6. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statement that “The pre-trial bail system must balance two competing considerations: the defendant’s right to be considered innocent until proved guilty, and the safety of the community.”?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes. The statement reiterates two fundamental and longstanding principles of criminal justice that are recorded in sections 25(c) and 24(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
What changed between the time that gang leader Daniel Crichton was refused bail last year and now that would make him any less dangerous and would justify his release last month, or did the decision have nothing to do with public safety?
I have no knowledge as to what conditions changed in that particular case, nor would I expect to have information about that. It was a decision made by the judge.
Has the Minister seen reports that when gang members inside Mount Eden Prison found out about the stolen medals and who had taken them, there was “something of a clamour to take advantage of the information”, and does the fact that so many criminals had such an epiphany of civic duty mean that that the practice of trading information for leniency from the justice system will become more commonplace?
I have seen that report, and I also heard defence lawyers on the radio today saying that it is not uncommon for criminals to provide information, and for their lawyers to deal with the system in that respect. I do not think we are seeing anything new in this respect.
Hon Dr Nick SmithI take exception to the comments made by Nick Smith that somehow or other the Government had something to do with the judge making a decision on bail. That may be what happens under a National Government, but I can assure the people of New Zealand that we will not interfere, and have not interfered, in decisions that judges in this country make. We respect that separation of power.
Does the Minister stand by her statement with regard to bail laws that “… judges are entitled to all information, in order to make those decisions.”; if so, did the judge know about the deal done between the police, the Crown prosecutor, and Daniel Crichton over the return of the war medals?
I have no knowledge of that. I was neither in the judge’s chamber nor where the judge was making those decisions. Mr Power, as a lawyer, knows that the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice, or any member of this Parliament, would not have been there, either. This is really a very dangerous path to go down—to try to assume that the Minister of Justice somehow or other was able to be privy to that sort of information. Judges of this country are making decisions based on information they have received.
Has she seen reports that since Crichton’s release on bail he has been seen in downtown Auckland with members of the Headhunters gang, and can she confirm that if this is in breach of his bail conditions, the changes her Government made to the Bail Act last year make it far less likely that he will be recalled to prison?
Hon Phil GoffNo, I have not seen that report, and I agree with my colleague Phil Goff: the assumptions made by that member are nothing other than nonsense.
Can she give this House and the country as a whole an assurance that any other gang kingpin remanded in custody will not use the precedent set by this recent “bail for medals” scandal to get his associates to acquire on order other items that may be used to ransom his release?
If some day I become a judge, maybe I could give that guarantee. But as a member of Parliament and the Minister of Justice I can give no such guarantee, because I have no say on the decisions an individual judge makes on any bail hearing.
Ron MarkWould the Minister agree that the far more serious question that we should be asking about bail relates to the case of Fanuaea Leatigaga, a young man who was charged on 29 December 2005 with sexual violation and threatening to kill, was denied bail by the District Court, given bail by the High Court, then went on, whilst on bail, to sexually assault a 16-year-old, then went on to violate sexually a 15-year-old girl in the Aranui High School grounds whilst at the same time fighting off her 14-year-old girlfriend, then went on to rape a 21-year-old pregnant woman at knifepoint in her home, and subsequently admitted three counts of sexual violation and two of rape, the bulk of which were committed after the High Court had granted him bail against all police advice?
Madam SPEAKER
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think the language that Mr Ron Mark used across the House then is at all acceptable.
I have just outlined a severely tragic case involving a number of women who were raped and a number of young schoolgirls who were sexually molested. For Mr Brownlee to cheapen the argument about the bail laws that were in place in 2005—well before the amendment that he took a cheap shot at—is absolutely ludicrous and pathetic, and actually undermines the seriousness of the situation and the position of those women. I think he is the one who should stand up and apologise.
Please be seated. I did not hear, because there was too much noise, but exception has been taken. Would the member withdraw and apologise.
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask Mr Brownlee to have the gentlemanly decency to apologise in the same manner.
Gerry Brownlee—to Mr Mark, I am terribly sorry. I withdraw and apologise to anyone who was offended by that question.
No, I cannot comment on the case that the member has just outlined. I have huge sympathy for the women who received that treatment at the hands of somebody who obviously should be locked away for a long time. What I can say to the member is that in 2007 almost 400,000 bail cases were heard in New Zealand, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases our judges made incredibly good decisions. Our judges do a very good job, and I think to have it cheapened by somehow trying to pretend that politicians can tell judges who should and who should not get bail sets a very bad precedent.
I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name, which repeals the changes to the Bail Act made by the Government last year; and for that bill to be set down, together with an inclusion in it that no bail decision should be influenced by any help a defendant has provided to a criminal investigation, for a first reading, ahead of private and local orders of the day, on 12 March 2008.
I seek leave to present documentation to show that the adjustments to the Bail Act of which Mr Brownlee was so cheaply speaking occurred in 2007.
I seek leave to table the first decision made by Justice Heath after the changes to the Bail Act were made, in which he said: “It does not seem to me to put the test”—