THIS WEEK’S ARTICLES
Issue 5 5 Mar 2021
Lawyers line up against sexual violence bill p1
Fishhooks in our new tenancy laws p3
ADLS profile: marathon man Bill Hodge pages 4-5
LawNews adls.org.nz
CRIMINAL LAW
Pressure builds on govt to can sexual violence bill By Jenni McManus
The legislation, promoted by Justice Minister Kris Faafoi and Justice Under-Secretary and Green MP Jan Logie, passed its second reading in the House last week despite opposition from ADLS, the NZ Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and the NZ Bar Association. If passed in its current form, it will require amendments to the Evidence Act 2006, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 and the Criminal Proceedings Act 2011. The bill is the brainchild of Logie, who says its intention is to reduce the courtroom trauma of sexual violence complainants and to remove barriers that might discourage other victims from coming forward. Until last year’s election, its progress through the House was blocked by NZ First. The government, now with an outright majority, has thrown its weight behind Logie’s bill and is said to be “determined” it will pass into law. Faafoi describes it as “part of the government’s commitment to reduce and ultimately eliminate family and sexual violence”. Nobody is disputing that this is a desirable objective. But, says ADLS President Marie Dyhrberg QC, it should not be achieved at the expense of fair trial rights. The bill as it stands, she says, “is a fundamental attack on long-held fair trial protections”. Barrister Elizabeth Hall, co-chair of the Defence
Photo by ncognet0/Getty Images
Pressure is mounting on the government not to pass the controversial Sexual Violence Legislation Bill as a raft of objectors, including defence counsel, prosecutors, judges and Opposition MPs, voice concern that dozens of innocent people could be jailed for crimes they did not commit.
But did he get a fair trial?
Lawyers’ Association, concurs. “The legislation is driven by those who appear to have a misunderstanding of the trial process and misrepresent the way trials happen and are controlled by experienced judges,” she says. And, from Jonathan Eaton QC: “We believe that the bill could lead to significant injustice, particularly for the more vulnerable members of our society, such as youth, members of minority populations and those with diminished capacity.” Former Opposition leader Simon Bridges last week told Parliament that lawyers “almost without exception” had lined up against the bill because of two specific areas they knew were wrong: the move to make pre-recorded cross-examination of the complainant an entitlement rather than an exception to the normal trial process and a move to severely curtail relevant evidence from being heard, such as a complainant’s previous sexual history with the defendant. The bill limits judges’ discretion in this area, in favour of mandatory direction. Pre-recorded cross-examination is already available in limited circumstances, but the general
rule is that the accused is not required to show his/her hand before the trial begins. The Court of Appeal endorsed this position in the leading case M v R in 2011 where it spelt out the reasons for this limitation, saying it would require a “compelling” case to overturn the rule against pre-recording. Bridges, a former senior Crown prosecutor who specialised in sexual abuse cases, says most of the bill is “fantastic” and that National could probably support it once the offending clauses were gone. In particular, the added flexibility around victim impact statements was “great”. But the two clauses opposed by the legal profession were “unjust and unworkable”. On the question of pre-recorded cross-examination, Bridges said expecting the defence to have its ducks in a row, sometimes a year in advance of the trial, “is basically impossible”. “I can tell you, as a prosecutor, the Crown has all the resources,” he said. “There is a complete inequality.” And because new evidence would likely emerge between the pre-recording and the trial, Continued on page 2