When Parliament picks the verdicts it wants

Press, 14 July 1982, Page 14

When Parliament picks the verdicts it wants

By

A. K. GRANT

"Mr Beetham said that Government intervention when the legal process had run its course was infinitely better than “mid-stream.” “We see a tremendous difference between Parliament interfering with due process while that due process is occuring and acting as a court of last resort at the end of that due process,” he said. “The Press,” 13/7/82.

1982 . Lawyer:'. . . so we’re going back to the Planning Tribunal, and the Government if going to pay all your costs. Orchardist: Great! And if we win. I get. to save my orchard. Lawyer; No. if we win. the Government will take your orchard away from you bv Act of Parliament. ’Orchardist: Well, what's the point of going back to the Planning Tribunal? Lawyer: Bit of practice for me. Not much in it for you. I'm afraid. Orchardist: But what about my orchard? Lawyer: Well, you see, the trouble is that, unlike the dam. your orchard doesn’t employ several hundred people. Orchardist: Well. I like it. Lawyer: Yes. but so does Mr Birch, unfortunately. 1984 Constitutional Law and Practice in ' New Zealand. By Placeman Toady. Q.C.

Government Printer, 1984, 800 pp. 8157.89 (or the equivalent tax rebate). (Reviewed by A. G. Krant) In this important book. Mr Placeman Toady, a QC with the Crown Law Office . . . examines what be terms the “fundamental shift" in our constitutional practice ■ which resulted- from the Clyde dam controversy in 1982. Up to that time, as he points out. Parliament had contented itself with passing legislation which it was up to the courts to enforce. The courts were regarded, through the operation of what Mr Toady terms "a quaint and archaic doctrine." as being independent of the Executive. Once Parliament began, with increasing enthusiasm, to legislate to overturn the results of litigation unfavourable to the Executive then the courts came under, as Mr Toady puts it. “the wise and just regulation of the Executive." since the Executive controlled Parliament and Parliament • controlled the courts.

Since 1982. litigation against the Executive has dwindled to what Mr Toady terms, in a poetic metaphor, “a tiny trickle through the parched deserts of pointless tribunals." and the Government can. as he says in a powerful passage, "regulate for the national weal, and no longer maddened by the pustular sores, pimples, and excrescences which used to burst out upon the body politic as the result of citizens exercising their rights." This book is a must for every loyal New Zealander who wishes to ensure that his thinking coincides with that of the authorities. 1986 Foreman of the jury: We' find the accused not guilty of a breach of the Official Secrets Art. Accused: Whew! Thank God for that. Can I go now? Judge: The accused will be remanded in custody until August 4. Accused: Remanded in custody? But I’ve just been acquitted. haven’t I? - Judge: Certainly you have. But under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. I am required to remand you in custody for three weeks while the Government decides whether or not to convict you by legislation. Take hing away.