[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

Preface

_IN AUGUST 1989 THE LAW COMMISSION was asked by the Minister

of Justice to devise a system of criminal procedure for New Zealand that would:

• ensure the law conforms to New Zealand’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;

• ensure the fair trial of accused persons;

• protect the rights and freedoms of all persons suspected or accused of offences; and

• provide efficient and effective procedures for the prosecution of offences and the hearing of criminal cases.

With these purposes in mind the Law Commission was asked to examine the law, structures and practices governing procedure in criminal cases from the time an offence is suspected to have been committed until an offender is convicted.

This report is the tenth in a series of Law Commission publications on aspects of criminal procedure. Previous papers published by the Commission are:

• Criminal Procedure: Part One: Disclosure and Committal NZLC R14 (1990)

• The Prosecution of Offences NZLC PP12 (1990)

• Criminal Evidence: Police Questioning NZLC PP21 (1992)

• Police Questioning NZLC R31 (1994)

• The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination NZLC PP25 (1996)

• Criminal Prosecution NZLC PP28 (1997)

• Juries in Criminal Trials: Part One NZLC PP32 (1998)

• Juries in Criminal Trials: Part Two NZLC PP37 (1999)

• Costs in Criminal Cases NZLC R60 (2000)

After the release of its discussion paper, Criminal Prosecution NZLC PP28 (1997) (‘the Discussion Paper’) the Commission undertook consultations with interested parties. Written submissions were received from 38 parties, including judges, lawyers, academics, community organisations and interest groups.[1] We are very grateful for the helpful comments on our proposals. However, we emphasise that the views expressed and the recommendations made in this report, except where expressly acknowledged in the text, are those of the Law Commission and not necessarily of the people who helped us. This report has been prepared under the guidance of Mr Tim Brewer, the Commissioner responsible for the criminal procedure reference, but many others have been involved. The discussion paper that preceded this report was prepared by

Mr Les Atkins qc, now Judge Atkins, when he was a Commissioner. The Commission also acknowledges the very great assistance of Mr Jim Cameron, a former Commissioner, and its researchers – in particular Ms Louise Symons.

 ¹ A list of submitters is set out in appendix B.