Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill

Thank you, sir, and third time lucky. So, previously, I have been disrupted twice whilst addressing the House on this bill before the court, and the irony of it is that I was addressing the House in relation to disruptive proceedings in the court, on the part of the bill that is presently referred to as the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. But the recommendation that is before the House, from the Justice Committee, is that this bill be retitled to, simply, the Contempt of Court Bill.

So the objectives of the bill are outlined in clause 3, subclause 2(d), saying that, except in unusual circumstances, court proceedings will be open to the public and the news media. However, an amendment that is proposed is that the new clause reflects that the Family Court and the Youth Court now not be open to the public. So for the years that I did practise as a lawyer in both the Family Court and the Youth Court, the jurisdiction was open to the public. However, it was rare that members of the public, other than the parties to the proceedings, were present during the hearing. The bill as introduced proposes five main provisions. One is publication contempt. Two is disruptive behaviour in the courtroom, which I shall return to, to speak briefly to. Three: juror contempt. Four: enforcement of court orders. Five: allegations or accusations about judges of court.

Now, I turn specifically to clauses 16 and 17 of the bill as proposed, in relation to the wilful disruption of the proceedings of the court. I shared with the House the last time that I spoke that, prior to the District Court Act 2016, I practised as a lawyer where there had been, on numerous occasions, disruption to the court proceedings, but not necessarily in the courtroom, which leads me to the definition of court at clause 4 of the bill. It’s just confined to those proceedings in relation to, as is outlined, the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. Now, I’m minded to refer to the importance of referring to the definition of a court, or a courtroom, under the Courts Security Act, section 3. That may be a time that I address the House further at the third reading of this bill, because it is pertinent, in relation to the disruption of court proceedings, that it’s not just confined to the courtroom of the courthouse.

There were many an occasion when I appeared as counsel, or a lawyer advocating for people who were before the mental health court in the precinct of the hospital and the mental health detention unit. So the disruption to court proceedings, as such, is not limited just to the building of the courtroom but it is taken out to the premises of where the court hearing itself may be occurring; that can be beside a patient in a hospital bed or, as I said, in a mental health detention unit.

I now also turn, in the limited time that I have left, to just talking about the instances of mentally impaired or mentally disordered persons where proceedings are disrupted. At clause 16 of the bill, it requires that where a judicial officer believes that any person is wilfully disrupting the proceedings of a court, the element of mens rea is a critical aspect in terms of the court, or the judge, or the judicial officer determining whether or not those proceedings have been disrupted wilfully, depending on the demeanour and presentation of the person presenting.

In the limited time that I have here, I turn now to clause 17, subclause 5, which talks about in the event that a judicial officer or a judge deems that there has been a contempt, it must go to a hearing, and that that hearing must be set down for determination within a period of seven days. I’m predicting, based on my experience where there were contempt of court matters arising, that it’s likely to occur as immediately as possible—if not at the time of the incident, certainly prior to the end of the proceedings for the day.

But in referring to clause 17(5), I talk about where previously it was the discretion of the judge as to whether or not a conviction would be entered. This bill is saying that there must not be a conviction. So it’s similar to what was known, for the lawyers practising in the area, as a discharge without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act. So this sets it aside where it’s distinctly requiring that there must not be a conviction but there is the alternative as to whether there is some imposition of a sentence, as such, or some punitive or deterrent element that goes with it.

Should I be permitted the opportunity to address the House at the third reading, where this bill is not opposed by the National Party, I will go further into some of those incidents around the contempt of court proceedings, where as a lawyer, there were lots of things that happened to us, not only the judge, where the proceedings had been disrupted. [Speaker motions for member to conclude speech] I’m wrapping it up now, sir. And with that, I commend this bill to the House.

I refer to the title of this bill, the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill. The fact that the select committee has recommended it become simply the “Contempt of Court Bill” really does underlie the discussions taking place and the necessity of this bill.

Just before I go into the detail, the people who appear before courts—so often they have come from disrupted lives. They have come from lives where there is very little order in their lives, where there’s very little else that they can rely on. It’s very important that when they get to court—it’s quite surprising over the years the number of people that appear to have very little control over anything in their lives but still manage to drag themselves along to court at 10 o’clock, get themselves to court, and even in a, often, drug-induced haze will often know when they’re due next. I think it just is a part of their lives where there is actually some order. When they get there, they actually like to think that everything is in order because often they know the system as well as anyone else; they’ve been there as often as anyone else in it. Just calling this the “Contempt of Court Bill”—and as we will go through some of the things that we’re actually going to be rectifying with this bill, or consolidating, I think it’s important, underlying this, that that’s what we’re doing here. We’re making sure that the court remains somewhere where there’s order in their lives, where there’s fairness, and where everybody involved in the system understands the rules. That’s why this is a very good piece of legislation.

Things like limiting publication of trial-related information—that’s incredibly important. For years you’ve seen people hiding behind the fact that it’s now sub judice. That’s often been an excuse for people simply not to discuss things they should have been without anyone really understanding what’s sub judice. In my years I’ve never seen a case thrown out because of a breach of sub judice. Again, it’s something that simply becomes, as I say, a foil, in many cases. So it’s good that this limiting of the publication of trial-related information—it actually becomes defined as it is.

Also, the bill is prohibiting publication of certain criminal trial information. Again, I’ve seen people who are involved in the system become quite outraged at some of the things they’ve seen in the paper, “They can’t do that. They’re not allowed to do that.” So, again, it’s important that everybody understands the rules. Obviously, with the media, there are plenty of outs in here. Often information has been published before someone’s actually been arrested, before the trial process has begun. Sometimes it’s quite unfair. No one expects the media to go and take everything down, but what’s important is they understand, once procedures have started, once we understand that someone is in the system, that they cannot publish information that is going to affect the trial.

As we go into the system, preventing jurors from researching information—again, so important that the jurors are making their decisions on the information that is before them. Otherwise, you start relying on front pages of newspapers. You start relying, particularly, on the internet, where there will be any number and variety of experts who will be opining on the incidents that may have occurred. So it is incredibly important that once the jury are locked into that system—while, of course, they will bring with them their life’s experience; that’s why they’re jurors—they are making the decision based on what they’re seeing there before them. Again, it’s just ensuring that the system is fair for all those involved, and that the same system is preventing jurors from researching information. That’s very much related to the fact that they can’t go home when the court is recessed for the day and start making up their own minds, because if they start doing that, that’s where you will get very clear breaches.

And later on disclosing jury deliberations—I’d hate to see the situation we see in the United States where juries—the books are virtually written by the time the jury decision has been made, and where being on a jury is often a stepping stone into a life of a celebrity. That is something we very much avoid, and that’s why disclosing of the jury deliberations is an offence, and improper disclosure of jury deliberation is prohibited.

So we go on to the last one—the most important one—the publication of false statements against judges or courts. In that case, some of the discussion around select committee was that, well, judges, if they don’t like what’s being said, can actually take a case; they can sue—very highly unlikely. Why it’s become important—it’s not, I don’t believe, that judges should be protected from the same criticisms as everyone else. Anything that is done in respect to that, it’s got to be about making sure the system works properly. This is, again, another one of those provisions that I believe will work towards making sure that everyone involved—the lawyers, the judges, the jurors, and, importantly, those who are the clients of the court—all understand that we have a system. They mightn’t like the result—they may not like the sanctions imposed on them, but at least they walk away with a sense that they were treated fairly. So for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Contempt of Court Bill.