Bills reported as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Last updated June 30, 2023

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) requires that the attorney-general report to the New Zealand Parliament on any bills that contain provisions that appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill
Conflict with right to a jury trial
Conflict with right to be present during a trial
Conflict with the right to not be retried for the same offence
Conflict with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Provisions said to be justified
Other reports since 2005
References

Parliament is not constrained by the Bill of Rights Act and is free to ignore an attorney-general's report and enact any legislation it sees fit. In fact, the attorney-general, who prepares the reports, is a Government minister and is bound by Cabinet collective responsibility to support the passage of all Government bills through the House of Representatives.

Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill

The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill is a Government bill introduced by Simon Power as minister of justice on 15 November 2010. Public submissions on the bill closed on 18 February 2011 and the Justice and Electoral Select Committee was due to report back by 14 July 2011.

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson prepared two reports outlining conflicts between this bill and the Bill of Rights. The main report addressed the majority of the bill and an additional report dealt specifically with a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights Act.

Conflict with right to a jury trial

In New Zealand, offences are classified by the length of the maximum sentence. Offences punishable by less than three months in prison are not required to have a jury trial, but offences punishable by more than three months in prison have the right to a jury trial. This right is enshrined in section 24(e) of the Bill of Rights.

The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill proposes to raise the threshold for access to a jury trial from offences with a maximum sentence of three months in prison to offences with a maximum sentence of three years in prison.

The bill includes a provision to amend the Bill of Rights Act to remove the right to a jury trial for this expanded class of offences. This conflict with the Bill of Rights Act is outlined in the Attorney-General's supplemental report on the bill.

Conflict with right to be present during a trial

Attorney-General's report identifies the following breaches of the right to be present during a trial:

If the defendant has a "reasonable excuse" for not attending and the prosecutor is ready to proceed, the trial may proceed without them.
If the defendant does not have a reasonable excuse, the trial must proceed without them.
The defendant may be removed from a trial if they cause enough of an interruption that it is "impractical to continue".

The report also highlights a further provision of the bill that involves hearings for offences that do not carry a prison term. In this situation the bill gives judges the discretion to continue the hearing if the defendant does not turn up. In his report, the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson defends this provision by asserting that judges will exercise this discretion "in a manner that does not limit section 25(e) of the Bill of Rights Act".

Conflict with the right to not be retried for the same offence

According to the report, the bill contains two provisions that are in conflict with the double jeopardy rule (section 26(2) of the Bill of Rights Act):

If the offence has a penalty of 14 years imprisonment and the Court of Appeal finds that there is new and compelling evidence of their guilt, the court can order a new trial.
If the person is acquitted of an offence punishable by imprisonment and later convicted of corrupting their trial they can be retried.

Conflict with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

The report identifies two places where the onus of proof is reversed by the bill:

The bill makes an amendment to the Fisheries Act 1996. It relates to people on New Zealand vessels fishing in foreign jurisdictions and requires that they prove that they transported fish "in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction".
The bill requires pilots who disobey foreign air traffic controllers to prove that the safety of people on the aircraft would have been endangered if they complied.

Provisions said to be justified

Defendants required to identify issues at trial

Under the bill, defendants are to be required to identify issues they intend to rely on in their case, e.g. the points in their charge that are in dispute and whether they propose to rely on expert evidence. Failure to do so could be interpreted as an indication of guilt.

Finlayson notes that this a "novel step" in New Zealand and identifies a tension between this provision several rights enshrined in the Bill of Right's act: the right to silence, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right not to be compelled to give evidence or incriminate oneself and the right to a fair trial.

Finlayson concludes that there are sufficient safeguards in place for this provision of the bill to be justified under the Bill of Rights.

Other reports since 2005

Bill Name	Date of report	BORA inconsistencies	Refs
Affordable Healthcare Bill	16 September 2015	19 – Freedom from discrimination (family status, national origins)	^[1]
Alcohol Reform Bill	8 November 2010	14 – Freedom of expression 19 – Freedom from discrimination (family status) 22 – Freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention 25c – Presumption of innocence 27 – Right to justice
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill	19 September 2007	19 – Freedom from discrimination (disability)
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill	13 August 2015	9 – Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment 26(2) – Double jeopardy	^[2]
Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill	10 February 2009	21 – Unreasonable search and seizure
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill	8 April 2009	19 – Freedom from discrimination (disability)
Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill	17 March 2010	12 – Electoral rights
Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill	13 May 2015	18(1) – Freedom of movement 21 – Unreasonable search and seizure 26(2) – Double jeopardy	^[3]
Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill	21 July 2015	19 – Freedom from discrimination (employment status)	^[4]
Head of State Referenda Bill	21 April 2010	19 – Freedom from discrimination (age)
Human Rights (One Law for All) Amendment Bill	28 June 2006	19 – Freedom from discrimination (colour, race, ethnic or national origin) 20 – Rights of minorities
Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill	29 March 2006	19 – Freedom from discrimination (age, disability)
Land Transport Amendment Bill	19 November 2013	25c – Presumption of innocence
Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill	17 October 2012	25c – Presumption of innocence
Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill	2 July 2009	14 – Freedom of expression
Lobbying Disclosure Bill	12 June 2012	14 – Freedom of expression
Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill	16 June 2010	19 – Freedom from discrimination (race)
Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill	7 December 2005	19 – Freedom from discrimination (age) 23(4) – Right to refrain from making a statement
Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill	7 December 2005	23(4) – Right to refrain from making a statement
Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill	11 May 2005	19 – Freedom from discrimination (marital status, sexual orientation)
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill	23 April 2010	25c – Presumption of innocence
Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill	22 August 2007	25c – Presumption of innocence
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2)	16 May 2013	27(2) – Right to a judicial review of a determination
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill	21 July 2015	19 – Freedom from discrimination (national origin, age) 18(3) – Right to leave New Zealand	^[5]
Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill	2 April 2009	22 – Freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention 26 – Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy
Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill	17 April 2014	26 – Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy
Prisoners' and Victims' Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill	13 October 2011
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill	18 February 2009	9 – Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill	22 September 2010	14 – Freedom of expression
Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill	24 March 2010	19 – Freedom from discrimination (sex, marital status, family status)
Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill	16 August 2010	19 – Freedom from discrimination (marital status, sex)
Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill	20 February 2008	14 – Freedom of expression

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanour is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

An indictment is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. In jurisdictions that use the concept of felonies, the most serious criminal offense is a felony; jurisdictions that do not use the felonies concept often use that of an indictable offense, an offense that requires an indictment.

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights.

An information is a formal criminal charge which begins a criminal proceeding in the courts. The information is one of the oldest common law pleadings, and is nearly as old as the better-known indictment, with which it has always coexisted.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

The Gun Court is the branch of the Jamaican judicial system that tries criminal cases involving firearms. The court was established by Parliament in 1974 to combat rising gun violence, and empowered to try suspects in camera, without a jury. The Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and Resident Magistrate's Courts function as Gun Courts whenever they hear firearms cases. There is also a Western Regional Gun Court in Montego Bay. Those convicted by the Gun Court are imprisoned in a dedicated prison compound at South Camp in Kingston. Until 1999, the Gun Court sessions were also held in the same facility.

Human rights in New Zealand are addressed in the various documents which make up the constitution of the country. Specifically, the two main laws which protect human rights are the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, New Zealand has also ratified numerous international United Nations treaties. The 2009 Human Rights Report by the United States Department of State noted that the government generally respected the rights of individuals, but voiced concerns regarding the social status of the indigenous population.

The Vicinage Clause is a provision in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution regulating the vicinity from which a jury pool may be selected. The clause says that the accused shall be entitled to an "impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law". The Vicinage Clause limits the vicinity of criminal jury selection to both the state and the federal judicial district where the crime has been committed. This is distinct from the venue provision of Article Three of the United States Constitution, which regulates the location of the actual trial.

In New Zealand, the presumption of supply is a rebuttable presumption in criminal law which is governed by the New Zealand Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It provides an assumption in drug-possession cases that if a person is found with more than a specified amount of a controlled drug, they are in possession of it for the purpose of supply or sale. This shifts the burden of proof from the Crown to the person found with the drug, who must prove that they possessed it for personal use and not for supply. Note that once the burden of proof has shifted, the burden is one on the balance of probabilities. This presumption exists to make prosecution for supplying drugs easier.

The voting rights of prisoners in New Zealand have been in a near constant state of flux since the first election in New Zealand in 1853. Prisoners have experienced varying degrees of enfranchisement. In 2010 the Electoral Act 1993 was amended to disqualify all prisoners from voting. In 2020 this law was amended so that only persons serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more are disenfranchised. Elections in New Zealand are held every three years.

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

References

↑ Finlayson, Christopher (16 September 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Affordable Healthcare Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
↑ Finlayson, Christopher (13 August 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
↑ Finlayson, Christopher (13 May 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
↑ Finlayson, Christopher (21 July 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.
↑ Finlayson, Christopher (21 July 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Finlayson, Christopher (16 September 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Affordable Healthcare Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

[2] Finlayson, Christopher (13 August 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

[3] Finlayson, Christopher (13 May 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

[4] Finlayson, Christopher (21 July 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

[5] Finlayson, Christopher (21 July 2015). "Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill". New Zealand House of Representatives. Retrieved 17 November 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]