Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21978] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been a lawyer since 1976. Essentially that is all my working life. I cannot remember any time when the independence of the courts and the openness or the sunlight we expect to be the disinfectant for our courts has been more at risk. The Attorney-General I believe is completely uninterested in this portfolio. The Attorney-General was put into this portfolio because the Labour Government could not find anyone else it could trust but the Attorney-General needs to look into what the useless Minister of Courts is doing to uphold justice in this country. 
At the moment I have a case where I have been trying to gain access to a court file since 4 July. My office called the Auckland District Court and asked whether it could find the reasons for a judge’s sentencing. I should explain the case very briefly. A young man with four children and no criminal record caught a burglar at night. He caught the burglar after a fight. He took the burglar to a service station—he dragged him there in fact—and the service station workers called the police. He confidently expected that the police would interview them and deal with the burglar. It turns out that the burglar has never been charged or even questioned. Instead our man was arrested. After seven court appearances and missing work each day he appeared he was discharged without conviction on the condition that he pay a fine or pay an amount to the Salvation Army I believe. This is what I understand to have happened because I have not been able to see the file. 
Our justice system once boasted that it was open and transparent and that everyone could see that justice was being done. When I asked for the file the court registry told me that it would have to refer the request to the Minister for Courts—political vetting of access to justice. I waited and 5 days later I asked the Minister for Courts when this protocol or policy had been adopted. Ten days after the first request I was told that the question would be referred to the judge. I still do not have either the file or an answer. 
I went to the District Court in Auckland to try to gain access to the file and I was denied. I was told that the judge was considering the request. Why do I want to find out? It is because it appears to me that both the police and the judge omitted to consider one of the fundamental rights of New Zealanders: the right of self-defence. It appears to me that the judge forgot completely about the right of citizen arrest which is clearly set out in the Crimes Act and has never been repealed. It appears to me that the judge is part of the justice establishment that this Government feeds and that thinks people cannot be trusted with the rights they once had that believes that only the police should be allowed to stop crime that says people are foolhardy and tells them “Don’t be a hero.” and that urges them to allow the crime wave to go unabated. 
The judge in this case still has not come back to me so I got in touch with the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member needs to deal with the proposed expenditure of this vote. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: This vote is Vote Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is the chief law officer of the Crown and is responsible for making sure that politicians do not trash the rule of law. What I see is that politicians in this Parliament including the Minister for Courts are presiding over political censorship of access to court files. The Minister gave me no answer when I wrote to him and asked where this protocol was and why it was being invoked. The Chief District Court Judge has tried to persuade me that it is a mistake but I have received nothing in writing from the Chief District Court Judge. I have received nothing whatsoever to satisfy me that this is not something that is endemic throughout this Government.