Singh case reason to scrap bill - lawyer

Top criminal lawyer Greg King says Virender Singh's case is a perfect example of why pre-trial depositions hearings should not be abolished.

Two justices of the peace dismissed two charges laid against Mr Singh after hearing evidence given at a three-day hearing at the Manukau District Court.

Mark Sinclair and Brian Cullen ruled that there was insufficient

evidence against Mr Singh to warrant sending him for trial, stand trial, as the testimony of police witnesses contradicted their written statements.

But the incoming Criminal Procedure Bill will scrap depositions hearings, possibly as soon as July.

The amendments mean that those accused of crime can be committed to stand trial by a judge on the strength of written police evidence alone.

The legislation was passed last June after the National Party backed down on their opposition to the bill, to spare victims of crime giving evidence twice.

Now, defence lawyers can only call witnesses to be cross-examined with the permission of the judge.

In the case of Mr Singh, Mr King says the 40-year-old liquor store owner would probably have been committed to stand trial without questioning to find inconsistencies in evidence.

Mr King conceded it was rare for JPs to throw charges out at depositions hearings.

"It is a big call because it's a low threshold to be committed to trial. It's not deciding guilt or innocence, it's deciding whether there is enough evidence.

"This case proves once again the value of full depositions hearings. I think our system for justice will be worse off when we lose that process," said Mr King.

"What that means for Mr Singh, under that new system, is that he would now being waiting up to a year for a trial."

Crown Solicitor Simon Moore disputed that defence lawyers would be disadvantaged by the law changes.

The Criminal Procedure Bill still preserved the right for defence lawyers to call witnesses at depositions hearings by asking for an oral evidence order within 14 days of receiving written witness statements.

Then it was up to the presiding judge to agree if there were questions over the sufficiency of evidence.

Criticism of the bill was "far too simplistic, and premature because we don't know how the court is going to interpret the law."

Mr Moore said more than 90 per cent of cases were committed to trial "on the papers", and it was rare for cases to be thrown out at depositions because of a lack of evidence.

Instead, Mr Moore said, defence lawyers often used oral evidence for "tactical advantages" at trial, not to determine if there was a prima facie case - the core purpose of depositions.

"You can understand why the strong view from defence bar that the removal of depositions was a retrograde step.

Depositions can be a very effective tool but not for what they were designed."

Mr Singh faced two charges of injuring with intent after he was stabbed during an altercation with two teenagers outside his Gilbert Rd liquor store in Otara last September.