Radical court change sought by barrister

Press, 26 May 1977, Page 6

Radical court change sought by barrister

A proposal that existing courts and tribunals become one single court of justice — having several divisions — was put to the Royal Commission on the courts in Christchurch yesterday. A Christchurch barrister, Mr A. A. P. Willy, said that much of the criticism levelled at both the Supreme Court and the Magistrate’s Court stemmed from delay and complexity, and the inevitable third factor — unnecessary expense.

His proposal might be a [ solution, he said. Mr Willy said his scheme would enable pooling of judicial talent, and' the use of this in the various divisions of the court in accordance with judges’ temperaments, abilities and experience; and the pooling of administrative staff, buildings and libraries, simplification of procedure. It would remove any suggestion that one court existed for the rich, and another for the poor. It would, also remove the present anomaly that attached a minimum of pomp and formality to one court, and a good deal of both to the other he said.

The greatest impediment would be the unlikelihood that judges would accept magistrates as equals; it

would be a little like trying to mix oil and water, he said. He envisaged both equal in status, title, and salary. Supreme Court judges were of the highest calibre, said Mr Willy, and they resolved many difficult disputes, but equally they spent an appreciable amount of their time on mundane work that in many cases could be dealt with by less highly qualified persons. Magistrates also often dealt with difficult and complex prob- | iems.

Mr Willy said that “the head of the combined judiciary” might well be given powers to allocate judges to the respective divisions. A judge as' head could best assay the talents [of his colleagues. He set out divisions of the court under hypothetical headings: — appeals, family, commercial, administrative, criminal, equity, and revenue, with the administrative tribunals merged into them. Tribunals were proliferating, and no longer gave' the economies for which they had been set up — simple and inexpensive procedure, specialisation, and speedy resolution. Amalgamation now was the best solution, said Mr Willy. In answer to Mr J. H.

Wallace, Q.C., Mr Willy said that his first step would be to bring the tribunals under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court. He submitted that the rules committee should change the rules towards more rigid observance of time-limits for proceedings. If the time for filing an affidavit was 10 days, then failure to comply should result in the lapse of the defaulting party’s proceedings. Mr Willy also submitted that the present system of recording evidence — by typing in the Supreme Court [and shorthand in the Magistrate’s Court — should be replaced by recording equipment.

The Supreme Court typewriter (an antiquated model in Christchurch) gave witnesses time to think of an answer they would not otherwise have given, Mr Willy said. There was greater scope for the use of non-judicial talent in court processes, said Mr Willy. Sentencing in traffic offences, some judgment summons orders, adjournments, fixtures and “the list,” — undefended divorces, uncontested windingups, and bankruptcy matters — might be attended to by people other than magistrates he said.