Bridges Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:664;Page:12356] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I want to come back to the point we have been debating about whether being present at one’s trial is a fundamental absolute right. I come back to it because as I have said it is not an absolute fundamental right. Everyone in this Chamber and indeed in New Zealand would accept that the norm in nearly all cases if not all cases is that an accused will be at his or her trial. I say to this Committee and to Kennedy Graham what I said last night: common law has evolved scenarios in a strain of cases where that right has been taken from the accused. I said to my friend Mr Graham that that came from the House of Lords. If we look around the common law world for a court that more jealously fights for the rights of humanity we would be hard-pressed to go past the House of Lords now called the Supreme Court. In 2002 it was made clear that there may be such cases. 
Hon David Parker 
: Only for misconduct. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is right and I will come back to that. It is a scenario that they have gone with and High Court judges in this country have also gone with it in recent years. I found the case last night of  
R v McFall 
. I am aware of another case involving Justice Heath in the Hamilton High Court as well. In those rare cases the accused had absconded and did not turn up for trial so the judge said that the trial would proceed anyway. Mr Parker is right; it is because of misconduct. My point to this Committee is that I can envisage situations where we would have audiovisual links for the same reason. I accept that they would be very extreme cases. Kennedy Graham said last night that he did not accept that but I said that there may well be cases although not often of an accused coming to court who is not insane to a criminal standard but who may have—let us put this euphemistically—serious issues where he or she wants to harm himself or herself or others. Perhaps the accused cannot be shut up at any time during the trial and for whatever reason is hurling profanities at the judge. That happens more often than we would like to think in courts in this country. 
Hon David Parker 
: And they can be removed now. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: They can be but I ask whether it is better to do the trial without them which the common law could foresee or to have the trial using audiovisual link. In that rare extreme case—and I accept that it would be rare and extreme—an audiovisual link would be justified. Of the various manifestations ways and wherefores where we might use audiovisual links for an accused that is just one situation where we might use it. 
I say again to the Committee that common law has envisaged situations where an accused does not have an absolute right to be at trial. This bill leaves the door open but—and let us be very clear—it does not leave it very wide open at all. We have many safeguards in this bill. As I said last night there are three clauses that a judge will have to work through to allow the use of audiovisual link and clause 6 is exceptionally strict. When we work through clause 6(a) we see that it would be a very brave judge who works through that clause to rule in audiovisual link for an accused and to not envisage an appeal up the chain of courts because of that. It may never happen but it may do. We are doing the right thing.