4 August 2004
Status Hearings research released
Reports published today by the Law Commission and Ministry of Justice examine current pre-trial criminal processes and
suggest that reform is needed. The two publications are complementary.
Status Hearings Evaluation: A New Zealand Study of Pre-trial Hearings in Criminal Cases is a joint research study of
status hearings by the Ministry of Justice and Law Commission. Status Hearings are pre-trial reviews held in most
District Courts if defendants plead not guilty in summary criminal cases.
Reforming Criminal Pre-trial Processes, a Law Commission preliminary paper, discusses the research findings and proposes
options for more efficient and fair processes. The Law Commission is seeking submissions on the proposed reforms and
will present its final recommendations early in 2005.
Pre-trial hearings in the criminal jurisdiction are intended to reduce the incidence of cancelled and postponed
proceedings, which are costly, disruptive and can cause considerable distress to the parties involved in the
proceedings. Status hearings were a judicial initiative to solve these problems and to ensure defendants enter an
informed plea to appropriate charges as soon as possible. However, the research suggests there is still room for
improvement.
Status Hearings Evaluation: A New Zealand Study of Pre-trial Hearings in Criminal Cases looked at hearings in five
District Courts, and callovers in one District Court. Interviews were held with defendants, complainants, judges,
defence counsel, police prosecutors, victim advisers, caseflow managers and probation officers, and information was also
obtained from the taped records of the courts.
Many participants thought status hearings meant a better use of resources overall, and a saving of time, especially
defended hearing time. They were seen as encouraging early resolutions to a number of cases, reducing the stress of
waiting for a defended hearing and producing better outcomes.
Hearings are seen as a focal point for case preparation by some counsel, and a number of participants found sentence
indications to be helpful. They also provide an opportunity for complainants to have some input and be part of the
process.
Although status hearings have led to some benefits, concerns were also voiced. The research suggests that a range of
matters need to be addressed, including the need for more operational guidelines or statutory provisions on sentence
indications, pre-status hearings plea and charge discussions, and the roles of participants. Also of vital importance is
the issue of access to justice and rights for complainants and defendants, especially in relation to unrepresented
defendants and Maori and Pacific Island participants.
Voicing conclusions drawn from Reforming Criminal Pre-trial Processes, Law Commission President Justice Robertson said,
“it is clear that some of the problems status hearings were designed to mend still pervade the process, and that further
changes to pre-trial processes are required, both to ensure fairness to complainants and defendants, and to reduce
delays and make optimal use of Court and judicial resources.
“In short, the current system often fails witnesses, defendants and victims. It takes too long to get to trial and there
are too many pre-trial meetings. There are insufficient incentives to secure the speedy resolution of everyone’s
interests, and we need a new approach to make the process work more effectively.”
The key objective of pre-trial processes is to ensure that cases are dealt with expeditiously and efficiently,
consistent with fundamental principles of fairness. Where people enter a guilty plea they should do so at the earliest
practicable opportunity. Where cases proceed to trial, the issues should be identified well in advance so that the
number of appearances before the judge is reduced to a minimum.
“Pre-trial processes must be designed to promote early consideration of evidence and charges laid, provision of adequate
legal advice for defendants, early and full disclosure of the case, pre-trial discussion between prosecution and defence
about the charges and facts, and early preparation of the defence case,” said Justice Robertson. The paper proposes a
principled framework for pre-trial criminal processes consisting of an initial hearing, a standard adjournment for six
weeks and a pre-trial hearing. Generally only two judicial hearings would be required before trial, and adjournments
would only be granted if necessary to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial. The Law Commission welcomes
submissions on the detailed proposals in their paper.
The Law Commission discussion paper Reforming Criminal Pre-trial Processes (Preliminary Paper 55) is available from
www.lawcom.govt.nz
The joint research report Status Hearings Evaluation: A New Zealand Study of Pre-trial Hearings in Criminal Cases is
available from www.justice.govt.nz
ENDS