Brown Peter: Criminal Procedure Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Criminal Procedure Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14225] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I apologise for being a little slow to my feet but I expected a Government member to get to his or her feet. It disappoints me that on a bill that has so much meat in it we have had only one contribution from a Government member—the Minister. As my colleague made clear earlier New Zealand First will support this bill to select committee. We believe that there is some good stuff in this bill that at the very least needs to be aired in public and to receive public submissions. Having said that the Minister has the wrong select committee. I agree totally with my colleague Dail Jones that this bill should go to the Justice and Electoral Committee not to the Law and Order Committee. This is a technical bill about law and it should more appropriately be put before the Justice and Electoral Committee. I sometimes wonder how the Government makes its decisions along those lines. 
I also agree with my colleague as do all New Zealand First MPs who expressed concerns about the abolishment of deposition hearings. I am not a lawyer but I realise—certainly after listening to Dail Jones in caucus in particular—that they play a very prominent and significant part in a fair criminal trial procedure. We have major jury reservations about that. I tend to agree with the Hon Richard Worth who said that a majority verdict would be better if it was 10:2 rather than 11:1. We are following the British very much in this bill and my understanding is that the British have gone to a majority jury verdict of 10:2 as against 11:1. That is my personal view but again I welcome that issue being addressed by the select committee. 
There are certain elements in this bill that really please me no end and I think my colleague alluded to them earlier. There are three areas of concern to me—two are included in the bill but I cannot find one of them. I have had an interest in British justice for quite some time and have been following it through newspapers and the Internet. After the completion of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference last year I took a week’s leave and spoke with justice officials in the UK about various aspects of law and order that the British were looking at. One issue the British were looking at was the exception to double jeopardy. On my return here I produced a member’s bill called the Crimes (Criminal Justice) Strengthening Amendment Bill which addresses that issue and a couple of other issues. I am firmly convinced that the exception to double jeopardy should be introduced. This bill provided for it as indeed did my member’s bill. It should be introduced for serious crime only. We are not talking about petty thieves or the person who has done something relatively minor. We are talking about people who could get a prison sentence in excess of 14 years. It is serious stuff. 
Parliament has an obligation to ensure that people who commit serious crimes are apprehended and do the time. The old saying: “Do the crime; do the time” is appropriate. One of the two areas that would allow for the exception to double jeopardy to click in is “compelling new evidence”. I suggest that basically we are talking about compelling new scientific evidence such as DNA. It is appropriate to use that evidence even if the person got off the charge before it was available. Obviously as Judith Collins stated it has to be used fairly and honourably but if we can get compelling new evidence against a person who has committed a serious crime then the State has an obligation to use it. 
Murray Smith referred to corruption of the system—that is where a juror a witness or someone else has been bribed or perjury has been committed. It is only right and proper that that issue is addressed. First of all of course the police and the prosecution will have to prove that the person was guilty of perjury. They can then use that evidence against the “main criminal” for want of a better term. So I am pleased that that is in this bill. 
I am also pleased that this bill provides for the full disclosure of evidence both from the prosecution and to a larger extent from the defence. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me and I know it appears to many members of the public that there have been too many people—lawyers and accused people—who get off charges because of what I would term the smart alec use of the law. This legislation I believe will go some way towards closing that off. I do not know whether it will do it totally but I think it will close it off to some significant degree. 
A third aspect that is in my bill—but I cannot find it in this bill although I hope it is there somewhere—is that in certain trials the judge should be able to divulge to the jury the relevant criminal history of an accused. The British are looking at that—in fact they are introducing it as I understand it and I think it is appropriate that we bring it in here. I believe that this is a good opportunity to tighten up our justice system and to do our very best to ensure that those who are guilty of crime particularly serious crime pay the price. I believe that we have to get it right one time over. 
Judith Collins referred to the morale of the police. She implied that the low morale suffered by the police is because of the criminal justice system. That may be true in part but equally true is the fact that the police are suffering from low morale because far too often far too many of them have to go out on the road and get a quota of guilty motorists for want of a better term. They have to go out and fine motorists. I know that the police are getting very very poor feedback from the public. If we are going to tidy up the law I think we should tidy up that particular area of it. We in New Zealand First believe that traffic duties should be carried out by a separate force administered by the Land Transport Safety Authority or whatever. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Why did Winston Peters vote to amalgamate the traffic police and the police? 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member asks me a question. I was not here at the time but I can tell her— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ask your leader. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am trying to answer the member’s question. I think it is a fair question. If the honourable member did do that—and I am not doubting the member’s word—he was a member of the National Party at the time. But since late last year we have surveyed many people and we are told that that is the wrong way to go. We want to relook at the issue and split the police from the traffic officers but it will not be done in this bill. I do not really want to encourage debate on that issue during the debate on this bill. 
The point I am making is that this bill tightens up our legal system and we need to tighten it up fully including in relation to our concerns about aspects of policing in this country. New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee.