Two practitioner committees raise serious concerns over victim remains bill

Two specialist committees of The Law Association have filed a joint submission raising significant concerns about the Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill, warning the proposed law risks keeping innocent people imprisoned indefinitely while offering little evidence it will help families find their loved ones. 

The submission brings together the views of the Parole and Prisoners’ Rights Law Committee and the Criminal Law Committee. Both committees have raised serious concerns about the Bill, and in particular a proposed new provision that would require the Parole Board to refuse release unless satisfied a prisoner has cooperated sufficiently in identifying the location of a victim’s remains. 

The Parole and Prisoners’ Rights Law Committee acknowledges the profound and lasting suffering of families unable to recover and lay a loved one to rest. It nonetheless submits that the legitimate objective of helping those families does not, of itself, justify departing from fundamental principles governing sentencing and parole, especially given the absence of evidence the measure would achieve its aims. 

The wrongful conviction risk receives particular attention. Citing cases including those of Alan Hall, Peter Ellis and Teina Pora, the submission warns that a wrongly convicted person who maintains their innocence could face compounding injustice, unable to satisfy the Parole Board about the location of remains they genuinely know nothing about. 

The Attorney-General has already concluded the Bill appears inconsistent with section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects against arbitrary detention. The submission notes the proposed provision could result in continued imprisonment for someone who poses no risk to the community and who may have no further information to give. 

The Criminal Law Committee raises further concerns about the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination, submitting the Bill fails to distinguish between a deliberate refusal to cooperate and a genuine inability to do so. 

Both committees point to overseas experience as reason for caution. An analysis of Queensland’s equivalent regime found no notable example of it resulting in the recovery of remains. The submission also notes the contrast with the United Kingdom’s approach, which treats non-disclosure as one factor in parole decisions rather than an automatic bar to release.