NZLS slams criminal procedures bill

Changes to the justice system are being made in a piecemeal politically driven way and parties need to start working together to make progress, the New Zealand Law Society president Jonathan Temm says.

Mr Temm appeared before Parliament's justice and electoral committee to make a submission on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill, which proposed a swathe of law changes.

It would cast the criminal justice system in cement boots for the next 20 years, Mr Temm said.

"The criminal justice system is being treated like a bone because everyone is gnawing on it."

Some Acts had more amendments than original sections and this legislation would be back before the committee with a year, he said.

The bill needed to be ditched and fundamental issues dealt with first, such as alcohol-related crime and mental health issues where the "flotsam and jetsam" of the system ended up being before the courts.

The ballooning prison population was a huge cost at $90,000 a year per inmate enough - Mr Temm said - to allow him to attend Harvard University.

It's not efficient use of money."

One specific concern in the bill he raised was a change to only allow cases where a three-year or longer jail term could be imposed to be heard by a jury.

That change appeared to be driven by purely financial concerns but there wasn't even evidence it would save money, he said.

In 20 years as a crown prosecutor, then as a defence barrister, he could recall fewer than five jury trials that involved shorter than three-year penalties.

National MP Simon Bridges, chair of the committee, said the Government had reviewed justice principles and done comprehensive work before introducing the bill.

He argued the right to a fair trial was not diminished just because it was only before a judge and when he was a lawyer had seen cases where there was a jury trial for someone who stole a tennis racquet.

Mr Temm said once economic principles became a justification for change that could erode other areas.

"You want to change something, tell what is wrong with current right?"

The society was concerned there could be serious consequences for some people - for example an MP or city councillor can elect a jury trial for any offence which would result in them losing their job.

Speaking for the Wellington Criminal Bar Association, lawyer Noel Sainsbury, said sometimes judges were jaded and juries considered cases with fresh eyes.

It was important to defendants to put their cases to the community and feel they got justice.

Under the changes offences under the so-called anti-smacking law could be heard by a judge alone.

He was also concerned about a provision requiring the defence to identify and disclose issues in dispute before a trial.

If a prosecutors did their jobs properly they should be able to see the direction the defence was taking.

Previously Justice Minister Simon Power said the changes could potentially result in 43,000 fewer court events, 1000 to 1400 fewer cases that need to be designated for trial by jury, 300 to 600 fewer cases that actually proceed to a jury trial, and could shave about 13 weeks off the time it took for a jury trial case to go through the pipeline.

- NZPA