Five Million Voices

Should the law be changed to allow greater use of remote audio and audiovisual participation in court proceedings, including letting victims watch criminal trials and sentencing remotely?

This omnibus bill amends the Courts (Remote Participation) Act to expand the use of remote and audio participation in court proceedings. It makes permanent a temporary pandemic-era change clarifying that remote participation is consistent with open justice.

⚡ Taken under urgency

Parliament advanced this bill under urgency (first reading) — moving it through faster than usual, with less time than normal for public submissions.

MPs’ arguments for and against the bill

Why support it
  • Supporters argued that enabling more remote participation would help reduce the backlog and delays in the busy District, criminal, and Family Court jurisdictions.
  • Supporters said allowing victims and their support people to observe trials and sentencing remotely provides a safer option and can avoid re-traumatisation and intimidation, while still permitting in-person attendance.
  • Supporters noted that audiovisual links for defendants in custody can reduce the possibility of violent incidents in court or during transit.
Why oppose it
  • Some members cautioned that for a defendant, virtual participation can mean missing courtroom dynamics that aid understanding, making fair-trial and open-justice rights difficult to translate to the virtual setting.
  • Some warned that labelling matters as merely 'procedural' can be misleading, since cases can turn on procedural points and a defendant's in-person presence to instruct counsel may be important.
  • Drawing on experience with remote mediation, some noted it can be harder to read people's signals remotely, suggesting limits on where the technology is appropriate.

These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.

Full bill summary & link to official bill page

This omnibus bill amends the Courts (Remote Participation) Act to widen the use of remote and audio participation in court proceedings. It lets victims and their support people watch a criminal trial and sentencing by audiovisual or audio link rather than attending in person, and permits audio links (such as teleconferences) for suitable proceedings — while keeping a higher threshold before audiovisual links are used where a defendant's guilt or innocence is being decided. Certain sensitive matters, such as proceedings under mental health law, are exempted. It affects victims, witnesses, defendants (especially those held in custody), and courts managing case backlogs.

The bill also makes permanent a temporary pandemic-era provision confirming that remote participation is consistent with open justice. Supporters say it spares victims the trauma of facing offenders in person, improves access, and helps clear delays. Opponents worry that remote or audio appearances can weaken fair-trial safeguards — making it harder to judge a witness's demeanour or ensure a defendant fully participates — and that reliance on technology may disadvantage people with poor connectivity.

See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.

Oppose (No) Support (Yes)

Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill · Third Reading, 29 Aug 2024
Agreed on the voices — no counted division.