Lesley and Gil Elliott respond to columnist Chris Trotter's article on the Justice Reform Bill.
In our view, Chris Trotter (ODT 19.11.10) is ill-informed in using his own experience as an example and the article is misleading to say the least.
He talks about hundreds of years and then a thousand years in order to establish rules and rights, and he is quite right, and that is exactly why the criminal justice system is now completely out of date and ripe for a drastic overhaul.
Good on Simon Power for starting the ball rolling.
We don't know what the statistics are in relation to a person being arrested unjustifiably; perhaps Mr Trotter does.
The first comments by Mr Trotter would give the impression that the police unjustly arrest people and put them through this "awful" process and hold them in a "malodorous concrete cell", maybe for no reason.
Our comment would be, if you have been arrested, the reason for this state of affairs is because you put yourself in a position of question.
What else would be best while you are being investigated? A plush hotel? Or even better, to let you go home?
Regarding the justice system, yes, well, reverse all the comments made by Mr Trotter.
The accused is represented usually free-of-charge by the taxpayer, whereas the victim is not represented by anyone.
Does Mr Trotter know that crime is against the State, not the victim per se? Take the worst case scenario - murder.
This is not against the person but actually against the State.
Why, you ask? Because we are a supposedly civilised Christian country and we know "you should not kill".
So when a murder occurs, the murderer has actually offended society as a whole under our law.
The crown prosecutor represents the state (hence "crown").
So who is there for the victim? The victim is not represented. The police present the evidence, the prosecutor represents the State.
Meanwhile, the accused can be represented by a Queen's Counsel and paid for by legal aid.
The Bill of Rights says without cost.
So, Mr Trotter, the accused is well-catered for and can even choose who they want to represent them.
They have the right to remain silent.
The Crown has to give full discovery of all the evidence to the defence.
Does the defence have to do the same for an even playing field? No! The defence evidence does not have to be disclosed until the trial begins.
This definitely puts the Crown on the back foot, not knowing what path the defence will take in terms of rebuttal of evidence.
We would ask readers to ponder the comments Mr Trotter makes from a victim's perspective, rather than from an offender's.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 gives far too many rights to the accused and very little to the victim.
In our opinion, if you commit a crime you should automatically lose the rights that normal law-abiding citizens have and respect.
With regard to jury trials, we take issue with his comments.
Far too many jury trials are clogging up our court system.
A jury is supposed to be a jury of our peers and they should come in with no preconceived ideas of guilt or innocence until the trial evidence has been heard.
They, too, are probably just as bewildered by the system and court environment as the victim/family of the victim is, and indeed the offender/accused is likely to be, unless an experienced repeat offender.
We note that Mr Trotter conveniently does not mention recidivism and the terrible toll that takes on society.
Lesley and Gil Elliott are the parents of murdered Dunedin student Sophie Elliott.
