Herald calls on National to support Criminal Procedure Bill
An interesting collection of people and groups have been calling for National to support the Government’s Criminal Procedures Bill. At last glance they are:
- The Chief High Court Judge
- DPF!
- The Sensible Sentencing Trust
- Louise Nicholas
- ACT
- NZ Herald
Today’s Herald editorial says:
The National Party subscribes not only to the notion that victims relish their day in court but that every card in the judicial deck should be brought to bear on criminals. Consequently, it has stalled the Criminal Procedure Bill, which would allow pre-trial depositions to be based on written evidence, unless otherwise ordered by a judge. By now, however, National should have had a drastic rethink.
The Criminal Procedure Bill ensures this process will have to be endured just once, unless a judge decides a depositions hearing is necessary. Rarely will this be the case. The use of written evidence should not alter the present situation, in which very few cases do not proceed to trial because insufficient proof is produced at hearings. Yet somehow this does not satisfy the Law Society, which also opposes the legislation. It suggests depositions hearings are important not just for disclosure but for testing witnesses’ evidence and reliability and for confronting defendants with the case against them. This, it suggests, might persuade them to plead guilty.
These objections smack more of self-interest than reality. Essentially, they do little more than proclaim the desirability, in an ideal world, of staging dress rehearsals. This pales into insignificance alongside the many advantages of allowing depositions based on written evidence.
Some lawyers have been making very constructive arguments in the blog debate on the issue, arguing for the value off depositions hearings and how they can lead to changed pleas etc. Despite their useful arguments I have not been convinced because what has been lacking is any hard numbers on what proportion of cases does this apply to. Is it worth having 20 depositions hearings, if only one of them results in someone then pleading guilty? Some more concrete facts and figures would be useful.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
It is interesting that the pressure is coming on National to help see the Bill through.
To quote “Tulia” (Janice Graham I think):
“Good Government requires the leading party to listen to and
incorporate good ideas that stem from not only coalition partners, but
also opposition parties. Labour have been exceptionally good at this
point, which has resulted in a long-term stable Government and an
unprecedented period of low unemployment and economic growth.”
Well, Labour seems to be badly falling down with this, when various people and groups now consider abour to be a dead loss in this regard. They now consider that putting the pressure on National is the best bet to get action.
Woth the treatment dished out to National MP’s over the last 9 years, is it any wonder that National would at the very least have its pound of flesh for bailing out Labour on this one.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
DPF, you have my profound thanks for not becoming a lawyer because that whole ‘presumption of innocence’ malarkey is really challenging for you, isn’t it? I’ve got an idea for really “sparing the victims” — and incidentally saving the taxpayer several billion dollars a year — who don’t we abolish the Police and Courts, and have the New Zealand Herald become the arbiter of justice. Why even bother with that — automatic bullet in the head of anyone accused of any crime, and the “victims” don’t have to be troubled at all.
And far from being a “convincing riposte”, I found Louise Nicholas yesterday an utter joke. So, she found giving evidence in John Dewar’s trial for obstruction of justice “traumatic”? Fair enough, so would I come to that. But I’ve heard he’s not enjoying his four and a half year prison sentence much either; former police officers in prison seldom do.
In my book, you don’t deprive anyone of their freedom and reputation without great care.
[DPF: Craig - I am not arguing that innocent people be jailed to punish the guilty. I am saying that deposition hearings almost inevitable result in a trail proceeding, and that being the case written depositions are all that is necessary. Why victims need to be cross-examined twice I do not know. Why not three ro four times?]
June 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I simply don’t believe this is being driven by an altruistic urge to save victims from pain. It’s just the usual piss poor emotive argument from a pro-group attempting to capture hearts, and ignoring the minds.
But hell, I’ll play along. The method generally works in our intellectually barren nation. There may be any number of ways to streamline the system, but approaching it from the angle of feelings is absurd and doomed to result in gross idiocy. Let me quote Pooh Bear in terms we can all understand:
“If you are looking for Home and find instead a sand-pit, try looking for a sand-pit. Then you’d be sure not to find it, which would be a Good Thing, because you might find something that you weren’t looking for, which might be just what you were looking for.”
In order to reach the by-product of “happy feelings”, we need to aim at something else. Otherwise:
“If you secretly get into a kangaroo’s pocket and she begins to jump away, be prepared for a bumpy ride.”
June 6th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Sigh – I still cling to my hopeless, naive wish that our foremost “News” paper would stop with the political activism, stop with the one-eyed opinion pieces, and return to just *reporting the news*…
June 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
DPF, you want to look at the numbers. Tell me why then is there not a proper bipartisan investigation into the cost and benefits of deposition hearings. They will find that deposition hearings in fact save costs and they are a vital screening process.
Once again, do not be so easily persuaded by a Labour idea, they often have far reaching unintended negative consequences. The way Labour has governed in the last 9 years suggests that any legislation they come up with should be subject to very close scrutiny. They usually get it wrong. This is another knee-jerk reaction from a deeply flawed reactionary government. Legal practitioners have a much fuller understanding of the issues than politicians and newspapers.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Standing back and trying to see this issue clearly, I am brought to a few points of note.
1 If there isn’t someone in the police prosecution ‘office/department/whatever’ looking at the evidence available and deciding that there is enough, their consensus, to obtain a conviction, then there should be.
2 The purpose of a trial is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, there need not be any statement by the defense at all as they have no onus of proof. This does not mean they cannot put doubt in the mind of the jurors, but they don’t HAVE to prove ANYTHING. We should stick with this concept, it’s worked for many centuries in many places.
3. If the accused decides to mount a defense, it is reasonable for them to be given insight into the grounds (evidence) on which the prosecution will base their delivery of the onus of proof, so that they can if possible, refute it. However, it does seem unreasonable that the defense should be able to attempt to ‘test’ the reliability of a prosecution witness (I read that as meaning being able to verbaly push them to the brink of their mental capacity to see if they will keep to the intricacies of their story or break!) and not give the same option to the prosecution with regard to witnesses on which the defence will sunsequently rely to disprove the prosecution case. If this is not to happen, the only documentation of the evidence to be provided by the prosecution should be available to the defense, and this should be produced within one month of someone being charged.
4. The backlog in the court system is disgusting and feels far from being justice. If Mr. T.P. Field being told this week that his case will be tried some time in the first half of 2009 is ‘normal, then justice is not, to my mind, being served. I believe it is at best unreasonable, and at worst almost criminal, to have a person accused of a crime, about whom the law says presumed innocent until judged guilty, to have the damaclesian sword hanging over their head for so long. If the evidence exists, deliver it to a jury and let the verdict be determined, if the prosecution do not have their evidence ready, and the court system cannot deliver a trial in less than six months from someone being charged, the case should be dismissed. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the memory of witnesses cannot be depended on long after an event took place. Removing the current depositions approach will free up courts, judges, police and officials to move justice at a more socially responsible pace.
Please, pick holes in this, but do it on the basis of justice beiong done and being seen to be done, rather than any argument based on tradition, precedent, or anything else that is not truly germain.
Thanks.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I also applaud the proposed reform as commonsense. Deposition hearings are indeed advantageous to the defence and are part of a system that has become biased in their favour. They are expensive especially in terms of wasted Police Time as well as a severe imposition on victims and their witnesses. I would be shocked if National do carry through and pass up this opportunity to cut blatant waste from the Judicial system. It would damage their credibility in respect of their intention to in part fund tax cuts by reducing wastage.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Come on DPF. The Chief High Court Judge called for changes to be made in the procedure for more minor meth trials. Such changes are included in the Criminal Procedure Bill. If the Government were to place the Criminal Procedure Bill at the top of the order paper, those changes would be law within the month. And National would have voted for the bill at its third reading.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I don’t believe tampering with the fundamental machinations of justice is the best way to fund a tax cut. If there is waste in the Courts I think the standard National tactic of thinning out the so-called bureaucracy is probably a better way to go, if only because reducing the number of people sorting out timesheets and toilet rolls is probably less damaging to my chance of getting a fair trial than doing away with the depositions hearings.
I don’t want to appear a died-in-the-wool traditionalist, but the justice system evolved over a long time and it is of paramount importance to our whole civilisation. Any changes to it need to be considered VERY carefully, and changes to the fundamentals of it should be motivated by something a lot more worthy than the desire of the conservative party of the day to save money for a tax cut.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
DPF I second Craig’s profound thanks that you didn’t take up a career at the bar
You’re absolutely right – there’s not a shred of statistical evidence advanced by the proponents of this radical change as to what currently happens at depositions. And considering they’re the ones wishing to toss the present procedure out the window, isn’t incumbent upon them to back up their proposition with facts?
baxter says:
Says someone who, I’m willing to bet, has never been prosecuted or had someone close to them prosecuted, for something they didn’t do. Let alone repeatedly prosecuted, only to be found not guilty every single time.
Yes they’re an imposition on witnesses and victims. They’re also something of an imposition on the accused, baxter, who is after all innocent till proved guilty (which often, they’re proven not to be at all).
If you’re so worried by the Police having their precious time wasted then perhaps you might wish to suggest to them that they cease bring flimsy prosecutions in the hope of increasing their clean-up rate, and malicious ones against people they feel have “got it coming”.
And I won’t even start on the time wasted collecting revenue for the government with their roadside toys…
June 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Bush lawyers who support this bullshit bill should stay in the bush, as these grippers haven’t a goddamn clue. As I said previous Liarbour only want to pass this croc of shit to make it easier for a bent police prosecution and callous crown law dipshits. What about when a depo hearing exposes blatant false allegations and the defendant applies for a discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 on the grounds of abuse of process. What about when crown proceed with third trial after two previous miss trials. The dishonest crown must get their man even though the complainant said she wasn’t telling the truth while in the dock. Why worry, as the fuck knuckle bush lawyers know better. What about due process. Newspapers are good for wiping your arse when you crap on a bush lawyers head.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
It’s all over. National have saved Labour’s ass again and agree to support the passing of the bill. Their reason? So that victims don’t have to give evidence twice. God almighty, what a bunch of moronic emos. Forget examining the facts and figures, go with The Herald’s “Woman of the Year” opinion, the most righteous and honorable, Louise Nicholas et al.
And you wonder why our systems are so fucked up.
Hold on tight NZ, you’re about to vote in another leftwing government. Nothing will change and most things will get worse.
ACT really need to come on board now, or it’s socialism or popular socialism as a choice for our futures.