Criminal Procedure Bill

Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Bill amends the District Courts Act. It gives the District Court jurisdiction to try all indictable offences expect those in the schedule. The jurisdiction of the District Court will not change very much, but the new schedule does correct some anomalies.

The new schedule also permits changes to be made to the middle band of offences by way of Order in Council rather than by legislative change. This provision was added at the select committee and, if passed, will allow some class A drug offences to be put in the middle band to be dealt with by the District Courts rather than by the High Courts. This would ease pressure on the High Courts arising particularly from the volume of methamphetamine cases that are now being heard. One of the reasons we now see so many more methamphetamine cases is the very strong policing approach that the New Zealand Police takes to methamphetamine clan-labs. If we look at the number of clan-labs that were found by the New Zealand Police in 1999, we see that it was around three or four for that year. If we look at the number being found now, we see that it is around 200 a year. A lot of work is going into catching those who produce methamphetamine, which means they are appearing in the High Court. There is now a large backlog of those offenders in the court, and this part would allow their cases to be heard in the District Court. This is something that judges have been asking for, for some time. They believe that it is an imperative change to be made in this bill, and they have asked us to get on and make that change.

I am pleased that we are now back to debating the Committee stage of this very important bill, which, in my view and in the view, obviously, of the select committee, who made no amendments to this part, would make the workings of our courts much better. It would make access to justice fairer and faster, and surely that is what most legislation should reflect.

As the Minister has just noted, this is very far-reaching legislation that has been delayed for a very substantial period in this House. It was first introduced in June 2004; it had its first reading in that same month and year. It went off to the Law and Order Committee, but since it came back it has languished in the Committee stage. So I am certainly pleased to see the legislation being advanced.

In the context of Part 3, the part we are talking about, there are clearly two strong, underlying themes that are core elements of policy. The first relates to transparency, and the second really relates to management processes in the courts. The reality of the present is that there are very significant delays in the courts, with consequences for accused persons facing trial, for the courts themselves, and, of course, for those who give evidence. I will make some particular comments on Part 3, reflecting some of the points that the Minister has made.

Part 3 is concerned only with amendments to the District Courts Act 1947—old legislation. In general terms, the Minister made the point that the District Court is being given jurisdiction to try all indictable offences except those listed in new schedule 1A, inserted by schedule 3 of the bill. That may not significantly increase the jurisdiction of the court, but, as the Law and Order Committee made very clear in its commentary on the bill, changes to the schedules are to be made by regulations. In constitutional terms, that is generally undesirable. It is not appropriate for subordinate legislation to make changes to the work of this House—for delegated legislation to change primary legislation. That is why the issues that arise in Part 3 were considered by the Regulations Review Committee. It was because two of the clauses, clauses 62A and 92A, contained regulation-making powers. It was certainly the view of the Regulations Review Committee that new clause 62A raised a fundamental issue of principle in respect of the delegation of law-making powers by Parliament. In constitutional terms, we are in a world known as “Henry VIII” clauses, where the involvement of the executive trespasses on the work of this Parliament.

I think that, with some degree of sophistry, the Law and Order Committee sought to get around that constitutional difficulty, because it argued in the report it made to Parliament that the decision as to where a case is committed for trial will have no bearing on the rights of the person charged or on the sentence that may be imposed. Doubtless, it was buttressed in the belief it took by dint of the support it had from the Chief Justice. I guess a better answer with regard to those issues might be that the Regulations Review Committee—because those changes will be made by regulation—will have jurisdiction to look at the issues, and I hope that those who are at present on the committee and those who in the future will be members of the committee will take up the challenge to look at the regulations in a critical way.

It gives me no pleasure to say that under this Government the courts have become truly choked. We have seen, sadly, a number of cases where accused persons have been able to walk free by dint of the substantial delays, because they have succeeded in persuading judges to grant stays of proceedings. I hope that Part 3, with the other parts contained in this legislation, will substantially ameliorate the delays that are occurring, and that now that the issues between the major parties have been resolved, we will see this legislation be put in place at the earliest opportunity.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3, and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 60, be agreed to:

to omit from subparagraph (ii) of section 28A(1)(c) in clause 60(1) “to any”, and substitute “for any”.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Juries Act 1981