Hipango HareteADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (REFORM OF CONTEMPT OF COURT) BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 13 June.HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you sir and third time lucky. So previously I have been disrupted twice whilst addressing the House on this bill before the court and the irony of it is that I was addressing the House in relation to disruptive proceedings in the court on the part of the bill that is presently referred to as the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. But the recommendation that is before the House from the Justice Committee is that this bill be retitled to simply the Contempt of Court Bill.So the objectives of the bill are outlined in clause 3 subclause 2(d) saying that except in unusual circumstances court proceedings will be open to the public and the news media. However an amendment that is proposed is that the new clause reflects that the Family Court and the Youth Court now not be open to the public. So for the years that I did practise as a lawyer in both the Family Court and the Youth Court the jurisdiction was open to the public. However it was rare that members of the public other than the parties to the proceedings were present during the hearing. The bill as introduced proposes five main provisions. One is publication contempt. Two is disruptive behaviour in the courtroom which I shall return to to speak briefly to. Three: juror contempt. Four: enforcement of court orders. Five: allegations or accusations about judges of court.Now I turn specifically to clauses 16 and 17 of the bill as proposed in relation to the wilful disruption of the proceedings of the court. I shared with the House the last time that I spoke that prior to the District Court Act 2016 I practised as a lawyer where there had been on numerous occasions disruption to the court proceedings but not necessarily in the courtroom which leads me to the definition of court at clause 4 of the bill. It's just confined to those proceedings in relation to as is outlined the District Court the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Now I'm minded to refer to the importance of referring to the definition of a court or a courtroom under the Courts Security Act section 3. That may be a time that I address the House further at the third reading of this bill because it is pertinent in relation to the disruption of court proceedings that it's not just confined to the courtroom of the courthouse.There were many an occasion when I appeared as counsel or a lawyer advocating for people who were before the mental health court in the precinct of the hospital and the mental health detention unit. So the disruption to court proceedings as such is not limited just to the building of the courtroom but it is taken out to the premises of where the court hearing itself may be occurring; that can be beside a patient in a hospital bed or as I said in a mental health detention unit.I now also turn in the limited time that I have left to just talking about the instances of mentally impaired or mentally disordered persons where proceedings are disrupted. At clause 16 of the bill it requires that where a judicial officer believes that any person is wilfully disrupting the proceedings of a court the element of mens rea is a critical aspect in terms of the court or the judge or the judicial officer determining whether or not those proceedings have been disrupted wilfully depending on the demeanour and presentation of the person presenting.In the limited time that I have here I turn now to clause 17 subclause 5 which talks about in the event that a judicial officer or a judge deems that there has been a contempt it must go to a hearing and that that hearing must be set down for determination within a period of seven days. I'm predicting based on my experience where there were contempt of court matters arising that it's likely to occur as immediately as possible—if not at the time of the incident certainly prior to the end of the proceedings for the day.But in referring to clause 17(5) I talk about where previously it was the discretion of the judge as to whether or not a conviction would be entered. This bill is saying that there must not be a conviction. So it's similar to what was known for the lawyers practising in the area as a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act. So this sets it aside where it's distinctly requiring that there must not be a conviction but there is the alternative as to whether there is some imposition of a sentence as such or some punitive or deterrent element that goes with it.Should I be permitted the opportunity to address the House at the third reading where this bill is not opposed by the National Party I will go further into some of those incidents around the contempt of court proceedings where as a lawyer there were lots of things that happened to us not only the judge where the proceedings had been disrupted. [Speaker motions for member to conclude speech] I'm wrapping it up now sir. And with that I commend this bill to the House.