Graeme Edgeler’s thoughtful piece on the prosecution discretion is well worth a read.

Graeme says:

I can see a role for grand juries in New Zealand. I think specifically about the recent death of Halatau Naitoko.

In the ordinary course of events following a shooting death, a ranking police officer will look at all the photos and video from the scene, read all the statements, watch or listen to all the interviews, take legal advice (internal and crown solicitor), and then decide the appropriate charge, taking account of the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.

I can see substantial advantage to removing that final call from the police in cases like this. Place all that evidence before a grand jury, and allow them to accept, reject, or amend the prosecution’s proposed course of action. It is how we used to do it; it is how much of the United States still does.

But his post covers much more including the risks in New Zealand from:

•  last year’s weakening of our double jeopardy rule;
• our lack of a  mechanism for independent public blessing in investigation of official wrong-doing; and
• the changes to our law governing Coroners.

I was particularly interested that last issue. Nobody picked up on my Parliamentary warnings that the new law, by turning Coroners into officials who may be centrally removed as easily as they are appointed, removed the age-old assurance of obvioulsy independent investigation of official responsibility in deaths.

Graeme does not mention another area where grand jury independence could be helpful, in relation to electoral fraud, where our Police are no longer trusted to be immune to political influence.