Gallagher Martin: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Criminal Procedure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2872] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Law and Order Committee that considered the Criminal Procedure Bill I arrive in this House with great enthusiasm to speak to its second reading. I am certainly very delighted of course that this bill is now back before the House. As previous speakers have already alluded to this bill has not necessarily been straightforward at all. For those listening I guess the bill is very important in that it will improve the efficiency of preliminary hearings in criminal courts make changes to the jury system and introduce two exceptions in terms of the law of double jeopardy. The context of the bill is basically the implementation of the recommendations made by the Law Commission and it is certainly hoped that those reforms will improve public confidence in the criminal justice system by making it more efficient and fair. 
One of the key areas of the bill in terms of changes to the jury system—which of course is very significant and not introduced lightly or even recommended back to the House lightly—is the introduction of majority verdicts 11:1 to replace unanimous verdicts. That is in order to reduce the prospect of hung juries where a decision cannot be reached and indeed to allow for judge-only trials to be permitted for a very small number of long and technically complex trials. Obviously the issue of majority verdicts versus unanimous verdicts has been one of discussion and debate over a number of years and certainly the select committee listened very closely and keenly to a wide variety of submitters. 
Before I deal briefly with the issue of double jeopardy I want to take the opportunity to compliment the committee on its work. I realise that in a range of areas as befits democracy this House enables a contest of ideas in our democratic system; so too do select committees. There are things that are keenly felt and keenly fought. But I want to take an opportunity in terms of this bill to acknowledge the work and the contribution of the Law and Order Committee members at the time of deliberation—albeit of course there were differences amongst us. I acknowledge very clearly the work of the former deputy chair Marc Alexander. He is no longer with us but I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work he did and his interest in this bill. And of course I acknowledge the members of the committee at the time including my very good colleague Ron Mark who is now deputy chair. I acknowledge the work he did and I also acknowledge the work of Tony Ryall and all members of the committee at the time. 
I would like to turn now to the issue of double jeopardy. The longstanding double jeopardy rule provides that no one who has been tried for an offence may be tried or punished for it again. That has been a longstanding and fundamental tenet of our justice system. However the argument goes that not to be able to hold somebody accountable for a crime in the face of compelling evidence of guilt represents a major injustice to any victims and potentially undermines public confidence in the justice system. Two exceptions to that rule of double jeopardy are being introduced—the first to allow for a retrial where people have been convicted of perjury or of intimidating a witness during an earlier trial. So one very important exception concerns people who are convicted of perjury—that is lying—or of intimidating a witness during an earlier trial. In that case the principle is that they will not be protected by the double jeopardy rule. As well an exception will be made for the retrial of cases where new and compelling evidence of guilt is established after a person has been acquitted of a serious offence. One can think of a number of cases where very terrible crimes have been committed and someone has been declared innocent and then DNA and new evidence has come to light and the reaction of the community is the sense that the person responsible can never be brought to justice. The qualification is that very stringent safeguards will be introduced to protect against any misuse of that double jeopardy exception in terms of advancing new evidence. 
I have to say that the committee did not deal with that section lightly and it listened extremely closely to the submissions. It is fair to say that even in this Parliament there will be some caution in that area. But fundamentally I am of the view—as I believe are the majority of members of this House—that the legal system is about justice and about justice being seen to be done. 
Just briefly in the time I have left I would like to spend a wee bit more time on the changes to the jury system. Again I want to say that that was another area that was not taken lightly. There have been many cases of a hung jury where 11 jurors have been very strong and resolute. The changes to the jury system will reduce the risk of tampering with the jury. We have certainly seen cases where an individual juror has held out because of other factors. 
In terms of committal proceedings I want to talk about the fact that they will involve the prosecution presenting evidence in written form only unless the defence applies for an oral hearing and the court believes that that hearing is necessary in order to judge whether there is sufficient evidence to commit to trial. Automatic committals will therefore appropriately streamline proceedings better utilise court resources reduce undue delays and save witnesses and victims the stress of making multiple appearances in a majority of cases. 
I do not want to spend any more time in talking because other speakers obviously want to follow me and I am indeed very keen that this bill progresses. I know that the Minister of Justice Mark Burton is very keen and that we in this House are all very keen to make progress in what I believe is a very important bill. 
Finally I take the opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their work during the previous Parliament. I want to thank the staff as well and parliamentary counsel. I say if I can take just 10 seconds—I know the Speaker is indicating that I should wind up—I think it is appropriate that we should reflect on and thank parliamentary counsel and those many advisers who come and lend us their expertise. I also want to thank particularly the New Zealand Law Society and the many other submitters for their very considered submissions on this bill. Although we might not have done everything they would necessarily agree with I acknowledge their input and the well-thought-out and very important submissions they made. I commend this bill.