Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Reports

Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill (Consistent) (Section 25(c)) [2014] NZBORARp 11 (17 April 2014)

Last Updated: 24 March 2019

Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill

17 April 2014 Attorney-General

Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill (PCO 18198/10.0) - Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Our Ref: ATT395/216

1.I have reviewed the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In my opinion the Bill is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

2. The explanatory note to the Bill explains that there is a growing risk of serious forms of match-fixing, including in light of recent match-fixing allegations in Australia. The proposed offence is provided to respond to match-fixing across sporting codes but with a particular focus initially on the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U20 (football) World Cup in 2015, both of which New Zealand will host.
   
3. The one operative provision of the Bill (cl 4) extends the scope of the current offence of obtaining benefits and/or causing loss by deception under s 240 of the Crimes Act 1961 to include any act or omission with intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity by manipulating the overall result or any event, other than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons. The provision will apply to sporting competitions, games, matches, races, and rallies involving human participants (whether or not they also involve equipment, horses, vehicles, or vessels), and dog races.
   
4. The proposed amendment itself raises no issue under the Bill of Rights Act. However, in extending the scope of s 240 to encompass match-fixing, the Bill does raise the question of the consistency of that provision with the Act. Section 240 includes that deception is only an offence “without claim of right” and so places an evidential onus on an accused to raise such an issue. That onus might be considered to raise an issue under the right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by s 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act, but:
   

4.1 The burden is not to prove a claim of right but only to establish an arguable issue;

4.2 It is difficult to envisage a scenario in which a party engaged in match-fixing believed that he or she was legally entitled to do so; and

4.3 In any case and assuming for the purpose of argument that s 25(c) is engaged, any such claim is peculiarly within the knowledge of an accused person and so a burden of this kind is justifiable.

5. This advice has been peer-reviewed by Ben Keith, Crown Counsel.

Debra Harris

Crown Counsel

Disclaimer

In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on this website, please note the following: This advice was prepared to assist the Attorney-General to determine whether a report should be made to Parliament under s 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. It should not be used or acted upon for any other purpose. The advice does no more than assess whether the Bill complies with the minimum guarantees contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The release of this advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees with all aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver of legal professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has been taken to ensure that this document is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omissions.