Criminal Procedure Bill

I want to deal with the criminal disclosure requirements that are provided in Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. It is useful to remember the overall goal of the bill, which is to maximise efficiency and fairness in the criminal justice system. Part 2 deals with criminal disclosure, and establishes a fourfold disclosure regime. I would like the Minister to take a call on this when I have finished, as to whether we really need such a detailed, codified disclosure regime. The New Zealand Law Society does not believe that there is problem with the current disclosure regime. While largely uncodified, the principles of disclosure are well established at common law and also under the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act legislation. Will this new fourfold disclosure regime provide speedier justice, in accordance with the goal of the bill? Again, I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that, and in the Minister taking a call. As the New Zealand Law Society has submitted, if the disclosure provisions are to be enacted they should be simplified, using straightforward and sensible principles.

This disclosure regime is so complicated that it needs a two-page diagram in the bill to illustrate how it might work. We now have initial disclosure, then full disclosure by the prosecution, then disclosure of certain information by the defence, and, fourthly, we have disclosure in certain circumstances by third parties. One would have thought that when dealing with criminal procedure the submission of the New Zealand Law Society might be regarded, and regarded well. Lawyers are the ones who deal with the laws we make, on a day-to-day basis. The New Zealand Law Society submission suggested that the only codification of disclosure that might be required was, firstly, timetabling of disclosure; secondly, enforcement of disclosure obligations; and, thirdly, third-party disclosure.

But it states: “The proposed disclosure code creates an expensive and abstruse infrastructure of potential interlocutories that would have the potential to require a great deal more judge time. While the stated motivation is to replace depositions with this formal regime, the bill’s disclosure provisions will apply equally to summary offences, of which there are a much greater volume. Consequently there would be potential greatly to increase delays and cost, with immense implications for legal aid. The criminal disclosure process as it currently stands works effectively. There is no need to amend disclosure principles and procedures. The level and scope of disclosure under the proposed legislation is potentially significantly less than currently available. This cannot be conducive to the interests of justice.”

Clause 28 provides for full disclosure by the prosecutor, to the defendant, of certain standard information. But this is available only after the defendant has pleaded not guilty or has elected trial by jury, or if the information has been laid indictably. This means that lawyers cannot effectively advise their clients on how to plead, until this information has been obtained, and therefore clients will all enter “not guilty” pleas on all charges at the initial appearance, just so full disclosure can be obtained. This will logjam the courts and is not at all conducive to the initial principle of speedy justice and maximising efficiency.

We have heard on several occasions of the backlogs that already exist in our jury court system. For example, in the Auckland District Court the median waiting time for District Court jury trials has ballooned from 251 median waiting days in 2004, to 321. By comparison, Greymouth has gone from 199 waiting days, to 343 days. Although efficiency and speedy justice are certainly the aims of this bill, it is certainly doubtful whether this overkill of disclosure will meet them.

Clause 28 essentially codifies the disclosure requirements. It is significantly less than the disclosure currently provided. Copies of exhibits are currently provided. Now, lists only of those exhibits are noted, not copies.

The submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research was particularly interesting, bearing in mind that it deals with forensic services. It stated that it had “major concerns over the potential implications of the time frames”.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment, and progress on the Criminal Procedure Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.