COVID-19 prosecution review called for

Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King

The association for defence lawyers wants an urgent review of all COVID-19 prosecutions in light of a massive case backlog in the district court.

Ministry of Justice figures show police laid 989 criminal charges over restriction breaches during alert levels 2, 3 and 4.

Just over 600 charges, most falling under the Health Act, were laid during the official alert level 4 lockdown, at a rate of 129 charges a week.

This rate jumped to 140 charges a week during alert level 3, before tapering off to just 16 charges a week during alert level 2.

Each of these charges were laid in the district court; the country's largest and busiest jurisdiction that is already dealing with a significant case backlog.

Defence Lawyers Association co-chair Elizabeth Hall says each of these prosecutions should be scrutinised before they take up more time, money and resources.

"Before we overwhelm the criminal justice system even furthe,r there needs to be an individual review of each of the prosecutions.

"There will be inconsistent charging decisions that have been made, many breaches will be minor or inadvertent and that's of course without commenting on the legality of the breach prosecutions as a whole."

The legal standing of the COVID-19 lockdown is the subject of a judicial review that will be heard at the High Court in Wellington next week.

Former parliamentary counsel Andrew Borrowdale has filed the review, arguing the Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, exceeded the powers given to him under the Health Act.

If successful, it will mean those charged with breaching lockdown restrictions should not have been and could potentially claim damages under the Bill of Rights.

Elizabeth says setting aside the now-contested legality of the lockdown, the Police Prosecution Service could review its COVID-19 cases to help ease the backlog.

"There is a massive backlog in New Zealand's courts and we have a thousand prosecutions here which, if they are urgently reviewed, may mean only some continue."

However, Otago University senior law lecturer Bridgette Toy-Cronin says withdrawing these COVID-19 prosecutions is a bad idea.

"If you ask everyone to follow rules and those rules are in place at the time and some people breach those, I think most people would find it quite hard to swallow that in retrospect that gets dropped because it all worked out okay."

She says withdrawing some of the cases may also undermine future restrictions or another nationwide lockdown.

"So it would have potentially on-flow effects which would be that people would say well last time it got dropped, doesn't really matter, don't need to follow it.

"And then of course there's the signalling effect to those people who are in managed isolation facilities at the moment that these rules are here but we don't really take them seriously."

Elizabeth says even in light of a potential second lockdown, each COVID-19 breach prosecution should be urgently reviewed to determine if it can be dealt with out of the court.

"Certainly with every criminal prosecution though, it's appropriate that the prosecutors review whether the prosecution needs to be brought, whether there is sufficient evidence to bring the prosecution and whether there is some alternate way of dealing with the behaviour, short of dragging someone through the criminal justice system."

RNZ asked the Police Prosecution Service if it will consider urgently reviewing the COVID-19 prosecution cases.

In a written statement, a police spokesperson says charging people over lockdown breaches was a last resort, typically used when a person had already had warnings.

They say as is the case for all cases, COVID-19 prosecutions are dealt with on a case by case basis and police diversion may be available as an alternative resolution for some people.

-RNZ/Anneke Smith.

5 comments

Proceed........

Posted on 22-07-2020 07:09 | By The Professor

ALL the prosecutions should proceed no matter how much time it takes. These people need to understand that it is wrong to break rules which were put in place for a good reason. What should happen to relieve the system is that legislation should be changed to allow the Police to issue on the spot fines of $1,000 for less serious breaches, and only prosecute more serious cases or where people have committed multiple breaches. The courts need to send out a strong message showing people that breaching these rules is not acceptable. We are not out of the woods yet - NZ has been very lucky SO FAR!!! We need to be prepared for the next community outbreaks and prosecuting people for breaches under the last restrictions is part of that process.


Broke the rules, and risked an unknown number of lives.

Posted on 22-07-2020 12:12 | By xenasdad

Everyone who decided to break the rules put an unknown number of innocent people at risk of losing their lives, and their families lives also. Such dangerous and selfish behaviour is potential Manslaughter. This no time for the touchy feely gutless application of wet bus tickets. Human Rights, what abour the human rights of all those unknowingly exposed ???? Some REAL penalty must be paid, maybe a standard $1000 fine, with NO exceptions for any one !!


Proceed - civil emergencies

Posted on 22-07-2020 12:24 | By SML

are a situation where many others are put at risk by the idiots whose sense of entitlement leaves them to feel "it doesn't apply to them". It applies to everyone, including them, and prosecutions should - and MUST - proceed. We don't want a situation like the current ones in Australia, and especially in the USA here - whether the prosecution is under the Health Act, Civil Defense Act or any other such emergency act - the law is the law.


Absolutely

Posted on 22-07-2020 17:20 | By Mommatum

proceed with these prosecutions time consuming though they may be, As for Andrew Borrowdale’s legal challenge it should be thrown out, the situation in the Australian state of Victoria being more than ample proof that the Lockdown was necessary and more important saved lives. Those who put self interest ahead of public health must be held to account. If for no other reason than to signal to our youth who look to us adults as their role models that wrong choices bring consequences. To do otherwise besides a slap in the face to those of who cooperated is to signal to our young people that boundaries don’t actually matter and that self interest is paramount at any price.


What do you mean you didnt know?

Posted on 23-07-2020 12:00 | By jimmyant

Its pretty clear from the correspondence so far, that there is zero tolerance for those few who felt entitled enough that they didnt need to comply for the health and well being of the whole nation. It would be the ultimate in naivety to even suggest that there was anyone in NZ who didnt understand the rules. All 900+ of them need to be held to account for the deadly risk they put other NZers at. Doesnt matter how long it takes to prosecute - the lesson needs to be learned!!


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.