Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill
In Committee, Third Reading
[Volume:658;Page:7469]
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : Part 2 implements the second stage of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill by extending the provisions in Part 1 that apply to those adults suspected of committing a relevant offence to those suspected of committing any imprisonable offence. This part also makes the District Court the court to which applications under the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act are made, rather than the High Court, and provides for a mandatory retention period of 10 years for DNA profiles from adults who are convicted for imprisonable offences that are not relevant offences. This staged approach is to allow police the time to develop guidelines and train staff, and will also assist the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to cater for the increased workload.
As a result of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s input, Part 2 of the bill has undergone three notable changes. I would like to make some comments on those. The first is that the range of offences for which it is possible to collect DNA from a young person will not be expanded to include all imprisonable offences, as for adults. As it applies to young people, the new power will be available only where the young person is suspected of a relevant offence to ensure that only the most serious young offenders are subject to the new power.
Secondly, the select committee made a number of important amendments throughout Part 2, one of which was to include the relevant offences listed in the schedule of the Act. For example, peeping or peering is a relevant offence in the schedule but it does not carry a sentence of imprisonment. As originally drafted, this meant that DNA samples could not have been collected from persons suspected of committing that offence under Part 2, but could under the first phase.
The third point I wish to make is that a new definition of “District Court” has been inserted to clarify that when judicial functions are transferred to the District Court, they can equally be exercised by the Youth Court in cases where it has jurisdiction.
In respect of Mr Chauvel’s amendment to require a review of the provisions in 5 years’ time, members will be aware that, as expressed in the explanatory note of the bill, the Ministry of Justice will review the entire Act by August 2011. That review will look at the broader operation of the Act and will include how the provisions are operating and whether they should be amended. That review will be completed before the second stage of the bill is implemented.