Courts Matters Bill

The Courts Matters Bill is an omnibus bill that makes relatively small but important amendments. This bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill form an integrated package of reforms to the courts and tribunals system. The Courts Matters Bill is in four parts and amends 16 Acts, governing court security, fine enforcement, and court procedures. These amendments will improve people’s experience of the courts, reduce the time that it takes to hear and resolve matters, and enable greater use of modern technology.

I will highlight the principal amendments as we examine each part of the bill. Before turning to Part 1, I note that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 134 inserts a new Subpart 9A in Part 4 which amends the Senior Courts Act 2016 to restore the ability of a single Court of Appeal judge to decide minor contested matters in civil cases, instead of three judges having to decide these applications. It also makes minor amendments, corrects drafting errors, and adjusts commencement dates.

Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill amends the Courts Security Act, which governs the provision of security services in specified courts and tribunals. These amendments will help people feel safer in court and tribunal buildings. They will align the Courts Security Act with developments in comparable security legislation in New Zealand and other jurisdictions. This is the first time the Courts Security Act has been reviewed since it was passed in 1999.

Part 1 will give court security officers greater powers to deal with disruptive people whose behaviour is causing distress to other people. In future, court security officers will be able to deny entry to or to remove people who are acting threateningly or abusively. They will also be able to prevent people bringing alcohol into court buildings. At present, court security officers can only deny entry to or remove a person who has refused to cooperate with security screening processes.

Part 1 will also authorise court security officers to detain people who commit minor crimes such as disorderly behaviour, wilful damage, or who are in possession of illegal drugs. People will continue to be detained until the police arrive. Court security officers are currently only authorised to detain people who have committed very serious offences.

Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill will assist court security officers to provide the safe, secure, and orderly court environment that court users are entitled to, and I trust this outline will assist members in their examination of Part 1.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, the Courts Matters Bill—one of those odd ones with a double “s”—is an important piece of legislation. It was introduced by the last Government, and it’s good to see the new Government—or I hesitate to use the word “new”, actually, because we’re sort of a year in and—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: It’s been a long year.

“It’s been a long year.”, says my colleague Maggie Barry. The Labour-led Government—it’s good to see that they are progressing this very important piece of legislation. I was on the Justice Committee, that had the privilege of considering the Courts Matters Bill and the cognate piece of legislation that comes with it, which is the tribunal legislation. We did a very thorough job of considering it and we’re very supportive of it proceeding.

I just want to highlight a couple of changes that the bill makes that I think are very important. One of them is in Part 1, to do with the Courts Security Act. It is allowing drug paraphernalia from the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to be on the list of offences that allow the court security officers to act. We actually had a bit of a debate in the select committee as to whether or not this was already allowed through the Courts Security Act, and in the end, we agreed with the recommendation of the officials that drug paraphernalia be added to the list of things that court security officers were entitled to search for.

It’s one of those tidy-up piece of legislation, as well—one of those pieces of legislation that the Parliament has to pass from time to time in order to just tidy a few things up. It’s not quite a statutes amendment bill—that’s the very definition of a tidy-up—but it’s verging towards that. For example, in Part 1 of the bill, it expands the definition of “court” to include any space between the building and the road. Now, one would have thought that when you use the word “court” through the Act—the Courts Security Act, in this particular instance—that would include both the courthouse but also the bit outside the courthouse before the road, which might be a local body authority road. We heard some evidence from a variety of different sources during the select committee process that that was potentially in dispute and that that could potentially be defined as not falling within the jurisdiction of a court, and I think it’s particularly relevant, from memory—and don’t quote me on this, Madam Chair—that it’s to do with the power of court officers to search, and security officers. So there’s a clarificatory piece of, not legislation, but a clarificatory clause around defining “court” to include any space between the building and the road—so, a parking lot or the path that people walk through to get to the court.

There’s also clarification that court security officers can exercise powers when directed by the current judge, even if that’s inconsistent with an earlier judge, or when the person is in other custody, and the officers may also use their discretion—so, again, very important clarifications. There are amendments in Part 2 to the Criminal Procedure Act that I know others in the House have previously expressed support for and that are very important. In particular—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re on Part 1.

I know. I’m just saying that Part 2, to do with the Criminal Procedure Act, I know other colleagues may wish to highlight.

I want to also highlight for the committee this issue around regulation rather than Gazette notice. We did have a bit of a debate in the select committee around upon what circumstances the Government would be able to add additional courts and tribunals to be subject to the various measures in the bill—whether or not that should be done by regulation or Gazette notice. It is, arguably, a finely balanced point, but we decided in the end to retain the power to do it via regulation. It’s a slightly more formalistic process that the Government goes through when passing a regulation. It goes through Cabinet rather than Gazette notices, which go through a different process.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to the Courts Matters Bill, which seems to me to be an eminently sensible piece of legislation. I would say that, because the former National-led Government made a number of reforms to the justice system in its tenure, which was all about making the system easier for people to understand and about accessibility. People need to really, I suppose, feel that the court system is going to be flexible and responsive, and the transparency of the court system is something that National has always believed is a very important element of our democracy.

So when we look at the Courts Matters Bill and, in particular, at Part 1, which is before us at the moment and amends the Courts Security Act 1999, I think that the extension of the powers of court security officers to deny entry and to remove or detain people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or accusingly—it is a surprise to me that these measures have not been in place earlier, because they are eminently sensible. When you look at the overall thrust of this bill, which amends 14 Acts which govern all sorts of things around court security, criminal procedure, fines enforcement, and other court processes that are dealt with in other parts, I think there would be widespread agreement through this committee, and certainly on this side of the Chamber, to the legislation, that really brings the courts up to speed with 21st century practice.

So, you know, things do lag behind. My colleague Chris Bishop has already outlined some of the more unusual ways that you define a “court”, which is going to be tidied up by this bill. I also think that the definition of a “Judge”, which has been one of the things that’s in clause 5 of this bill—to amend the definition of “tribunal” and “Judge”. So the new definition of “Judge” is going to include the Chief High Court Judge, Employment Court judges, and members of bodies declared to be courts and tribunals. So I think all of this makes perfect sense.

I think, as well, when we look at one of the things that has been common practice, it has been tightened up a little in this regard. There has been, through the select committee process, the deleting of an amendment that would allow community magistrates to hear prosecutors of obstruction to a court security officer (CSO), as they cannot impose prison sentences, while that particular offence would carry with it three months imprisonment. So it does seem to me to be very sensible to delete that amendment to allow community magistrates to hear that sort of evidence.

So, clearly, through the select committee process, which I was not a part of—although I’m on the Justice Committee, much of this evidence was heard before I sat on the committee. I think that the select committee process, the engine room of the House and of legislation, has refined further some of the commonsensible moves. I think that when you look at, for example, court security officers, who are currently authorised to detain only people who have committed very serious offences, it is important to ensure, for public safety, for the ability of people to give testimony and to be heard properly, that they are able to feel safe doing that. I think that courts can be very intimidating places, so that Part 1 amendment with the Courts Security Act 1999 is something that I think absolutely needs to be done.

So when I looked at the judge’s definition, I think the amendments were put in considering it unnecessary to list all the judges and members of each court and tribunal, because this is an Act that will do away with the need to be that specific. It’s an Act that in its very sensible overview is intended to cover the courts and the tribunals which are listed in section 3(5), which I don’t have time to go into. But we do recommend, and I support that recommendation within the bill, replacing that definition of the judge with a more generic definition. I think that on this side of the House we are very keen on the idea of common-sense practices.

I think that, as Chris Bishop has said, expanding the definition of courts, court premises, removal or disposal of alcohol, the powers for the CSO to detain people—all of these make perfect sense—and, I think, the power to seize items as well and to use reasonable force, and that is defined in this bill. I think that that will make it very much easier for the justice system and the court system to work in the way it was always intended, which is to work smoothly and without ridiculous barriers that are put up. These barriers that are being removed by this Courts Matters Bill have, I think, been long overdue for change, and the idea that possession of controlled drugs as an offence—they were allowed to be in the courtroom and so forth and people didn’t have the powers to get rid of them. Change is long overdue to happen. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this, the Courts Matters Bill, at the committee stage, concentrating on Part 1, of course, of that legislation. Just as a general remark that does pertain to Part 1, courts of law in our system of justice are very important places. They are places where procedures are important.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Ha!

It’s important for the administration of justice—Dr Duncan Webb credits me with a pun that I did not actually intend to make, I think, in relation to procedures, or perhaps even proceedings—but the detail is important. The devil is in the detail and in the way that justice is administered and done, and must be seen to be done, too. Security aspects are important, and it’s the Courts Security Act that Part 1 of the Courts Matters Bill will amend.

You will have heard already colleagues on this side of the Chamber say that we continue to support this bill. I say “continue” because previous readings, and, indeed, the formulation of the legislation in the first place, did come from this side of the House. So we’re happy to continue with that, including that in relation to Part 1, improving security procedures for our courts is a very worthwhile task indeed.

I’m struck, looking at the names of the different clauses within Part 1, by how important the issues are that we are considering before us. So they are not to be taken lightly but are also important to clarify so that justice can be administered as described. The meaning of “court” and “courtroom” has been dealt with very elegantly already in the debate so far, and I’ll return to that only if time allows at the end. But looking to the importance of the issues that we’re discussing, words such as “removal”, “disposal”, “seize”, “detain”, “pursue”, “force”, and “police” all give helpful indication, I think, of the sorts of issues that we are considering here in the administration of justice in relation to security. So, for example, new section 15A relates to the “Removal or disposal of alcohol”, section 16 is replaced—talking about the ability to seize detected items—and so on.

More particularly, in Part 1, which is, as I say, amending the Courts Security Act 1999, the power of court security officers is extended such that entry can be denied, and we can have the removal and detention of people who possess illegal drugs, or who act threateningly or abusively or commit minor crimes on court premises. This, of course, goes to the significance of that definition of what it is to have a court or a courtroom, and that can actually include not only the building in which the court services themselves are carried out or provided but also the surrounding areas that it might be relevant for a pursuit to take place, perhaps, if a person is in the court with some sort of nefarious intent or illegal possessions, and so forth.

I wasn’t privileged enough to be on the Justice Committee, that considered this bill and has now reported it back, but I do understand from reading submissions that some interesting commentary was provided on this issue by the various submitters, including the Auckland District Law Society and the Law Society of New Zealand as a whole. Various issues were discussed around how tightly or how clearly that should be defined—what a court is, exactly, for the purposes of the court security officers having jurisdiction to apprehend those who would do harm and interfere with the criminal justice system, or, in fact the justice system in general, and not necessarily the criminal jurisdiction.

Similarly, as to the geographical influence of the officers, so too the time after the proceedings. So the time of court proceedings includes not only what we would think of as the proceedings proper but also some time shortly thereafter. Admittedly, that is not as clear as, for example, having exactly one hour as the definition, as I think the Auckland District Law Society proposed, but the Justice Committee thought in its wisdom that it would be best to allow some measure of flexibility so that all the situations where that’s appropriate to apply could enjoy the benefit of that provision. I think that’s sensible. On the side of the House, we think that’s sensible too, and, accordingly, we continue to support Part 1 and, indeed, all of this legislation.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 134 in the name of the Hon Aupito William Sio to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011