Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Criminal Procedure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16611] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 That is a very good point at which Mr Borrows concludes his remarks because I wholeheartedly support him in that respect. Listening to Mr Borrows and Ms Wilkinson one would almost take the view that they will be voting against Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. I know where their hearts lie in this matter—there is no doubt about it. New Zealand First will be voting against Part 5 of this bill. That was our policy at the last election and when we set out a policy we keep that policy. 
I was very concerned at the delay in this bill going through its Committee stage. After all I was a member of the Law and Order Committee from time to time at the end of its deliberation and consideration on this bill—way back in 2005. When I came back into the House in 2008 I expected this bill to be well and truly passed but lo and behold it is still on the Order Paper. Of course in one of the press statements Justice Randerson is quoted as saying that he wanted the bill passed because of the part that will allow methamphetamine trials to be moved down to the District Court. As we have heard today that is in Part 3 of the bill which was passed in 15 to 20 minutes—it went through in no time whatsoever. That could have been done quite easily in 2006. New Zealand First is delighted to have taken part in that work. 
One of the issues that has cropped up has been the great concern about giving evidence twice. Well as members have heard today from Kate Wilkinson—who made an excellent point—of those cases that go to depositions 1044 end in guilty pleas. Without depositions that means 1044 cases will now be going to the High Court for trial. What will be cheaper? What will be quicker? Instead of 1044 cases being considered by two JPs in a little courtroom somewhere hearing the evidence and at the end of it a guilty plea there will now be fully fledged High Court trials lasting for days with all sorts of discovery tying up District Court judges and possibly High Court judges. Well that is no saving. Treasury has got that one all wrong. It sold the Minister a pup on that particular issue. We have heard that another 485 defendants plead guilty before the trial comes to court. Well that is another saving as a result of doing a very simple depositions case. Then 736 cases go to a High Court hearing. That is fair enough. The evidence has been put before people in terms of our system. I make the point that in our system with our belief in the rule of law—and New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the rule of law—every person in this country is innocent unless he or she is proved guilty. As the two National Party members have just indicated that type of situation is likely to go out the window. 
One of the issues raised by people concerned about having to give evidence twice was apparently in regard to a prosecution relating to a Mrs Elliott. But as has been made clear—Mrs Elliott was giving evidence on behalf of another person—it was revealed that Mrs Elliott was not required by either the prosecution or the defence to appear at the hearing. Her evidence could have been given in the hand-up paperwork meaning that she had to appear only at the trial. Her personal request to appear was granted by the prosecution yet she complained about having to go to the depositions hearing. If I look at this case my prediction is that her evidence will be used as part of an insanity defence and that is the reason why she did it. So there is more than one way of looking at things and I suspect the Minister cannot be using that as an example—and other people should not be using that as an example—of how one should consider this part of the legislation. 
I have appeared as counsel in depositions hearings. I have been involved in a depositions hearing as a victim. I had to give evidence at a depositions hearing where I was the victim. I was cross-examined by my assailant not by a lawyer. So I know what it is like to be a party to a deposition hearing and to be cross-examined not just by a lawyer but by the defendant. I know what it feels like to be there. I say to all of those people who say they know what it is like to be there that I sympathise with them but as I mentioned when it comes to making oneself available for jury service it is part of being a citizen of New Zealand to be ready to give evidence in a court to tell the truth as one sees it and to let the jury decide ultimately what will happen. In my case the person concerned had finally instructed a lawyer—I think the lawyer was sort of forced upon him—and we were going up to the High Court for the trial. When we were ready to go into the trial—I was waiting to give evidence before the case started—the lawyer was able to convince that person that the evidence was so overwhelming that the best thing he could do would be to plead guilty which he did and fortunately I did not have to go through the High Court jury trial. The point again is that the evidence was there at the deposition hearing it was there for counsel to advise the defendant on the facts and the lawyer was able to tell the defendant that he did not have a dog’s show in hell or whatever the phrase is—he was guilty. The defendant pleaded guilty and we did not have a time-consuming expensive jury trial. 
I heard in the submissions that have gone before that the New Zealand Police would like to do away with depositions. I have appeared at a depositions hearing for a person who was the subject of an armed offenders squad call-out. His house was surrounded by the armed offenders squad all the lights were put on it megaphones were used to order him to come out he came out he had a gun put at his head etc. and he was charged. We appeared at the depositions hearing where half the evidence was dismissed and the other half was dismissed before we got to the High Court hearing. That person was a police officer but when it comes to one’s own self it is a different story is it not? It is all very well for the police to say that they do not want depositions but if the people in the system happen to be police officers and they are charged by the police there is no doubt that as in this case they want depositions. In this instance it was a dreadful case that should never have been brought. The JPs tossed out some of it and the High Court judge finished off the rest. 
As I hope I have indicated what we are eliminating here today is a system that saves time and trouble. On the evidence and the facts given to us by the National member we will now move into a system that will be much more complicated. When I first saw this bill at the Law and Order Committee I was concerned that the only application that could be made was in a written form. As Mr Borrows has pointed out that can be strung out for a long long time if one wishes. Ultimately of course all of those cases that would have been dealt with at depositions hearings on a guilty plea basis or subsequently will now all have jury trials. That is an utter waste of money. I just cannot understand how that system could be permitted. 
Mr Borrows might be a little bit more up to date on this than me but as far as section 347 applications are concerned—which is when one can lodge an application with the judge to say there is no evidence and that the case should be tossed out—how will one get one’s evidence before a judge to lodge an application under section 347? There will be a whole lot of affidavit evidence and suchlike whereas now we have the deposition evidence at least to put before the judge and any other evidence that might be able to be provided to get rid of the case in terms of an application under section 347. That will be much more difficult and much more costly and a lot more legal aid will be involved in supporting Part 5. 
We oppose Part 5. We support the right of every person to be innocent unless he or she is proved guilty in a system that is totally transparent which is our present system—rather than what we are moving into which as far as I can see is really Treasury-driven and very little else. If Parliament had been keen to move things along on the methamphetamine situation that could have been done years ago and raising that as an issue recently is really just a very sick joke.