Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
This is a very important bill, and it will enable the courts to make greater use of videoconferencing technology in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is the first piece of legislation introduced by this Government to reform criminal procedure. Currently, witnesses can appear in court by video link in some circumstances, but usually defendants cannot. New Zealand law currently requires defendants physically to attend court, even for many minor procedural hearings.
The use of video links in the courtroom is commonplace in many types of court proceeding in other countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the United States of America. The Australian jurisdictions in particular are internationally recognised for the effective use of videoconferencing in legal proceedings. The bill before the House today provides a legal framework for any participant in a proceeding to appear by video link in any judicial proceeding, provided that certain criteria are met. Clauses 5 and 6 set out the decision-making criteria to be referred to by any registrar or judicial officer making decisions about the use of video links. Those criteria include the nature of the proceeding, the availability and quality of the technology to be used, and the potential impact of the use of the technology on the effective maintenance of the rights of other parties to the proceeding. The criteria are designed to protect defendants’ right to a fair trial, and to ensure that the rights and interests of other participants, as well as the interests of the court itself, are taken into account.
In civil matters, video links can be used where both parties consent. To prevent one party from putting the other to unnecessary expense by unreasonably withholding consent, a judicial officer can order that a video link be used. In criminal procedural matters there is a presumption in favour of the use of video links. That means that where no evidence is being presented, a registrar or judicial officer may require that a person appear by video link. A person may object to appearing by video link, and then the judicial officer will have to decide on the objection, based on the relevant criteria. For appearances where evidence is being presented, any party can apply to the judicial officer to use video links and the judicial officer will determine applications by reference to the criteria.
There are a number of benefits from increased use of video links, and these include improved efficiency, increased safety and security, increased access to justice, and improvements in the quality of the evidence being heard.
For routine appearances like pre-trial matters in which no evidence is to be presented, a defendant on remand could appear by video link from a prison instead of having to be transported from prison to court and then back again. This will not only help speed up the trial and hearing processes but also reduce the need for transporting prisoners, with the potential to save quite significant sums of money.
