Worth Richard: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Worth Richard: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This legislation which started life in this House as the Criminal Procedure Bill is not without controversy. I do not doubt that there will be many within the legal profession and on the edge of the legal profession who will have some concern about its content. But it does have the support of National as it now proceeds as six divided bills. In saying that—that there are six divided bills—one certainly gains an early appreciation that the legislation is far-reaching for the Criminal Procedure Bill is to be split into the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) the Criminal Disclosure Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 5) the Juries Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill.  
The previous speaker Annette King commented that this bill has been delayed in its passage. That is clearly right because it was introduced and had its first reading in June 2004. If the Government was truly concerned about any particular issue in the bill then there was no reason why other parts of the bill could not have been advanced instead of what was the case—that is that the bill languished for a very substantial time in this House until it emerged today at the third reading. 
Let me just say something about the state of the courts which is directly relevant to what we are being asked to vote on today—that is that there are major problems in the courts system. It is truly clogged and a herculean effort will be required to deal with that particular issue. The median waiting-time for High Court jury trials in Auckland has more than doubled since 2003 to 304 days. That is the time between committal and the start of a hearing in the High Court to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person. That person has to wait for 304 days. In the context of the interests of justice that is too long. It is too long for that accused person too long for the witnesses who will be called to give evidence and too long in the context of any legal system that must have a substantial degree of integrity. In the same period the median waiting-time in the Auckland District Court has jumped 17 percent to 293 days since 2004. And the number of outstanding High Court jury trials in Auckland has more than quadrupled since 2002 from 47 to 203 while in the District Court they have increased 17 percent to 175 cases. These are not good figures. These are not good statistics. These are simply unacceptable in the context of that well-worn but nevertheless very true phrase that justice delayed is justice denied.  
I will talk about some of the major changes that are implemented by this legislation. One of those most significant changes—no doubt about it—is in respect of majority verdicts in criminal cases. English common law and the United States Constitution recognise that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental civil liberty or civil right. It may be that many other nations do not recognise that as such because jury trials have evolved within common law systems rather than civil systems and it is right to say that jury trials are of far less importance in countries that do not have a common law system. But they are very much a fabric of our system and in most common law jurisdictions the jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case while the judge determines the law. These people—we can call them peers of the accused—are responsible for listening to a dispute evaluating the evidence presented deciding on the facts and making decisions in accordance with the rules of law and their jury instructions and typically of course the jury judges only the guilt on a verdict of guilty or not guilty with the actual penalty being set by the judge.  
It is also right to say that in countries where jury trials are common juries are often seen as a very important check against State power. There are other common assertions about the benefits of trial by jury in that they provide a way of injecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings and they legitimise the law by providing opportunities for citizens to validate criminal statutes and their application to specific trials. It is in that context that we are moving away from this very fundamental law principle of unanimity in jury verdicts. One needs only to look around the world to see that that sadly has become a circumstance that has been picked up in a number of cases.  
We have the present law that in New Zealand all criminal cases must carry with them a unanimous verdict from the jury but sadly the rate of hung juries has continued to rise. According to the latest information it is now at about 10 percent. When we look around the world we see that a number of jurisdictions now allow majority verdict decisions. In the United Kingdom it is a majority verdict of 10:2. We are proposing 11:1. This means that 11 jurors say guilty and one says not guilty or perhaps one stands out. In the Northern Territory it is 10:2. In Tasmania it is 10:2. In South Australia it is 10:2. In Victoria it is 11:1. In Oregon it is 10:2. In Hawaii it is 10:2. In Alaska it is 10:2. We have not run with 10:2; we have run with 11:1. That is one of the big changes. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What about Manitoba? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I know that when Mr Finlayson stands to speak he will talk about the very special circumstances of Manitoba. I do not want to steal his thunder on that particular point. So that is the first issue.  
The second thing is of course that there is to be trial by judge alone on a greater basis instead of a jury trial where there is evidence of juror intimidation or where the trial is complex and long. I will just say something briefly about juror intimidation. It is very difficult to measure juror intimidation obviously but there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it may be common in gang-related prosecutions and the presence of mobile telephones with cameras in courtrooms has heightened concerns. It is very hard to detect but I think it is appropriate in the context of the growth of the gangs in New Zealand and the seeming reluctance by the Labour-led Government to deal with organised crime that we have that exception incorporated within the body of the criminal law. 
The second aspect that I would like to deal with in the context of trial by judge alone is the case of complex and long trials. The jury system has often been criticised in that it may be difficult for jurors to determine complex and difficult issues where trials are long and clearly it could be difficult for some jurors to assimilate large amounts of complex evidence. And of course long trials put huge pressure on jurors’ personal lives. So now we will have a provision in the law which National supports and which I support that in certain circumstances—in particular where the penalty faced by an accused person is less than 14 years’ imprisonment and the trial is likely to last longer than 20 days—there may be abandonment of that absolute right to trial by jury. There are major changes relating to juries. I do not want to deal with them at any length but I note that the Juries Act is subject to substantial change.  
Another very significant area is that of double jeopardy which is the circumstance reflected in the legal principle that a person should stand trial once and if acquitted should not face the criminal law again. It is a very longstanding principle—the idea that one should not be put in jeopardy a second time. Two exceptions are proposed in this legislation. The first is where evidence is tainted through perjury or witness intimidation and in the United Kingdom changes have been made that similarly reflect what is proposed to occur here. The second exception is more problematic and it is when strong evidence of guilt has been established after a person has been acquitted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or more. People will be divided on the merit of including that second exception. Some people would argue that the police have one opportunity to get it right and if they do not a guilty person may walk free. National supports this legislation.