Labour fails to address court problems
People are walking away from court without trial because the Government is failing to ensure they are being tried in a timely manner, says National's Justice & Corrections spokesman, Simon Power.
He is releasing Justice Ministry figures showing in our court system there were stays of prosecution in nine cases in the first nine months of 2006/07, including charges such as wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault with intent to injure, and male assaults female.
This increased to 10 stays after a case involving alleged kidnappers was dismissed last week.
Put together with the figures, this shows:
There have been 68 stays of prosecution since 2000/01. Of those, 74% have been either completely or partially due to systemic problems.
Offences include sexual violation, assault with a weapon, fraud, dangerous driving, drink-driving, domestic violence, supplying and manufacturing P, threatening to kill, wounding with intent, aggravated robbery, arson, unlawful possession of a firearm, importing ecstasy, and kidnapping.
Auckland/Waitakere have had 26 stays since 2000/01 – 38% of the total.
Provincial centres to feature include Whangarei, with seven stays since 2000/01, and Palmerston North, Hamilton, and Blenheim with six.
"This is most concerning because some of these charges are very serious and these people are not even going before the courts.
"The kidnapping case in Auckland last week is a prime example. Three people charged with kidnapping had their case finally halted because of a lack of court staff.
"One of the lawyers said Auckland District Court lacks judges and staff 'and the concern is that unless that is addressed then this is going to become more common', and the police officer in charge of the investigation said the courts 'are under-resourced, there's no doubt about that'.
"Things have not improved under this Government, and for the sake of public safety it's their responsibility to address these systemic issues that are leading to stays of prosecution."
Parliamentary question – stays of prosecution
4420 (2007). Simon Power to the Minister for Courts (28 Mar 2007): How many stays of prosecution have occurred in each of the last seven years, specified by court and nature of offences?
Rick Barker (Minister for Courts) replied: The following tables show stays of proceedings granted under s25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for each financial year from 1 July 2000.
Proceedings may be stayed for either prosecutorial or systemic reasons, or a combination of both.
“Prosecutorial" delay refers to delay caused by the prosecution, which can occur before or after charges have been laid. Examples of prosecutorial delay include:
• Failure to conduct the prosecution in a timely manner. This may be attributed to repeat adjournment of cases because Police Prosecutions are not ready to proceed, witnesses are unavailable, charges being amended or withdrawn and re-laid.
• Failure by Police Prosecutions to disclose relevant documents to defence Counsel in a timely manner. The reasons why prosecutorial delay has occurred are outside the control of the Ministry.
“Systemic" delay refers to delay arising from the actions, or inaction, of the Court, with respect to timeliness of Court proceedings or the impact of the Court’s administration on the timeliness of Court proceedings. It should be noted that few of the elements contributing to the causes in the "systemic" category are solely under the control of Ministry officials, and are often linked to wider issues such as the availability of judicial resources, or party (defence and witness) availability.
For tables click the following URL:
http://www.national.org.nz/files/power_stays2.pdf
He is releasing Justice Ministry figures showing in our court system there were stays of prosecution in nine cases in the first nine months of 2006/07, including charges such as wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault with intent to injure, and male assaults female.
This increased to 10 stays after a case involving alleged kidnappers was dismissed last week.
Put together with the figures, this shows:
There have been 68 stays of prosecution since 2000/01. Of those, 74% have been either completely or partially due to systemic problems.
Offences include sexual violation, assault with a weapon, fraud, dangerous driving, drink-driving, domestic violence, supplying and manufacturing P, threatening to kill, wounding with intent, aggravated robbery, arson, unlawful possession of a firearm, importing ecstasy, and kidnapping.
Auckland/Waitakere have had 26 stays since 2000/01 – 38% of the total.
Provincial centres to feature include Whangarei, with seven stays since 2000/01, and Palmerston North, Hamilton, and Blenheim with six.
"This is most concerning because some of these charges are very serious and these people are not even going before the courts.
"The kidnapping case in Auckland last week is a prime example. Three people charged with kidnapping had their case finally halted because of a lack of court staff.
"One of the lawyers said Auckland District Court lacks judges and staff 'and the concern is that unless that is addressed then this is going to become more common', and the police officer in charge of the investigation said the courts 'are under-resourced, there's no doubt about that'.
"Things have not improved under this Government, and for the sake of public safety it's their responsibility to address these systemic issues that are leading to stays of prosecution."
Parliamentary question – stays of prosecution
4420 (2007). Simon Power to the Minister for Courts (28 Mar 2007): How many stays of prosecution have occurred in each of the last seven years, specified by court and nature of offences?
Rick Barker (Minister for Courts) replied: The following tables show stays of proceedings granted under s25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for each financial year from 1 July 2000.
Proceedings may be stayed for either prosecutorial or systemic reasons, or a combination of both.
“Prosecutorial" delay refers to delay caused by the prosecution, which can occur before or after charges have been laid. Examples of prosecutorial delay include:
• Failure to conduct the prosecution in a timely manner. This may be attributed to repeat adjournment of cases because Police Prosecutions are not ready to proceed, witnesses are unavailable, charges being amended or withdrawn and re-laid.
• Failure by Police Prosecutions to disclose relevant documents to defence Counsel in a timely manner. The reasons why prosecutorial delay has occurred are outside the control of the Ministry.
“Systemic" delay refers to delay arising from the actions, or inaction, of the Court, with respect to timeliness of Court proceedings or the impact of the Court’s administration on the timeliness of Court proceedings. It should be noted that few of the elements contributing to the causes in the "systemic" category are solely under the control of Ministry officials, and are often linked to wider issues such as the availability of judicial resources, or party (defence and witness) availability.
For tables click the following URL:
http://www.national.org.nz/files/power_stays2.pdf