Interpreting the law

Press, 7 March 1978, Page 16

Interpreting the law

Sir. — The Prime Minister criticised Mr Justice Chilwell’s criticism of politicians as “illogical” even though the judge’s pronouncement sought to affirm a basic constitutional principle that it is for the courts and not politicians to interpret the law. When a Minister says what the law on breath-testing is, rather than what he believes it to be, then he is usurping the role of the courts. The Prime Minister differed from the decision of the then Chief Justice Sir Richard Wild, in the superannuation case, describing it as one which constitutional lawyers will be arguing about for years to come. Yet it is a decision which affirmed a fundamental constitutional principle which was enacted in the seventeenth century. Is that not evidence of a politician telling judges how to interpret the law? Whim Wham’s picture of a Minister “wigged like a judge” may be all too uncomfortably accurate. — Yours, etc., M. R. SCOTT. March 4, 1978. Sir. — In your reply to my letter (March 4) you say you “have not noticed any criticism by the Prime Minister _ of Mr Justice Chilwell.” Your own newspaper (February 27. page 6) quotes Mr Muldoon describing some

of Justice Chilwell’s remarks as “illogical.” Surely only a nitpicker would not consider that criticism. Your memory lapse, however, obscures the more important thesis of my letter. To quote the president of the Auckland Law Society: “It should not be the job of Ministers or members of Parliament to give their view on how laws should be interpreted. The involvement of politicians in the interpretation of the law is a pattern that has to be deplored.” (“The Press,” February 27). The other aspect of the Prime Minister’s response was discussed by Whim Wham, immediately below your comments, in a far more literary fashion than I am able, and requires no further comment. — Yours, etc., GERARD GILMORE. March 5, 1978. [Our editorial article disagreed with the view adopted by the society and we see no reason to change our opinion. The society’s view, undoubtedly well meant, simply disregards the practicalities of government and the application of the law in general. The Prime Minister indeed questioned the logic of the Court’s decision, but did not question the Judge’s role in making the ruling. — Editor]