District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very briefly, the first part is the substantial part to the bill. It is the part that changes the number in section 12 of the District Court Act 2016 from 160 to 182. I’m advised by officials that the information that went up on the website on Thursday night had a typographical error, and notified that the figure was to be 172. For the avoidance of doubt, and for every member who is gathered here to debate this very important issue today, I just want to be very clear that the figure is 182. The Budget, however, provides funding for an additional 10 judges, plus two Youth Court judges. There is still some gap. That means in future years, as the Chief District Court Judge applies the judicial resourcing model, we can calibrate what is needed in terms of the number of permanent judges at any particular point in time.

I know that members opposite, in the first and second reading debates, have raised issues about broader criminal justice reform, and they are right to be aware of that. What I think we are realising is that there is a number of initiatives that need to be considered before you even get to legislation. One of those is a District Court being fully equipped to do the job they must do efficiently and effectively and in accordance with the accepted principles of justice that we all in here believe. We do that when we resource the court and the bench properly, which is what this seeks to do.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In this, the committee stage of the debate on the District Courts (District Courts Judge) Amendment Bill, I would like to just raise some very quick couple of questions. I can ask them very quickly and I’m sure the Minister can answer them very quickly, with the word “No” being one of the shortest in the English language—if you’ll excuse the Blackadder reference.

My questions are as follows. The first is whether analysis has been done about the extent to which we can expect faster court processing times. This is very much the raison d’être for the legislative proposal and indeed the Budget appropriation. On this side of the committee, as we’ve explained, we think that that’s a good thing in itself, but I would like to know, and we would like to know, whether some calculations have been made about the extent to which an improvement can actually be expected. So, for example, if 12 new judges are to be appointed now and then some other number that’s greater than that, up to and including 22 full-time equivalents, as allowed by the legislation, were to be made, then how much expected improvement is the Minister banking on by this extra allocation? So that’s my first question: whether the analysis has been done.

A second question, although effectively much the same, really, is whether he can give a commitment that there will be an improvement of some material degree in the processing times. I expect that in answering that question he’ll take into account whether other system reforms might be made to achieve that—for example, in terms of maybe the sitting hours of the courts or the physical structures in which judges will be sitting and so forth.

I look forward to the Minister’s answers on those questions in this, the committee stage of the bill. Thank you.

Just to respond briefly to those questions, just on the latter point. It would be inappropriate for the Minister of Justice, or any politician, to be making commitments about the way judges should conduct themselves. That would be to overreach the role of the executive, the politicians who make the resource decisions, and those who have to exercise judicial authority and judicial capacity.

This has been based on comprehensive work done by the Chief District Court Judge, with the support of the Ministry of Justice, and consulted on with the Attorney-General over using a judicial resourcing model that is internationally recognised, that has established that we have a structural shortfall in the number of judges to administer the number of cases and the case workload that we have going through our District Court.

On the issue about other resources, particularly buildings, we have a lot of District Courts that are underutilised throughout the course of any week. So I’m totally confident that, with the additional judicial complement, we will find spaces for them to sit and preside and dispose of more cases. The reason we are bringing this here is that we have great confidence that this will assist in the more rapid disposal of the District Court case workload, criminal jurisdiction, the family jurisdiction, the Youth Court jurisdiction, as well as the civil jurisdiction in their court.

Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that—apologies. It’s moving quite quickly. I’d appreciate members seeking the call quite quickly as well.

Yes, noted. I commend the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice in relation to the increase of numbers of our District Court judges from 160 full-time to 182. It’s a matter where there has always been—certainly in the years of my experience practising as a lawyer for about, as is known, 30 years—a demand on the work of our judges, and that it has never been enough.

So to express to the Minister the concern associated—it’s acknowledged with the increase of an appointment of another 22 judges. There is the issue of the attrition rate. We have a number of very senior, experienced judges who are nearing their retirement age. I’m well aware—because I do continue engagement with my colleagues and also judges serving, and that is in a private capacity—that we are going to experience in the next two years a very high attrition rate with our senior judges reaching the retirement age. So how is that going to be addressed by the Government, in relation to maintaining the numbers that are required on the bench, and how will that be managed, because that will be an issue? Of course, that will continue to be an issue, in terms of managing the volume of people who are utilising the services of the courts and the flow-on into the remand period of time. So if we do have a number of judges retiring, those positions haven’t been—with reappointments made in the appropriate time, we’ll see that those longer periods of waiting time on remand may well be reactivated.

Madam Chair, thank you. Just very quickly, I wanted to address the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, and thank him for clarifying. Like him, I’ve got a high level of confidence in our officials at the Ministry of Justice. They would have done the background work on this. I am just interested to know, does the Minister feel that this bill is going to significantly address those issues, or is there still some way to go in terms of the analysis that has been done on this? I think that an earlier contribution is that justice delayed is justice denied. We all accept that. Getting cases through into court and through as quickly as possible is not only good for the person that’s been accused but, of course, for the victims and everyone involved. So I’d just be very interested, if the Minister has it now, in terms of the analysis, what impact is this actually going to have in terms of being able to start to clear that backlog? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just responding to that query, this is not a linear equation. We know that the way that—certainly in the criminal jurisdiction—many of those cases are being conducted is changing, partly in response to the Criminal Procedure Act. But, actually, the response to the Criminal Procedure Act is to try and push the envelope on the scheduling requirements that that Act sets out. We’re seeing more of that. In addition to that, what we’ve seen is a growth in the number of cases where more serious charges have been laid but, through successive appearances in the court, eventually an alleged offender is persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser charge. That leads to more court events and a longer period of time before the case is disposed of. So there are all those sorts of things going on.

I am totally confident that adding this extra number of judges will make a material difference to the time delays that are currently being experienced in all the jurisdictions across the District Court. Quantifying that is, of course, almost impossible, because every case is different. Part of the challenge of justice is to make sure that the parties involved—victims, defendants, plaintiffs, respondents—are able to respond effectively to what is lodged on the charging sheet or statement claim. They can respond effectively, prepare their case, so that justice is done. But this will make a difference.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendment