additional miscarriage being corrected then that is of clear
sentiment and believe that this bill will enable us to achieve that and I
commend this bill to the House.
will enable us to achieve that and I commend this bill to the House. I
call Chris Bishop. Thank you
very much, Mr Speaker. I know why this
bill has come about. No one
denies that it
bill has come about. No one denies
no one in the parliament wants there to be miscarriages of
justice, no one in the New
Zealand Parliament wants people to be wrongly
convicted
No, Lawrence Yule does not want that. Don't be silly Mr
McAnulty. Where this bill came about was
because of a spate of cases over the
last 10 year, the Bain case,
the Tenapora case and the ongoing saga
to do with
Peter Ellis in Christchurch and the
Labour Party decided, for reasons best known to
themselves, is that one
solution to the problem of alleged miss of
justice, and I will come
back to that was a criminal cases review
commission. Jacinda Ardern,
the now PM, I was on the justice
committee with her along with Jacqui Dean
and others in the last
parliament and she was very keen on this idea.
A lot like when the PM makes
policy she sees something that sounds quite
good and she doesn't do the real
good and she doesn't do the real
homework on it and doesn't
do the reading on it. Oh, we will have
a review
review commission, that sounds great. The United Kingdom has
one so if it is good enough for the United
Kingdom it is good enough
for New Zealand. Now poor Andrew
Little has been handed the hospital pass
of trying to make this into
reality and grapple with some pretty complex
grapple
underlying criminal law issues to underlying criminal law issues to
put this into place. I will come to
some of the issues that are
not get with during
some of the issues that are not get
I acknowledge completely the intention. That's a sound one.
It's a good one. The first and most
important I want to make
and it deals with the member who is
scarpering out, who is Priyanca
Radhakrishnan, the Government has
Radhakrishnan, the Government has
not made the case in my view for how
the current system does not work.
Let's look at the examples that
MsRadhakrishnan talked about. There
is lots of notable examples
in the recent past of miscarriages of
justice, the David bane case, he was
convicted in 1994 for murder of
his family. He went to prison. He
eventually went through the legal
process and went all the way up
to the judicial committee of the Privy
Council which ordered
a retrial which quashed his
convictions and ordered a retrial in
2009, largely on the basis of the new
evidence that Joe Carrum was able to produce
around the
around the luminol footprints. The new trial was held a couple of years
or so later, David Bain was
not convicted of those crimes and is
a free man. Why do we need a criminal
a criminal cases review commission have done for David Bain.
He appealed with fresh
evidence. He went up to the
judicial committee, they quashed his
conviction, he was retried and he was found not guilty
and he is a free man. Why do we
need a criminal cases review
commission. What about the other example, Teina
Pora, the convictions were quashed
by the judicial
committee of the Privy Council largely on the
basis of new evidence around
foetal alcohol disorder and whether he was
guilty of the murder of Susan. Why
do we need a
criminal cases review commission. His
commission. His conviction was quashed by the you dishal
committee of the Privy Council. Mark
Lundy went through the various processes,
mark Lundy appealed to the judicial
committee of
committee of the Privy Council on the that he
couldn't possibly have committed the murder of his wife and
his daughter at that time, that
and there was evidence around the McDonalds that they'd
consumed the night before and was he able to get
back to the get back
to the foreshore motor lodge that is
about 45 metres from my House, whether
he could make it back there in time to
make it back to Palmerston
North and there was evidence around
the human tissue found on
there was evidence around the human
car. There was new evidence adduced by Mr Lundy and his lawyers at the
Privy Council around the
testing technique the police used
in 2000 in Palmerston North
Palmerston North and his conviction was quashed and he was retried and
found guilty. The
police completely changed their theory of
the case or the Crown changed its theory of the
case and it turned out may made a
much more convincing case for him
being the guilty suspect. So,
again, why do we need a
criminal cases review Commission. A
Labour member over there before
review Commission. A Labour member
Well these things do take a long time. I am telling you
now, once this commission
this commission is established it will take a long time for
people who think they can make use of its
resources to go through
the process. That is without even talking about
all of the unknown elements
of the system. For example, will the
system be amenable to judicial review. I am
telling you now if there
is judicial review available for what it
should be, a public body, applying
public law principles, that is going
to literally insert another
whole massive layer of appeals inside
an appeals system as it is. If
you think the Kim.com saga was bad, with
multiple different chains of
litigation and mull tipping changes
of appeal around a pretty
simple case
of appeal around a pretty simple
we are no closer to that decision going to the minister for
a decision, if you think
that's bad, because it is largely judicial
review and appeals
that have caused that then you have not
seen anything yet when it comes
to the proposed commission. So I just simply
ask the House and act the Government, all
of the cases they have
made reference to, and have
averted to in their speeches have been dealt with
through the traditional criminal
process. Second point,
what is superior about the criminal cases
review commission compared
to the royal prerogative of mercy. It is
not clear to me how it will be
superior because
superior because Raymond Huo, who is the chair of the Justice Committee,
just spent quite a degree of time
in his speech talking about how it
largely replicates the elements
of the royal prerogative of mercy and
it seeks to
basically enshrine that into a formal statutory process. So
what is superior about
The system we have now, I believe, sir, works well. I believe
it is effective and I believe I pointed to
examples of the criminal justice
system working effectively to
remedy wrongs committed during the
USSel. I don't
wrongs committed during the USSel. I
I have listened to all the Government
I have listened to all the
words around we have to make justice work for everyone and
stuff like that, which no one disagrees with,
beyond motherhood apple
pie sangty moany from the Labour, they have not
made a case for the commission. It
largely reflects
largely reflects the work that was not done by Jacinda Ardern, the
PM, who was the then
justice spokesperson, in opposition
when a spate of these cases going through
the courts, very, very high profile
cases, Bain, Pora, the ongoing drama
to do with Peter Ellis and
like a lot of Labour
Party policy it sounded like a good idea, we
will chuck it in the manifesto, we
will probably have to never implement it
but now we do. The bill that
has been presented to the House so far
is a shocker. Let's talk
about the actual issues to do with the
bill that
that have been canvassed already. One third of the people on
the commission have to be lawyers
One third of the people on the
third! One third! This is essentially an appellate body,
third! One third! This is right. This is a body that is going
to weigh up evidence and if it
believes it is in the
interests of justice, because that
is the test, if it is in the interests of justice
it can then refer those cases back
to the appeal court. One third has
to the appeal court. One third has
to be lawyers. Seriously,
one third. Seriously only a third. No
doubt there will be smart people
on it but one third. This is a body that is
one third. This is a body that is
going to deal with the
most finely grained issues of criminal
grained issues of criminal
procedure. This is the reason why
there is a
criminal cases review commission in the first place,
that is the reason why the cases
are going to end up there because
admissibility of evidence is really
complicated. That was true in bane,
it was true in Lundy and Teina
Pora as well. These are really tricky
issues. The Government wants to
put on the criminal cases review
It is an absolute shocker. What about the rules about how this
is all going to operate. It is not
subject to the Official Information
Act, that is bizarre.
What about the rules of contempt of court, does
that apply, we have no idea. What
about the rules about privilege
and
applicable in the courts that are yet referred to. We have no
idea. The Government has not
made the case. This is a shocker. Order! The
member's time has expired. I
call Dr member's
member's time has expired. I call Dr Duncan Webb. Well,
really disappointed that Mr Bishop
didn't read the bill before he started his
speech because there does seem to be
a fundamental misconception
on the other side of the House about what
this is