Radical changes mooted to solve delays in court

Phil Goff

The Government is proposing sweeping changes to court processes to remove delays, including imposing penalties on lawyers who unnecessarily prevent trials going ahead.

A Law Commission report released today calls for fundamental reform of pre-trial processes which take up 10 per cent - or 5700 sitting hours - of district court time.

Law Commissioner Warren Young said there was a "culture of delay" that was tolerated and sometimes encouraged in the legal system. There were also a large number of matters that went before judges that could be dealt with out of court.

Justice Minister Phil Goff said some of the changes would be controversial but "revolutionary changes" were needed to court procedures that remained stuck in the 19th century.

Dr Young said about 95 per cent of criminal cases were resolved before a trial, but the pre-trial process was focused on preparing for a good trial.

Among the raft of changes proposed are:

* Lawyers who cause delays through non-appearance or failing to file documents could have legal aid payments withheld;

* Judges will be able to award costs directly against prosecution and defence lawyers where they cause delays.

* Judges should have powers to order trials to proceed in some cases where defendants fail to show up;

* Many of the 10,000 crimes dealt with by police diversion not going to a court for rubber stamping;

* The disclosure of prosecution evidence and the nature of the defence case should take place at an earlier stage;

* Where there is agreement on matters such as legal aid, bail and name suppression they should be dealt with by court staff, not judges;

* Limiting the number of pre-trial adjournments and reducing the need for status hearings;

* More out-of-court discussions about charges, pleas and trial conduct; and

* Legislation to regulate the practice of sentence discounts for early guilty pleas.

Mr Goff said many of the changes could be accommodated by changes to court rules, but legislation would be necessary for some and this would be introduced late in 2006.

"Some will be controversial and require greater scrutiny and input before being put into effect. But arguments against change will have to rely on more than vested interest and reluctance to move away from old traditions," Mr Goff said.

He expected the requirement for the defence to disclose its defence and sanctions against lawyers who caused delays to be the most controversial aspects. The case for change was overwhelming as the operation of the justice system caused injustice for many, he said.

"Among recent examples highlighting the problem addressed by the Law Commission was a defendant who made 11 court appearances in three months - a plea change from not guilty to guilty added nearly two months to the case's duration. Another defendant made 10 appearances, four of which were due to disclosure being incomplete, before being discharged without conviction," Mr Goff said.

- NZPA