Criminal Procedures Act

The dispute over removing of depositions hearings in the Criminal Procedures Act is one I find both simple and complex. While there is a need to protect the rights of victims, such as in the Clayton Weatherston murder case, there is also a need to protect the accused from unnecessary prosecution and allowing them to have their side of the story explained to ensuring there is a fair process leading to any conviction.

I would like to see a compromise where there is a presumption that a Depositions Hearing is to be held - but that this can be dispensed with when the written evidence is overwhelming and there is a strong likelihood that the hearing will result in a determination that there is a case to be answered, or if the defendant acknowledges there is a case to be answered.

A final reason would be if the defendant has indicated they are going to use the hearing to enter a guilty plea, rather than having to go through the process of assembling a jury or otherwise. As a safeguard if the defendant changed their mind, this would automatically mean that there is a case to be answered.

There would also need to be provision where the JP or Judge presiding in the case would be able to speak to witnesses as part of determining whether a Deposition hearing is necessary.

In Clayton Weatherston's case, media reports say that the accused admitted killing Sophie Elliot to Police, and that Sophie's mother also saw the stabbing, so there would be no doubt that there is a case to be answered.

But in a case such as the upcoming David Bain trial, where there are no witnesses and the main evidence from the prosecution is technical, a depositions hearing would be necessary to ensure that the evidence is strong enough.