Lawyers fume over new directive on suit jackets at Christchurch Law Courts

RNZ News

7 hours ago

Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
A directive requiring people entering a court building to remove their suit jackets and coats is an "unlawful, excessively intrusive and an egregious abuse of power", the Canterbury Criminal Bar Association says.
The association was told the direction was introduced due to the risk of 3D-printed weapons being brought into the Christchurch Law Courts.
Canterbury Criminal Bar Association president Nicola Hansen wrote to the regional security manager on Tuesday about members being asked to remove their coats and suit jackets when going through court security on Monday.
"This came without notice and no official explanation has been provided. We have been informally advised that this measure was introduced due to a perceived risk of 3D-printed weapons being brought into the court building."
Hansen said the association did not accept its members posed any risk of bringing 3D-printed weapons into the building.
"There is entirely no evidential foundation to support any genuine risk of this occurring. Moreover, our members are all officers of the court and are required to meet stringent character requirements in order to obtain an annual practising certificate from the New Zealand Law Society."
She said the Court Security Act limited the powers of security officers in relation to searching the clothing worn by a person who wished to enter the court.
"It must only be external, and only to the extent necessary to detect items carried on the person. The search must be carried out by a court security officer who is of the same sex as the person being searched. Significantly, this external examination is only allowed in circumstances where the officer has reasonable grounds for asking for such a search.
"A blanket requirement of searching every person who wishes to enter the court would not meet that requirement."
The association wanted court security in Christchurch to "immediately cease" the directive.
"In our view this practice is unlawful, excessively intrusive and an egregious abuse of the perceived power of court security."
Speaking to RNZ, Hansen said she had not received a response to her letter.
"It is important to emphasise that we take no issue with the court security officers that work in the Law Courts each day and who have had no choice but to follow this direction from management.
"They appear to have had no warning of the change either and have expressed acute embarrassment at having to enforce the requirement. We have a brilliant team of court security officers in Christchurch, and we are grateful for the care, kindness and respect they demonstrate in their work each day."
On Thursday lawyers were allowed to leave their suit jackets on, she said.
"However, court security is still requiring that other outer layers of clothing be removed, we believe without lawful authority for doing so."
Hansen said that "compounding the issue" was that a group of lawyers who work at the Public Defence Service were "inexplicably" able to enter the building without passing through security.
"Similarly, court staff and other contractors are able to come and go without passing through any security process.
"To impose overly intrusive security requirements on all other lawyers, who are officers of the court, and required to meet stringent character requirements in order to hold a practising certificate, is very difficult to justify in this context. There is entirely no evidential foundation to suggest that lawyers pose any genuine risk to the security of the court."
Ministry of Justice chief operating officer Carl Crafar said in a statement to RNZ that court security officers had always had the ability to request a person entering the court to remove a coat or jacket for screening purposes, which occurs in courts across the country.
"We have reminded security officers that this is one of many options available to them to eliminate or minimise risks to health and safety in court buildings."
Crafar said the Courts Security Act said court security officers could not exercise their powers, including the power to search, in relation to various kinds of judicial officers (judges, community magistrates etc, but not lawyers).
The chief executive of the ministry can also exempt any other person or class of person. There was a longstanding exemption for Ministry of Justice employees, including Public Defence Service staff. Lawyers in private practice were not exempt.
"The choice about who is exempt is about weighing efficiency and risk. Ministry employees are exempt because they pose a relatively low risk. They can be expected to know what they can and cannot take into a court, have been vetted during the employment process, and are subject to the ministry code of conduct. Any concerning behaviour by an individual can be dealt with efficiently as an employment matter."