[comment caption=Should the depositions process be overhauled?]Families are being "brutally punished" by a cumbersome and pointless legal system that insists on emotionally draining depositions hearings even when there is clearly a case to answer, a friend of Sophie Elliott's family says.
But lawyers and academics say while the process can be traumatic, it must be kept pure and a family's emotions cannot stand in the way of that.
Dunedin man Richard Oliver told the Otago Daily Times the trauma inflicted on both the Elliott and Weatherston families through this week's depositions process was "nothing less than cruel".
The hearing was to prove Clayton Weatherston (32), accused of murdering his former girlfriend Sophie Elliott (22), had a case to answer.
"The system seems to have become cumbersome, cruel, expensive to taxpayers and time-consuming," Mr Oliver said, after handing out notes outside the courtroom with email addresses to which complaints could be sent.
Nothing was achieved by the four-day hearing, he said.
"By admitting to the police on the scene that he killed her, Mr Weatherston has established that there is indeed a case to be answered.
"The depositions didn't need to be happening.
''It's a dry run.
Why bother?"University of Otago law dean Mark Henaghan agreed the legal process was gruelling for families and also witnesses, lawyers and judges - but that was not a reason not to go through the process.
He would not comment on the specific case but said depositions were required to ensure someone was not being put on trial, which was expensive, unless it was clear a trial was in order.
The defence had the right to hear the case and argue points.
"I can understand in this particular case why somebody would feel aggrieved, but what we need to understand is that upsetting people is not a reason not to carry on with the process.
''Unfortunately, the system has to set that aside . . . otherwise you would say 'Look, we feel so sorry for the family we'll do something else' and the defence would instantly appeal.
''It's hard to come to grips with, but the best thing families can do is support each other through it."
Commercial lawyer and former Act New Zealand party MP Stephen Franks said the slowness of the judicial process was the real issue.
The system lacked recognition of the emotional costs of delay.
Families who had to go along to court multiple times were grasping for reasons for the process not just to be a waste of time, so they formed strong views.
The judiciary regarded it as immoral to question the system because they were well intentioned and did not want any miscarriage of justice.
Last year, the National Party and the New Zealand Law Society opposed changes to legislation that would allow a case to go straight to trial unless either side wanted a depositions hearing.
The Criminal Procedure Bill has had its second reading in Parliament and is in its committee stages.
The New Zealand Law Society said in its submission to the select committee considering the Bill that depositions was the first formal hurdle the prosecution had to overcome because it enabled the prosecution's evidence to be tested.
Depositions could affect whether a defendant pleaded guilty or not guilty and could streamline the process, the submission said.
When contacted, National Party law and order spokesman Simon Power said he had "every sympathy" for the views expressed by friends and family following the Weatherston depositions, but the National Party's interest was in ensuring the purity of the process was maintained.
