11. KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this
to the Minister for Courts
Does he agree that an accused has the right to be tried without undue delay; if not, why not?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) Link to this
Yes, because that is what the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states.
How can the Minister reconcile the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantee of an accused’s right to be tried without undue delay with the 45 criminal jury trials in Blenheim that have been waiting for over a year and the seven that have been waiting for over 2 years?
My staff advise me that the courthouse in Blenheim is undergoing a major refit. Blenheim has only one courthouse available at this stage. In consultation with both prosecution and defence, trials are being moved, where agreement has been reached, to Nelson, and other resources that can be deployed to the Blenheim area are being looked at.
When the Minister stated in the House that justice delayed is not justice denied, which of these was he refuting: the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which guarantees an accused’s right to be tried without delay; the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Martin case granting a permanent stay of criminal proceedings due to a 17-month delay to the proposed date of trial; the High Court decision in the Graham case last month resulting in a permanent stay of criminal prosecution because of a 22-month delay; or all of the above?
Once again the member misquotes me. She does not quote me in total, as has been the case on a number of occasions. I say to the House that every stay of proceedings is to be regretted, and I have high expectations of the Ministry of Justice to make sure that cases are heard in a timely manner.
Jill PettisThis Government is implementing a massive 3-year, wide-ranging service improvement programme. Since this Government has been in office it has appointed 25 new judges. We have also appointed additional staff to support those judges. We have introduced videoconferencing. We have worked with the High Court bench to establish a national roster to ensure that resources are deployed to the best possible place. We are rebuilding courts as fast as we can—for example, I opened the Queenstown court last week. We are having a good deal of success. For example, in the criminal summary jurisdiction, which hears about 95 percent of the criminal caseload, we have reduced the number of waiting cases by 20 percent between 2003 and today.
How can the Minister justify his comments that he is doing heaps when the proposed alterations in Blenheim will not result in one single additional courtroom suitable for jury trials, when the median waiting time for criminal jury trials in Blenheim is 372 days—the worst in the country—and when in only the last few weeks there was a permanent stay of proceedings against a Blenheim drug dealer because of excessive delay?
As I understand it, the Blenheim court will go from having one jury room and one small and completely unsuitable courtroom to having three available courtrooms, including a jury room. Of course, this means that when a jury trial is in progress, criminal summary matters can be heard, as well as Youth Court matters. This will improve the facility in Blenheim significantly.
How can the Minister reconcile the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantee of the right to be tried without undue delay with his comments in the House that justice delayed is not justice denied because “it depends on who caused the delay and for what purpose.”, or “Delays in a hearing, or, alternatively, a delay in justice, may be for many good reasons.”; what can be good about delayed and denied justice?
There is no good in denied justice, at all. The point I was making to the member, which she fails to recognise, is that delays in trials can be because the prosecution has yet to assemble all of its evidence and witnesses. A delay in a trial can be called by the defence also because it wants to review evidence, examine witnesses, and get specialist evidence. So there can be many good reasons for a delay in a trial that assist the process of justice.
What does the Minister have to say to the family of the murdered Tauranga toddler when the trial date is scheduled for nearly 24 months after the charge, or to the two Tauranga families who have to wait 19 months for a double murder trial to start, when a 17-month delay was determined an undue delay by the Court of Appeal in the Martin case, and when a 22-month delay was determined undue by the Blenheim court in the Graham case, both resulting in a permanent stay of proceedings; or is this just the case of another two criminals being allowed to go scot-free because of excessive delays under the watch of the Minister?