Wilkinson Kate: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15059] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 This bill addresses a misclassification of some minor property offences by adding them to schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. It also validates the proceedings that have occurred without jurisdiction because of that misclassification. 
The way in which a criminal case proceeds through the courts in New Zealand is largely dependent on how charges are laid. Charges can be laid either summarily which means they are tried by a judge alone or indictably which means they are tried before a jury. Purely indictable offences can be tried only by a jury. There are certain limited exceptions to this rule such as when there is a threat of juror intimidation. Purely summary offences can be heard only by a judge alone. All offences in the Crimes Act are indictable offences. The exception is if the definition of the offence explicitly states that it can be tried summarily or if the offence is listed in schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Listing an offence in schedule 1 enables the offence to be tried summarily at the discretion of the prosecution. 
An amendment to the Summary Proceedings Act that came into force in June 2008 excluded some minor property offences in the Crimes Act from being in schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act. The offences are theft of property not exceeding $500 obtaining by deception when the value of the property does not exceed $500 and receiving property not exceeding $500. The intention on the part of the previous Government was to make these offences purely summary offences that would always be heard by a judge alone. These offences were intended to be purely summary because they are all minor property crimes where the value of the property does not exceed $500 including shoplifting and theft from vehicles and are punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months. Therefore these offences fall below the current threshold for the right to a jury trial in section 24(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and in section 66 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. 
Unfortunately excluding these offences from schedule 1 did not achieve the intended effect. In fact it achieved the opposite effect: it made the offences purely indictable offences. This means that since 2008 these offences should have been tried by jury in every case. Because many of these cases have been laid summarily instead of indictably those prosecutions have proceeded in the absence of sufficient legal jurisdiction. There have been approximately 46000 relevant summary prosecutions for the offences from June 2008 to date. This means that 46000 proceedings could potentially be challenged be deemed to have proceeded without legal jurisdiction and be nullified. This would have high cost and resource implications both in appeals and in future proceedings. In addition all future proceedings under these sections would have to be tried indictably leading to a significant increase in the number of jury trials. 
The misclassification is a technical error that does not undermine the fairness or appropriateness of the convictions but it is important that this misclassification is rectified as quickly as possible to minimise the impact that this would have on our court system. Two steps are involved in rectifying this issue. Firstly this bill will stop any more proceedings occurring without jurisdiction by adding the relevant sections of the Crimes Act to schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act. Secondly the bill will validate any proceedings that have already occurred. 
This bill will also protect anyone who has already commenced proceedings by challenging his or her convictions on the grounds that he or she should have been tried before a jury. Anyone who appeals on that basis before the legislation receives the Royal assent can continue with his or her appeal. In any such case it will be left to the courts to decide whether the conviction was valid. This includes the case that brought this matter to the Government’s attention which is named in the bill. The bill will preserve the rule of law and maintain the separation of powers by allowing the judiciary to complete matters that are already before it when this legislation comes into force. 
In the longer term the proposed Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill will abolish the terms “summary” and “indictable” along with the overly complex system of offence classification. That bill is due to be introduced before the end of the year. I commend this bill to the House.