Renewed Plea For Right To Court Appeal

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32219, 11 February 1970, Page 14

Renewed Plea For Right To Court Appeal

“Toe Press” Special Service

WELLINGTON, February 10.

The Public and Administrative Law Reform Committee, saying that town and country planning decisions affect the environment of large sections of the community, has again called for these decisions to be subject to a final appeal to the administrative division of the Supreme Court.

At present all appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act are heard only by two appeal boards or by a special board and there is no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. In January, 1968, in its first report to the Government the committee called for appeals on planning matters to be heard by the Supreme Court. In its third report, released by the Minister of Justice (Mr Riddiford), the committee presented reasons why the appeals should be heard finally by the administrative division of the Court. Membership The committee is the Secretary of Justice, Mr J. L. Robson (chairman); Mr A. C. Brassington, barrister and solicitor, of Christchurch; Mr I R. B. Cooke, Q.C.; the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr E. L. Greensmith; Dr R. G. McElroy, barrister and! solicitor, of Auckland; thei dean of the faculty of law at Auckland University, Professor J. F. Northey; Mr G. S. Orr, senior Crown counsel; and Mr D. A. S. Ward, counsel to the Law Drafting j Office.

The committee noted that a special board had been iestablished to supplement the work of the two appeal boards' but said that there was an ever-increasing volume of adjudication in the field. “The planning issues with which the two boards deal arise between local authorities and objecting land owners: or between land owers seeking some planning dispensation or permission and other

land owners or citizens opposed to the application. . “Or even, though more rarely, between two local i authorities, or a local planning authority and the Government “Decisions of the boards affect the environment and circumstances in which large sections of the community live, work or seek recreation. “Major Jurisdiction” “They are decisions of enduring influence, if anything more significant for the future than for the present. Indisputably this has become one of the major jurisdictions in New Zealand.” The committee recalled that in its first report it had concluded that the decisions of appeal boards should not be final in all cases, especially as the hearing at local body level was so rudi- ! mentary that often the appeal [board was in fact giving the matter its first judicial consideration. I The committee had recomi mended that an appeal should ' lie, with leave, to the admini- ; strative division of the [ Supreme Court. “As to the desirability of ' some right of appeal, we do ; not think there can be any , real argument. Ministry View i “The Ministry of Works i has recorded the view that it ■ is not opposed to a right of appeal in cases involving i questions of law or principles 1 of town and country planning, although it does not i favour going any further I than that.”

Noting that it was inevitable that differences of opinion and approach would develop between boards of concurrent jurisdiction, the

committee said that with three boards hearing appeals the tendency was unlikely to diminish. “As far as possible any system of administration of justice should try to avoid the creation of several tribunals of equal status, subject to no ultimate authority capable of resolving inconsistencies.” The committee suggested a full court of at least three judges should hear important cases, and the judges of the division should specialise as far as was reasonable. The committee also observed that most appeal boards were presided over by former or current magistrates. It said it was no disrespect to say that decisions of magistrates on cases much less important than the average planning case were open to appeal to the Supreme Court. The desirability of; some similar right of appear, was certainty no less apparent in the planning field. The boards had to work, under a degree of pressure to dispose of their formidable, programmes and such a situation was not conducive to ideal justice. Most town planning questions were settled at the local authority level and only about 10 or 15 per cent were referred to the appeal boards. 1 In the view of the committee • a smaller percentage again would be likely to be carried ! through to the court. 1 Turning to the new urban ■ renewal legislation, the com- ; mittee noted that rights of ’ objection and appeal under the town planning legislation. ; were incorporated in the ’ Urban Renewal and Housing ■ Improvement Act and that ’ appeal rights to the admin- ' istrative division should also apply to that field. Commenting on the report; Mr Riddiford congratulated the committee.

He said it was in the field of administrative law that the private individual was perhaps most vulnerable to the power of the State and he had no doubt that the committee’s vigilance and its recommendations would ensure fair procedures and the adequate protection of citizens. Although he could not commit the Government, Mr Riddiford added that he felt there might be an opportunity of implementing at least some of the recommendations during the coming session of Parliament.