Who can recall the last time a court trial of national
significance and profile ended neatly with the full stop of
verdict and sentence?
It is the custom of the times, and perhaps a sign of the
vexed and vexing era in which we live, that no decision - or
process - delivered by authorities of all provenances and
purviews is accepted at face value.
We live in an age of contestability, of scrutiny, of
accountability. And this, when it applies to the apparatus of
the State, must be considered a virtue, for if the State is
to disburse power, it must do so, and be seen to do so, with
transparency and, equally, be answerable for the consequences
of its actions.
It is not sufficient for it to defend the mechanisms by which
it belays dominion with mere reference to the practices of
the past.
To this extent, the Law Commission's project, initiated at
the behest of the Government, to investigate and propose
possibilities for variation in alternative criminal trial
processes is timely and welcome.
The terms of its "high-level review" of pre-trial and trial
processes in criminal cases include an examination of the
merits of inquisitorial models, or aspects of them, and
whether they might be incorporated in the New Zealand system,
based as it currently is on the adversarial model; also
whether there ought to be a new framework or processes to
deal with sex offence cases; and the extent to which
alternative approaches to cases involving child victims or
witnesses, and family violence, might be appropriate.
Perhaps the most far-reaching mooted change to the present
trial practice is the notion of the trial judge with an
extended inquisitorial role, as pertains to varying extents
in the judicial architecture of the German, Austrian, Dutch
and Danish systems.
In practice, this could mean the judge playing a more
directive role in what evidence is given, which witnesses are
heard and in what order, and in the questioning of the
witnesses.
Among the criticisms of the adversarial model are it
encourages and rewards aggressive and adversarial behaviour;
it can undermine the interests of justice; it sometimes
traumatises witnesses; and its efficacy is dependent upon the
variable quality and resources of counsel.
There is force in all such considerations. Against that, it
might be argued, the inquisitorial model concentrates a
greater share of the power, intellect, prejudice and energy
in the hands of the judge. Already, those who consistently
criticise the justice system find much to fault in the
decisions, albeit closely prescribed by law, of the
judiciary.
Perhaps equally radical is the proposition to dispense with
juries in certain cases - especially those involving sexual
offences - replacing them with a judge alone or a judge
sitting with two "professional" jurors.
While, as the commission points out, juries might be more
prone to myth and prejudice than judges, it is surely
promulgating an alternative myth to suggest that judges bring
no vestige of culture, class, politics or their own personal
prejudice to bear on the cases before them.
The very notion of being tried before "a jury of their peers"
brings the community into process of justice, gives the
public a stake and a role in its commission. Careful thought
is required before curtailing such involvement.
Similarly, the proposal that the defendant need not
participate in all stages of his or her pre-trial or trial
hearings. This might be seen as the thin end of an
ever-thinning wedge of justice.
Granted there may be aspects of the skirmishing that do not
require the presence of the charged, and which can be
suitably streamlined, but the right of the defendant to be
present to face or witness material accusations should be
protected.
The dispensation of justice is complex and multidimensional.
It does not always run true. As the Russian poet Yevgeny
Yevtushenko once put it, "Justice is like a train that is
nearly always late."
Tidying up the stations along the way, is both necessary and
desirable; so, too, is forging different - perhaps more
direct - routes to desired destinations. But great care must
be taken in tinkering with the tracks lest the whole
enterprise be derailed.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.