidence comes to light. That is something that has to be carefully weighed up before we decide to overrule a really important current provision. 
The bill also provides for proceeding when the defendant is absent. As I spoke about before and as victims said in the victims’ rights inquiry that was undertaken we know that delays in court proceedings probably cause the most stress and distress to victims. Without tying Labour into accepting this—there is certainly an understanding where there is no reasonable excuse from a defendant—this bill gives the discretion to proceed in the defendant’s absence where the defendant has a reasonable excuse for not being there. That seems to be grossly unfair and the important principles of anybody being innocent until proven guilty and the right to have a fair trial are things that we in Labour have very very serious concerns about. 
We would argue that the bill is certainly not inconsistent with the way this Government upgrades or changes legislation as it is piecemeal again. The Government could have looked in a bigger-picture way. It could start by implementing the Law Commission’s 2004 report  
Delivering Justice for All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals.