KEY POINTS:
The National Party subscribes not only to the notion that victims relish their day in court but that every card in the judicial deck should be brought to bear on criminals. Consequently, it has stalled the Criminal Procedure Bill, which would allow pre-trial depositions to be based on written evidence, unless otherwise ordered by a judge. By now, however, National should have had a drastic rethink. Comments after a depositions hearing into the murder of 22-year-old Sophie Elliott show the flawed nature of such an approach.
Lesley Elliott, Sophie's mother, said it had been "traumatic" giving evidence, and the thought of having to do it again at the trial of Clayton Weatherston was "hideous". Richard Driver, a friend of the Elliotts, added that families were being "brutally punished" by a system that insisted on emotionally draining depositions hearings even when there was clearly a case to answer. This sentiment, and similar thoughts expressed by Louise Nicholas, represent a convincing riposte to National's policy, which fails to appreciate the trauma involved in being forced to revisit an incident, often just as a degree of equilibrium has been recovered.
The Criminal Procedure Bill ensures this process will have to be endured just once, unless a judge decides a depositions hearing is necessary. Rarely will this be the case. The use of written evidence should not alter the present situation, in which very few cases do not proceed to trial because insufficient proof is produced at hearings. Yet somehow this does not satisfy the Law Society, which also opposes the legislation. It suggests depositions hearings are important not just for disclosure but for testing witnesses' evidence and reliability and for confronting defendants with the case against them. This, it suggests, might persuade them to plead guilty.
These objections smack more of self-interest than reality. Essentially, they do little more than proclaim the desirability, in an ideal world, of staging dress rehearsals. This pales into insignificance alongside the many advantages of allowing depositions based on written evidence. Chief of these, along with victims' trauma, is the saving of court time. Publicity about the Elliotts' plight coincided with Chief High Court Judge Tony Randerson making a rare appeal to Parliament to relieve the pressure on the High Court, which is beset by excessive delays because of methamphetamine-related cases. In the five years since P was made a class-A drug, the number of High Court jury trials has soared 73 per cent, from 136 to 236.
Justice Randerson wants the Criminal Procedure Bill passed so that P cases can be dealt with in the District Court. This, he says, would aid the orderly and efficient operation of the High Court.
Exactly the same reasoning, not to speak of significant cost savings, applies to the legislation's proposals on depositions hearings. A clogged court system, in which thousands of hours are spent on unnecessary oral depositions, means justice is delayed. On that basis, National's opposition to the bill is even more incomprehensible. Neither timely justice nor victims are being served by its policy or the Law Society's wish for a test run.
The Criminal Procedure Bill has been becalmed for more than a year because the Government lacks a majority to pass it. National's opposition is based squarely on the clause tackling depositions. The Government says this aspect, which is supported by the Law Commission, must remain. The surge of support for its position should signal an end to the stalemate. The Government must accord the legislation a high priority, and National must throw its weight behind it.
