Power Simon: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2868] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his introduction on the Criminal Procedure Bill. National will be supporting this bill through its second reading although during the Committee of the whole House we will table amendments to some matters in the bill that we consider to be of grave concern. Chester Borrows and Kate Wilkinson will cover those in more detail during the course of the second reading debate and I will allude to them in my introductory remarks. 
What this bill does is worth supporting through the second reading but we should not underestimate how significant the changes proposed by this bill are to the criminal justice system. It is easy for a Minister to rise to his feet and simply read off the briefing notes that have been prepared by his officials. I am sure that the Hon Rick Barker who I know takes these things pretty seriously will be aware of just how significant some of the changes are. Many of the matters contained in this bill will alter principles of criminal law that are older than this Parliament by some quite considerable time frame. There are major changes in this legislation to the way courts will do business. 
To paraphrase part of the Minister’s opening remarks he referred to “speedier less cluttered justice”. Well speedier justice is not necessarily better justice and although jurors may find matters complicated and lengthy—and I note that the Minister said with some care that he did not believe that jurors were not capable of digesting material in complex trials and I would certainly agree with him on that—the point is that the jury system is the best system in the world for determining the outcome of a trial. The fairest way to be judged by one’s peers is to have evidence under cross-examination under the traditional adversarial approach put before a jury. Actually most New Zealanders are tolerant fair-minded smart people who when serving on juries generally get it right. 
I want to draw two matters to the Minister’s attention. I personally and others in the National caucus have real concerns around changes and exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy. This legislation is a major departure from the historic way in which trials have been conducted. Although the National caucus has some sympathy for the view that new DNA evidence—which is as close to perfect evidence as could be tabled or presented in a trial—is worth some consideration post-trial this party will need to be convinced that that will not open the door to a whole series of other types of evidence that may miraculously appear once a jury acquits an individual alleged to have committed a particular crime. For example will we see handfuls of shell cases miraculously appearing at crime scenes after trials have concluded and defendants have been acquitted? Would that of itself be enough evidence to create an exception to the double jeopardy rule? 
All I am saying at this stage I tell the Minister is that National will support this bill going through its second reading but during the Committee stage we will be tabling amendments to try to clarify that rule and we will be asking for a genuine debate from the Minister during the course of that process. We will be considering our position on the third reading based on whether we can have a constructive discussion during the Committee stage around that rule. Kate Wilkinson will talk about National’s concerns around exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy when she makes her contribution later in this second reading debate. 
Chester Borrows in his contribution will talk about the abolition of oral preliminary hearings. Although members on this side of the House understand that it is useful and speedy to move along those preliminary hearings in a way that creates a more speedy and accessible justice system the fact remains—and Mr Borrows is far more of an expert on this matter than I am—that those preliminary oral hearings often throw things up that could make the difference to the way a trial is undertaken. Those initial oral hearings can make a difference to the way a defendant pleads and can change a plea. We need to be careful because on the one hand we are saying there should be an exception to the double jeopardy rule if new evidence comes about and on the other hand the bill is saying those preliminary hearings will be narrowed so that we would not have all the evidence we would formerly have had put before us in the early stages of a trial. That is a conundrum the National Party quite genuinely wants to see resolved or at least tidied up during the Committee stage before it commits to a third reading. 
Although National is generally supportive of making the justice system more efficient as a party we would be concerned if that meant the scales were tipped too far in one or the other direction in the dispensation of justice. This bill will require some time at the Committee stage. National notes that there are six parts to the bill together with clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement”. We will be looking for a genuine debate at the Committee stage and I believe Rick Barker to be the sort of person who will engage in a genuine debate during the course of that Committee stage. 
Having said all that I say that National has grave concerns. National does support trial by judge alone in exceptional circumstances particularly for cases such as complex fraud and we do support—as we did as part of our election policy—11:1 majority verdicts. We noted in the minority report our concern that that might lead to even more hung juries. Frankly if that is what justice throws up then that will be the price for the Crown not having prepared cases in a way that convinces juries that a definite outcome has been reached. 
So in conclusion I signal again that National will be supporting the second reading. I signal to the Minister that there will be amendments from National members in the area of preliminary hearings and double jeopardy exceptions. We will come to that Committee stage with an open mind leading into the third reading and we welcome that Committee stage debate where the lawyers in our caucus will certainly be participating in a way that they can be convinced. As I understand it—and I stand to be corrected—contrary to the advice the Law Society gave to the select committee on those issues the committee pressed ahead regardless. 
So that is where we stand. Chester Borrows and Kate Wilkinson will make more detailed submissions on those two issues I have raised when they make their contribution in the debate and we look forward to a constructive Committee stage.