Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) Link to this
I move, That the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 August 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
This bill builds on earlier changes that the Government has made to improve jury services by increasing privacy and security for jurors, enhancing operational efficiency, and restricting people who are sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury. This Government takes the safety of jurors seriously.
Last year a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This bill amends the Juries Act 1981 to restrict access to juror address details. Juror address details will be available to the prosecution and counsel for the accused in order to ensure that they have the information necessary to make jury challenges. If an accused is self-represented, a registrar may appoint a lawyer to represent and assist the accused during the jury formation process. These court-appointed lawyers will also be entitled to access juror addresses. However, this bill will prohibit those entitled to access the juror address information from showing the addresses to the accused or any unauthorised person, thereby enhancing the safety of the jurors.
The bill makes other amendments that will enhance the jury system, including a provision for registrars to grant a permanent exclusion from jury service for persons so disabled or chronically ill that they are never going to be able to discharge their duties as jurors, and persons aged 65 and over who no longer wish to serve, or are unable to serve, on juries. Currently, people in these categories need to apply for an excusal each time they are summonsed to jury service because there is no power under the Juries Act to grant a permanent excusal. The Juries Act and the changes proposed in this bill continue to allow persons aged 65 and over to be available for jury service if they so wish. There will also be some cost savings for the Ministry of Justice because ongoing applications for excusal for some of these people will be unnecessary in future.
The bill also restricts the eligibility of those sentenced to home detention to serve on a jury, which places home detention on the same footing as an equivalent prison sentence. This recognises that people serving a sentence of home detention have committed serious crimes and should be restricted in their ability to determine another person’s guilt or innocence. A further amendment removes an anomaly in the Juries Act by repealing references to corrective training, which was abolished over 5 years ago. This bill will improve the jury system’s administration and integrity, and help maintain jurors’ safety, privacy, and security. I commend this bill to the House.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, and to colleagues across the House at the start of a long day here. I rise to speak on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting it initially, so I am speaking in support of its first reading.
Obviously, the bill is not what we would call an urgent matter, and I want to raise that point. We are in urgency and, once again, we find ourselves dealing with a whole lot of very non-urgent legislation. If we are going to deal with matters in urgency, it would be worth looking at some of the matters that are more urgent. The domestic violence legislation that has been languishing on the Order Paper might be a little bit more significant than this bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill—gee, that is a long title. There are more urgent matters that we could be dealing with while we are sitting in urgency. I want to put on record my concern about the cuts in funding in the domestic violence area. I think it is an absolute disgrace that we are cutting funding for Te Rito and for child advocates in the domestic violence area.
The purpose of this bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, is, as the Minister of Police said, to prevent offenders sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury, and protects the addresses of juries—though they could be accessed through other means, potentially. It provides the ability to excuse people over 65 and people with chronic ill health or permanent disability from jury service. Labour members certainly agree that defendants having access to jury addresses is problematic. However, we think this bill has limited ability to protect that situation, as defendants who want to find addresses will still be able to do so, albeit they will have to take an extra step to do so.
In terms of the bill itself, it is quite a short bill. It is in two parts. It has been determined that there will be no regulatory impact analysis of this bill because the proposals set out are expected to have “no or only minor impacts on businesses, individuals, and not-for-profit entities.”
Labour members’ concern is that, again, we are seeing legislation in the justice area that is part of a very piecemeal approach by this Government. We seem to constantly have very small bills dealing with particular issues that have come up, rather than our looking at the real issues of the justice system and issues to do with crime. We would certainly support a much more comprehensive approach towards dealing with things, rather than the Government reacting to whatever is at the top of its head, whatever comes up publicly, whatever it thinks will get it some brownie points. We have concerns about that, and I raised those same concerns last night when I spoke on the bill we have just dealt with.
Under this bill, defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. However, defendants will still be able to see and hear the name in court, so arguably they could look up the address in the white pages or on the electoral roll. Therefore, as I say, the bill will not exactly fix the problem; it will put in an additional step between the two things.
The issue of juries is one I am dealing with in another forum as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is a select committee that I have to admit is well chaired by Chester Borrows, the member opposite. He does a very good job and is well respected across this House. I keep saying to him that he should worry about his reputation, because Labour MPs are always saying good things about Chester. But he does a very good job in chairing that select committee, which is dealing with the issue of juries in relation to the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. In that bill we are dealing with issues like the threshold for jury trials. It is a fundamentally important issue. We will have to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the bill deals with a fundamental right, and that is the right to a jury trial. It will lift the threshold from the current 3 months to 3 years, and many, many submitters have raised concerns about that. At its essence a jury trial is one element of our system that is about democracy. In the end, the people get to decide whether someone is guilty. It is direct democracy. So issues in relation to juries are really important.
As all of us in this House will know, either from our own personal experience or from dealing with the people we see in the course of our job, the issues around people serving on juries are complex. For many, it is in the end an issue of time and money, and if we are going to start to look at juries, I think we should look at that issue. In these tough economic times, when New Zealanders are struggling in the face of ever-rising prices and static or declining incomes—in other words, when people are really struggling to make ends meet—going on jury service in return for a paltry sum is something people cannot afford to do. There are people now who are excluded from their right as a citizen to serve on a jury. So there are far more important issues in relation to juries. We are dealing with some of those issues here and some of them in a significant piece of legislation, the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. Frankly, why are we not dealing with this issue as part of that bill?
Some other matters in this bill are of value and Labour members will be interested to see the submissions on them. The bill allows for permanent exemptions from jury service, which seems to make sense if people’s situation will not be changing and it will be equally impossible for them to be on a jury in 2 years’ time as it is now. There is probably some sense in that. Likewise, the bill deals with a loophole in the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007, which created home detention as a sentence in its own right but failed to amend the Juries Act—it was obviously overlooked. At the moment people convicted of a custodial sentence of more than 3 years are barred for life from sitting on a jury. This bill bars people from serving on a jury if they have, in the previous 5 years, been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more. It deals with a loophole. Clearly, it is important to deal with matters such as that as they become apparent.
Part 1 deals with the issues of jury service and the point I have just made about disqualifying certain offenders from serving on juries. It gives registrars more powers to excuse people from jury service, and includes the ability to excuse somebody permanently, as I have said. Part 2 is the part of the bill that provides the ability to limit access to the address lists of jurors in order to try to protect them, although, as we have said, we think it will have limited benefit.
I go back to the question of piecemeal reform. Clearly, people such as Simon Power, Chris Finlayson, and others have talked about the need for drastic reform of our justice system, yet we are seeing another bill dealing with a particular issue. Often, as in the case of the bill last night, it will arguably make very little real difference. As my colleague the Hon Rick Barker said earlier this morning, the bill implied that the courts were not taking account of whether the person who had been assaulted was a police officer or prison officer, whereas, in fact, they are. Government members are dealing with things in a piecemeal manner to try to get stripes or brownie points for being able to say to the public that they are tough on law and order and are dealing with all of those issues of crime, when what is required is a comprehensive look. People who submitted on the other bill I was talking about before, which lifts the threshold in relation to jury trials, have said that our Crimes Act in total is very outdated, and that we should be looking at a comprehensive review of that legislation, rather than dealing with the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill without looking at that base document, the Crimes Act.
I leave the House with the thought that although Labour will support this bill and will consider it, and although there are some sensible elements in it, we believe that reform is being undertaken by the Government in a very piecemeal manner. Thank you.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. I guess it is always to be expected that when an Opposition party votes with the Government, there will always be a whole lot of sentences that start off with “We support this bill, but” and ending with “it does not go far enough.”, “it should not be done now.”, “there are greater problems we should be dealing with.”, or “we should not be dealing with this within urgency.”—but, but, but! The problem with that approach is that those members fail to recognise that there are times when changes need to be made to reflect changes in public sentiment, and also to reflect changes in the public’s assumption of responsibility on behalf of the community.
The last bill that we debated, which I did not get the opportunity to speak to, really recognised that in the past the community has taken a strong interest in the way their police, for instance, and their prison officers have been dealt with by criminal elements within the community, and the community has taken a more interventionist and more active role in protecting those people. The fact is that these days the community does not do that. These days communities are far more open to putting up their hands and saying “We pay our taxes; we allow them to get on with their jobs; leave us alone.”, and that is exactly what is reflected here in this bill. We need to accept that juries have actually been treated quite badly over the years in terms of what is expected of them in this modern age when taking part in jury trials, and in terms of the information that they are given with which to do their jobs.
The point raised by Carol Beaumont earlier was about remuneration. The fact is that within our justice system we expect the public to take part in jury service. We expect them to be available for that, and we expect them to do that out of a sense of duty. What price do we put on community obligations in this day and age? What remuneration should jury members expect to be given for taking their role as society’s representatives in jury trials? Is it right for them to expect anything? I guess the converse question is whether it is right for society to expect somebody to do something free of charge when there is a real cost associated with the attendance of that jury member at the court.
As somebody who has sat through many, many jury trials over the years, I can say it has been a farce to see the way in which our juries have been selected. People have been chosen or rejected on the basis of, for instance, their clothing. If people really do not want to be on a jury, they should wear a three-piece suit and carry a briefcase. The reason given is that defence counsel’s arguments are so ludicrous that anyone who shows an ounce of intellect would see right through them. So someone who really wants to get on to a jury should wander along to the jury selection process wearing jeans and a T-shirt, because, in a very prejudiced and biased way, solicitors expect that people who have the time to wander along to a jury trial and treat it as lightly as that may not give it the attention they should, in terms of the way that they sit and deliberate on the issues before the court.
I think it is right and proper that the Government moves at this time to protect juries even more, as we are asking them to do significantly more, for less. The fact that as a result of this bill we will be withholding the addresses and occupations of people on jury lists from the people who appear before the court is right and proper, given the added advancements of technology and the ability of defendants to be able to locate and to take retribution, either themselves directly or via their mates, against people who they can easily identify as having been on the jury. I believe that it is time for this Parliament to look at what we require of juries, at how we assist them in making their decisions, and at the job that we ask them to do on our behalf, in the same way that we are looking at the protections that we offer to juries and at the sanctions that we provide when defendants move against the people from across our society who act on behalf of our community as a whole. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its passage through the select committee process, but, sadly, I note it will not be put before the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) Link to this
I thought that was a very interesting presentation to the House by the honourable member Chester Borrows, who is a thoughtful and considered member. I was intrigued, I must say, by his advice on how to escape jury service by turning up in a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase.
I say to Paul Quinn that I have never been asked to be on a jury, and it is to my regret. I would like to serve on a jury, but have never had the privilege. Chester Borrows has put out this plan for exempting oneself from jury service, which is to turn up wearing a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase, and therefore it sends a message to defence counsel that the person might take an interest in the case. I say to Chester Borrows that that says more about the legal profession than it does about jury service. If people are to be judged simply on the basis of what they wear—and presumably, according to Chester Borrows’ analysis, the person who is wearing jeans and a T-shirt will be less critical of the evidence placed before them than a person wearing a three-piece suit and carrying a briefcase—then I think that says more about the quality of the legal profession and defence counsel than it does about the jury system itself.
But I do agree with Chester Borrows that the jury system is critical to our justice system; there is no question about that. One of the fundamentals of our jury system is that we are tried by our peers, and everybody thinks that that is fair enough. We have the utmost respect for the judiciary and the wisdom they bring, but people feel comfortable with the fact that 12 ordinary New Zealanders are sitting on a jury, hearing the arguments backwards and forwards, and making their judgment. It is part of one’s civic duty to serve on a jury, and I say that one of the things this House should concern itself with is that the importance of this civic duty is somewhat lost in our society today. People see it not as a duty but as an obligation and something to be dodged and avoided.
In part, we have brought this about by our own actions. Juries in the past have not been treated particularly well, they have not been rewarded very well, and we have put them in some very, very difficult circumstances. I will give members one example. Historically in Greymouth the conditions for jurors were dreadful. There was no meeting room for jurors to be herded into and await selection. They had to stand outside. On the West Coast it rains a lot, so traditionally jurors at the old courthouse on the West Coast used to wait across the road, under the awning of Blanchfield’s pie shop. Blanchfield is a name that should ring a bell in this House, because Paddy Blanchfield was a former member of Parliament for the West Coast. People would wait under the awning of Blanchfield’s pie shop, because the southerly and the rain would be coming through and it was the only dry place to stand. In the teeth of the southerly, the door of the courthouse would open, the registrar would put his head out and shriek a bunch of names into the wind, and people would flick their cigarette butts into the streaming gutters, splash their way across the road, sprint up the steps, and go inside to be either told “Yes” or told “No” and they were out of there. But when the jury was empanelled, there was no room for it to retire to. There were no coffee-making facilities. The best that could be done was that the registrar would move some files out of a room—which could be done only on a fine day, because one could not put the files in the car park, and there was no other space—or people would have to troop their way down to Revingtons Hotel nearby, through the rain, to have a cup of tea and then troop their way back again.
This was, by any measure, mickey mouse. It was only barely tolerated on the West Coast, because the West Coast did not expect Wellington to do much for it, anyway. I am pleased to say that Greymouth now has a new courthouse and that those conditions have improved somewhat. But, by and large, the conditions we put our jurors under were pathetic. They were cramped conditions and we did not look after them. That is the first thing, and we have to do much better than that.
The second thing that we have failed to do is to properly reward jurors for the loss of time and for their service. This is one area that I think the Government needs to pay attention to. I am sure it will say that we have a no-bid Budget and that we have all these other pressures, but the fact of the matter is that people do give up their time. They do that at quite a considerable amount of expense and cost to themselves, and the community should protect them from that.
The other thing that this bill seeks to address is a very disturbing trend that has occurred whereby defendants have attempted to interfere with jurors on jury service. They have been able to do so because, as Kiwis, we have been very open about information. Defendants have been able to easily access the information on jury lists and so on to obtain the names of jurors and their addresses, and this has created a very disturbing trend. This bill seeks to address that issue, and I agree with that part of the bill, 100 percent. We need to protect jurors. I accept that there are some things that we cannot do by way of this legislation, but we need to protect our jurors from undue influence being exerted by an unscrupulous number.
I am not sure why this was not done in a previous justice bill. It could have been done in one that has already gone through the system, but the fact that it is here now is a good thing. Parliament is going to pass two pieces of legislation where, in my opinion, one could have done, but if the Government wants to make work for itself more difficult, then that is its problem.
I am pleased that this bill will be coming to the Law and Order Committee. The honourable member Paul Quinn enjoys the Law and Order Committee. It is a place of good debate and we have some very interesting discussions.
Well, the committee on occasions has some members who have vision and foresight. Unfortunately, some of the bills it gets from the Government and individual members lack vision and foresight, and we try to give legislation that when we can.
Labour will support this bill’s referral to the select committee, we will look forward to the representations being made on it, and we will do everything we can to improve the quality of our jury system. As I have said, the jury system is critical to our justice system. We need to protect it, but we need to go further. That is beyond the scope of this bill and it is beyond the scope of the select committee, but I would impress upon the Government that it needs to take a lead in promoting jury service as a greatly rewarding and important part of our civic duty as citizens. The jury service can work only if good and competent people put their names forward and are prepared to undertake jury service. If we construct a system where we have so many loopholes and where people feel that the job is so onerous that they use those loopholes to escape from it, then the legal system is the poorer for it. We want to make sure that we have a jury system that encourages and supports people to undertake jury service, so that we have the best of people sitting on the jury whenever defendants are facing a charge so that they are tried by their peers.
I am sure that everybody in this House, should anyone ever be in the unfortunate situation of being a defendant in a case, would want to have the finest jury possible. We would all expect that for ourselves. It is our responsibility to ensure that we put in place not only a legal framework but other supports to encourage the best of New Zealanders to put forward their names and to undertake this civic duty. New Zealanders should see it not as an obligation or something they have to do because they are compelled to do it, but that New Zealanders take up this responsibility because they want to do it as part of their civic duty in making this a much better country, so that it is their contribution towards the goodness and the well-being of New Zealand.
This legislation does that in part. But there are many other elements that need to be taken into account—not just the housing and accommodation for jurors when they undertake this service. It has to also be a matter of the support services we put in place for them: looking after their cars, helping them with baby sitting, and reimbursing them against the costs of undertaking jury service. It cannot be solely at the expense of the individual undertaking jury service. If people undertake jury service on behalf of the community, then we have an obligation to support them in carrying out that duty. Just as the community supports members of Parliament and the judiciary in carrying out their roles on behalf of the community, we should do the same for jurors, as well. We need a much sounder, more robust, and better system for supporting jurors in undertaking this duty. Thank you.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will support the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill being referred to the Law and Order Committee. The bill tidies up some of the issues about disability and questions like that. I think the question of excusing a juror who has a disability that would prevent them from properly fulfilling their jury service is a fair enough provision. Up until now I think it has been applied, but it is good to put it in law. I think the bit in clause 10 about it being on written application for the purpose made by, or on behalf of, a person is quite important because it has to be on the initiative of the person with a disability. Sometimes people who are not disabled underestimate the capacities of people who are disabled. That is a constant problem in society. I think that if a disabled person in various respects feels that they can conduct jury duty, they should be given a chance to do so. I think the select committee will have a look at that provision and make sure that it serves both purposes—that is, not to hinder a jury by having somebody whose disability is to an extent that prevents them from properly operating as a juror, and, on the other hand, not forcing a disabled person off a jury when they think they have the capabilities to perform that duty.
There is another question on protecting the details of jurors, protecting the privacy of jurors. That is one that I would like to hear some legal expertise on in the select committee. I can understand the need for privacy of jurors’ details and jurors not being subject to undue pressure from the prosecution, from the defence, or from people after a trial. We want people to give a fair decision in a jury trial, unhindered by any outside pressures they might face before, during, or after the event.
The only question I raise—and I would be interested in legal representations on it at the select committee—is whether it in any way offers a balance in terms of jury selection. I do not know whether it gets into that area. Jury selection is very important. The prosecution scans jury lists to see where potential jurors might fit, in terms of its case, whether they might be disposed in favour of its case, and the defence tends to do the same. It looks for people on the jury who might be sympathetic to the case that it is proposing. The tension between the prosecution and the defence sometimes leads to a broad jury where both the prosecution and the defence get their way a bit in terms of the type of jurors they want to see on that particular jury for that particular case.
I think it is important for the jury system to operate correctly, and Rick Barker talked about this a little bit in his contribution. We do not need to have all people wearing suits and ties and carrying briefcases, nor all people wearing jeans and T-shirts; we need a cross-section of society on juries so that on the jury—which, in my experience, and I have been on a jury, tends to take its task pretty seriously—there is a feed-in from different life experiences and different sectors of society into the consideration of the case before the jury. Particularly as we move along and become more multicultural as a society, it is good to have multicultural representation, as well as broad gender representation, etc.
That is something I think we should jealously guard. We should create an atmosphere in society, and in the prosecution and the defence, that we really need a broadly based jury. Hopefully, this provision will not in any way hinder that process. With those few words, I say that the Green Party looks forward to this bill going to the Law and Order Committee, and hearing, particularly, the experience of coalface lawyers from the prosecution and the defence, and from the Law Society, etc., on this particular bill and its provisions. Thank you.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
The Māori Party is happy to support the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill at its first reading. We see these reforms as part of a wider context in terms of the Government making it easier for people to carry out jury service. I was interested to hear from Mr Barker when he said that he has never had the opportunity to be on a jury. I think that could be for a number of reasons. One reason could be that he is not on the electoral role—I hope that is not the reason. The other reason could be that on the electoral role he has listed his profession, and that would automatically disqualify him. The other reason could actually be that he is just unlucky, in which case I would say to him to please not take out any tickets in Lotto.
We all know that many people who are called up for jury service do not actually attend when asked to take part in this civic duty. I think the statistics are fairly conclusive on this point. In 2009 some 62 percent, or close to 200,000 people, summoned for jury service were excused, and a further 21 percent, or 67,938, failed to attend. It seems to me pretty straightforward that something needs to be done to ensure that a representative and inclusive jury service can be maintained. If we want to have a service that is about being judged by our peers, then we really do need to have it right across all our peers, whether they turn up in suits with briefcases or in jeans and T-shirts. We really do need to have people from right across the spectrum to serve on juries.
This bill is intended to achieve a range of outcomes. It looks to improve privacy for potential jurors from the accused or the defendant; to strike the right balance between a juror’s right to privacy, safety, and security and a defendant’s right to a fair trail; and to improve administration of the jury system.
The legislation is generally consistent with the Māori Party view to empower victims of crime. In this context, it prevents the accused from gaining access to potential juror addresses. It creates a safer balance between jurors and the accused. The Māori Party also promotes a just and durable legal system, and its efficient administration—as anticipated through the changes in this bill—is part of that. The Māori Party recognises that those who participate in jury service must be competent. We agree with the rationale that those who have offended in the previous 5 years and have been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more should not be asked to serve on a jury for the specified period of time. We need to make it as easy as possible for people to take part in this important civic duty, and for all New Zealanders to be judged by juries that represent the broadest range of our people.
Finally, I emphasise our strong support for the legislative change to prevent the accused from ever seeing potential jurors’ addresses. We cannot tolerate any possibility of a justice system that leaves people more vulnerable. We welcome the move to prohibit the defence lawyer or court-appointed adviser from showing the addresses to the accused. We also support the proposed change to section 14A(6) of the Juries Act, which makes it clear that misconduct in relation to jury lists may be treated as contempt of court. We are happy to support this bill at this its first reading.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
I have been involved in the selection of many, many juries. The way it works is that the Crown or the defence gets to challenge without cause six potential jurors. This is Chester Borrows’ reference to what they are wearing. It is true that to some extent one will make an assessment of the person as they walk up to the jury box; once they have sat down, that is it. As a prosecutor, one will also have some reference to, perhaps, their previous convictions. If it is a sexual charge and the potential juror has offending of that pedigree, one would think about that and probably challenge them. Lawyers have six challenges; in multi-accused trials they have 12—whether one is defence or Crown.
I will tell members the one rule that all Crown and defence lawyers know; Steve Chadwick’s husband knows this. I will bring this secret out into the open today in this House. It is a rule that all counsel in all jury trials follow: never ever—ever—have a teacher on a jury. Never ever have a teacher on a jury. If one thinks of Trevor Mallard or maybe Kelvin Davis one might have some sense of why that is the case.
Kelvin DavisNo, it is because they think they know it all. They have been used to lecturing and talking down to children for a very long time. Their minds are not malleable, they will not listen to decent arguments, and they jump to conclusions. I have just exposed that secret in relation to the selection of jurors. It is something that the Crown and the defence follow.
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill, which will protect more stringently jurors’ addresses and particulars, and will help maintain privacy, safety, and security. I thought about this bill when I saw this headline in the New Zealand Herald this week: “$10m drug kingpin guilty”. That was a jury trial. One can understand quite quickly in a case like that why people would have very strong and reasonable reservations about their addresses being known by an accused. In a case like that, so much is up for grabs. Underworlds can be involved in terms of the witnesses and, certainly, the accused, who will stop at literally nothing to get off the charge. So we are doing something here to strongly protect jurors.
Jurors do get squeamish. There can be issues, understandably, with the serious cases. It takes only one or two to feel those pressures acutely for a trial to have to be stopped and started again, and for there to be delays—at a huge cost to the taxpayer, if one is doing that sort of thing. This bill gets around that. If for that reason alone, this is an excellent bill. I hear the comments made by other members about things that could be in it, but what it does is sufficient to justify it as a good bill before this House.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
It is my pleasure to rise and speak on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I think my colleagues have made some really good general statements about the context in which we should look at this bill, and the role of juries more broadly. Everyone in this House, I know, will acknowledge that jury service and the role of jurors are critical to our criminal justice system. Unless we have a robust system that allows our peers to stand in judgment of one another, then everything falls down. But underpinning that system again is the need to ensure that we have a broad cross-section of jurors who are willing and able to serve on our juries, and that we remove as many inhibitors to their serving as possible. Time is a massive issue, as is the ability to travel to court; for a lot of people it is very costly. We should be mindful of these things in terms of ensuring that we always have a representative cross-section of people standing on our juries.
I would be very interested in knowing whether the select committee is able to do a bit of analysis of those who are currently listed as having sought and received exemptions, over and above those that are listed in this bill. Do we, for instance, see a particular profession very rarely represented at jury level because its members are consistently exempted from service? Do we see certain age groups, cultural groups, or ethnicities seeking exclusion from jury service and receiving it? Let us look at the reasons why that might be. Is it because of people’s occupation or family commitments, or because of the cost? I would be really pleased if the select committee spent a bit of time looking at those issues. I do not feel we have a true sense of whether we currently have truly representative juries, and I would like to see that addressed.
The other general point I want to make, before talking about some of the detail of this bill, is that as a former member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I know that we have seen an extraordinary number of justice bills go before that committee. I have made a comparison, having moved from that committee to the Social Services Committee, which is an excellent committee and has a lot more time to consider the systemic issues in the area that we sit across, because we are not constantly inundated with what I perceive to be generally reactionary bills. By that I mean, for instance, the bill we have just finished considering, the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill, which increases the specific penalties on those who assault police officers. Of course, I want to see those who assault police officers be dealt with using the full force of the law, but the idea that we need to have a specific provision setting that out in the Sentencing Act, when we already see it taken into consideration in sentencing, causes me to feel that there is a piecemeal approach to our criminal justice system, particularly in sentencing. We have seen that approach on a number of occasions.
Personally I would rather see us as a Parliament, and as members of select committees, consider the wider systemic issues in the criminal justice system. Why do we have the second-highest imprisonment rate in the world, second only, I believe, to that of South Africa or the United States? Either way, that is an indictment. Why are we not discussing that issue, along with the fact that our rate of criminal offending is not really increasing, yet our imprisonment rate is increasing dramatically?
Moving on to the specifics of this particular bill, we have already talked about the fact that some elements of the bill are simply common sense. I think it makes sense that there is no regulatory impact statement for this bill, because it affects only a very narrow pool of people, and they tend to be those who are eligible for jury service, and those who might seek exemptions from it.
I will just run through three specific areas of the bill. One is the issue of ensuring that jurors’ personal details are not revealed, so as to keep them safe in the event that they serve on a jury and someone seeks them out. I would like to see the select committee consider that one in a little more detail, because, as we have already said, there are opportunities in court for jurors’ personal matters to be raised. If we are to be comprehensive about the safety of jurors, we would be wise to look at that, perhaps in the same way that we do for witnesses and victims.
On that particular issue, I think now might be the time to raise the question of the role that court and victim advocates have been playing in our court system. I have heard recently that we have people of varying degrees of competency in those roles, but they have the potential to play a really critical role for people who are navigating their way through our criminal justice system, which can be daunting. A court, for most people, is a very alienating and intimidating thing, and having someone who is able to talk them, in layman’s terms, through the process they will go through is an incredibly helpful thing, particularly if someone is a witness or a victim. Again, in the guise of looking at the role that jurors play and at their experience, it might be interesting to talk about whether we have people who are performing that role adequately for jurors.
The second issue I will touch on is the one of allowing for exemptions from jury duty. Currently, if we are called up to be a juror, we are able to seek an exemption on the grounds of occupation, business, state of health, physical disability, family commitments, or other personal circumstances. I have used that provision of the law. I was called for jury service, if my memory serves me correctly, when I was working for the then Minister of Justice, and it was not at all correct or proper, in my view, to serve on a jury whilst I had that role. I did that in the same way that I believe police officers and their families, and specifically the spouses of police officers, I think, do not serve on juries. My mum, for instance, has not served on a jury. I believe that provision is contained in legislation somewhere. Those are all legitimate circumstances under which someone might seek an exemption, as is, I believe, the idea of seeking an exemption for a long-term disability or health reason.
I would like the select committee to consider whether, when someone is seeking an exemption on health grounds, which will be a permanent exemption under the provisions of this legislation, a distinction will be made between those seeking exemptions because of a temporary health issue versus a longer-term health issue. Will we still be able to make that distinction in terms of applications sought on health grounds, or will it be the case that generally if we seek an exemption for a health reason, it will be a permanent one? I would not mind hearing a little more about that from the select committee after it considers the issue.
I also note that new section 15A(2), inserted by clause 10 of the bill, imposes a duty on the registrar to excuse a person permanently if the registrar is satisfied that the person is of or over the age of 65 years. I have to be honest and say I find it slightly archaic that we would suggest that simply because someone is of the age of 65 or more and writes a letter stating that to be the case, suddenly they could be permanently exempt from serving on a jury. I think that is a bit ageist. I see members opposite who may be entering into those golden years themselves, and who agree with me that this provision is ageist. If someone is 65 years of age, in my mind that does not speak at all about whether they are competent to serve on a jury. In fact, if nothing else, at that time in people’s life, often they have more time available to contribute to their community or community service, so why have we set an age of 65? Surely, if there are grounds, and if a person who is a senior citizen does not believe that for physical or health reasons they have the capacity to serve on a jury, they would be able to seek an exemption based on that criterion, rather than just their age.
I would not mind hearing the select committee’s view on that, and I look forward to hearing members of the select committee, such as Paul Quinn, perhaps, coming back to this House and telling us what the committee has decided on those issues. I know he was not listening to what I thought was the very good point I have just made. I would be very happy to repeat it later, if he would like, or he could read the Hansard, because I know he is a studious reader of Hansard.
The question is why someone of 65 years or more should not serve on a jury. We will come back to that issue, and I look forward to hearing more on that from the member.
Generally, the provisions about people on home detention not doing jury duty are simply a result of that matter not having been addressed in the original legislation. Otherwise, I look forward to discussing this bill again with Mr Quinn at the second reading.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
I will start my contribution with the point raised by the Hon Rick Barker that jury service should be taken as a civic duty and not an obligation. In my opinion, it should be taken as an opportunity to participate in the judicial system without one having to be a lawyer. I know someone who once served as a juror, and since then she has been encouraging others to go and participate. Participation gives us the opportunity to know about the judicial system, and it is very interesting.
The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill gives protection to members of a jury. The bill includes amendments whose purpose is to improve the jury system’s integrity or to help to maintain jurors’ privacy, safety, and security. These amendments prevent certain people from serving as jurors if at any time within the preceding 5 years they have been sentenced to home detention.
The bill empowers the registrar to excuse permanently from jury service people with chronic ill health and permanent disability. The most important aspect of this bill is to protect more rigorously the safety of jurors. Their addresses, particularly, should be protected. The George Baker case has highlighted the need to further contain access to information. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I look forward to participating in the select committee process.
Since National has taken over, it has introduced many pieces of legislation to ensure that law and order can be improved. Latest statistics are telling us that there has been a huge decrease in the crime rate all over New Zealand. If we talk in percentages, the crime rate has fallen by 6.5 percent, and if we talk about Counties-Manukau, the crime rate has been reduced by more than 9 percent. It is important that we protect our front-line police and prison officers from any harm being done to them.
This Government is working hard to ensure that law and order is maintained at the utmost level. I commend the bill to the House.
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this
I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, which is a very long title and a great headline. I should say that the Government’s intention is good too. The Government wants to make life easier for jurors by ensuring that defendants do not have access to jury members’ addresses, and to exempt certain people from serving on juries due to their difficult personal circumstances. The Government also wants to ensure and preserve the integrity of the jury system.
This bill is designed to improve the jury system’s administration and integrity to help maintain jurors’ privacy, safety, and security, etc. Labour agrees that for defendants to have access to jury addresses is problematic. This bill is designed to prevent offenders sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury, to protect the addresses of jurors, and to excuse people over 65 and people with chronic ill health or permanent disability from jury service. But the problem is that the addresses could still be accessed through other means. We do not think this bill will make any difference, as defendants who want to find the addresses will still be able to do so.
There was a loophole in the Sentencing Amendment Act that created home detention as a sentence in its own right. It failed to amend the Juries Act. This meant that those who had served or were serving a sentence of home detention could sit on a jury panel. People convicted of a custodial sentence of more than 3 years are barred for life from sitting on a jury. This bill bars people from serving on a jury if in the previous 5 years they have been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more. It puts them in the same category as those sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. On the other hand, defendants need to have certain information available in order to challenge the persons selected as jurors. This bill ensures that a defendant has a right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental right.
Overall there are four issues I wish to deliberate on in the bill’s first reading. The first one is that there will be no regulatory impact analysis or regulatory impact statement on this bill, because, we were told, the proposals as set out are expected to have no or minor impact on businesses, individuals, and not-for-profit entities.
Secondly, according to Cabinet papers last year there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons on the jury panel for his trial for whom he had names and addresses. This raised concern about the safety of jurors, and it was decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. So this bill is a great example—Mr Paul Quinn may wish to know this—of the Government’s “reactionary” approach to the justice system.
Thirdly, defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. But, in reality, defendants will still be able to see and hear the names in court, so, arguably, they could still look up the addresses in the White Pages or, more conveniently, in the electoral rolls.
Fourthly, currently the Juries Act allows people to be exempt from jury duty on the grounds of occupation, business, state of health, physical disability, family commitments, or other personal circumstances. They have to satisfy the registrar that they or some other people would be caused undue hardship or serious inconvenience if they were not excused. Further, the registrar must excuse people if they are 65 or over, if their religious beliefs are incompatible with jury service, or if they have attended jury service or served as a juror in the last 2 years. This bill allows that exemption to be used—if it works—basically permanently.
I had the great pleasure of listening to the Hon Rick Barker, who made a great speech earlier on this bill and also last night on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I totally agree that both bills offer great headlines, but they will have little or no real impact on the real issues.
I say to Mr Paul Quinn that we are looking at two pictures. On one hand we are looking at headlines, headlines, headlines, and on the other hand the real issues sustain and persist. I have a huge problem regarding this bill—
I say to Mr Paul Quinn that it is an abuse of parliamentary processes to use urgency to introduce a bill that makes very little material difference. That is a question for Mr Paul Quinn to answer, as well. I wish he would take a call. Thank you.
PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this
I rise to the invitation that has been extended to me from the Opposition, by numerous speakers. We just heard Raymond challenging me, and Jacinda, of course, is looking forward to my contribution on a couple of specific issues that she brought to the table. I am pleased that she has shown the courtesy to stay and listen to my responses. But I thought I might start with Carol Beaumont, who seemed to complain, and Raymond did sort of pick up on the theory about this whole urgency thing. Carol, young Carol—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER
Grant RobertsonOh, Carol Beaumont; OK. But Carol Beaumont sort of attacked the bill. Notwithstanding that she said the Opposition would support the bill, she did attack it because she said it was a small bill, and, by inference, it was an unimportant bill. I really need to take this down to the rugby field and start teaching her some of the simple things in life, like the “kiss” principle—keep it simple—[ Interruption] Opposition members have great difficulty with that issue. They seem to think that the bigger, the more voluminous, the more airy something is, the greater the content.
I agree that this bill is a small bill. Let me just check; it has 12 pages. But it is a very important bill, and, as the saying goes, we should not judge a book by its cover. The same applies to this bill. This is a very important bill and, although small, it is another step forward in the commitment that this Government has made to improve law and order and justice in this society.
I want to canvass a couple of things in the bill. The first part of the bill is around the jury lists. With this bill the Government intends to ensure that incidents like the George Baker incident can never happen again. That convict had in excess of 70 police convictions—[Interruption] Ms Chadwick may well laugh, but I think it is a serious issue. George Baker, while in the back of a prison van, was able to attack Liam Ashley. That is the case we are talking about here. George Baker defended himself and therefore was entitled to look at the jury list. He then went about ringing up one of the jurors and threatened that person. [Interruption] The sad reality of life, and Kelvin Davis will know this, is that most of the people who do that sort of thing have gang affiliations. They get all their mates in Black Power, the Mongrel Mob, or whoever, to go out and threaten jurors.
For Grant’s information, I do have relations in Black Power. In fact, I have a brother-in-law in Black Power, and he is a nice chap. So I do not shy away from that. But the fact of the matter is that these are the sorts of people who use those intimidating tactics. This bill is aimed at ensuring that this never happens again.
As an additional protection, under this bill the only people who will be allowed to sight the jury list will be the prosecutor, the defence lawyer, or the court-appointed adviser to the accused, but not the accused. If any of those people who have access to that jury list pass on information that will lead to someone contacting a juror, then that person commits the serious offence of contempt of court. I know that Raymond is finally on the same wavelength. We are talking the same language, and this is great.
I now turn to the issue of age that Jacinda Ardern—Miss Jacinda Ardern, the list member for Hamilton, I think—challenged me on.
I did not actually want to call Carol stupid, so I am glad the member has. Thank you for that. In new section 15A(2), set out in clause 10, the operative words are “if that person chooses”. The actual prerogative is on the person. It provides an out.
Let me tell members that I have twice had the privilege of being summoned to do jury service. It has been a great sadness to me that, unfortunately, on both occasions I was not able to do my civic duty. I had to opt out because I think on both occasions I was travelling overseas, so I had to get a dispensation. In the same way, if a person of 65 years or more wishes to opt out then I believe that is a very good clause. With those few comments, I look forward to the Law and Order Committee considering this bill and reporting it back to the House.
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this
I move, That the Law and Order Committeeconsider the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 8 August 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).