Appeal axing opposed

Press, 7 October 1987, Page 3

Appeal axing opposed

By

CHRISTOPHER MOORE

The Opposition spokesman on justice, Mr Paul East, yesterday expressed “grave misgivings” over proposals to abandon New Zealanders* right of appeal to the Privy Council in London.

“The House of Lords has served New Zealand extremely well over the years. We cannot consider replacing the Privy Council until we have something to put in its place. We must have another Court of Appeal beyond the present court to provide litigants with two opportunities to lodge appeals,” Mr East said. He was commenting on the announcement by the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, that the Government intended to take the first steps to dismantle New Zealand’s 140-year tie with the Privy Council.. "The Privy Council has served us Well. We carinot point to grave injustices caused by the appeal right. There is nothing to suggest that it is out of step with the development of New Zealand,” Mr East said. “We are not ready yet for this move. A country with a population of three

million will have difficulties in providing alternatives for appellants, especially as New Zealand has access to the most skilled legal authorities in the Commonwealth.” Rather than turning its back on the Privy Council New Zealand should consider strengthening its representation on the Privy Council. The Opposition had not formulated firm policy on the question, Mr East said. His views were his personal opinion. A senior lecturer in law at the University of Canterbury, Mr Philip Joseph, has described the proposal to sever links with the Privy Council aS a natural progression in the development of an independent New Zealand legal system. The right of appeal to the Privy Council was originally established to provide a legal watchdog over a young colonial legal system, Mr Joseph

said yesterday. "But we are no longer a Crown colony. The New Zealand Judiciary is independent, highly capable and has always administered the law properly. In a Unitarian State, the Priyy Council has remained* something of a paradox. In a Federal State such as Australia, it could solve disputes between the federal states and the central Government.”

The British Law Lords lived and worked in a “wholly different” social climate. Members of the Judicial Committee had rarely, if ever, visited New Zealand. - h f?

Ariappeal court judge should have ah intimate knowledge of a country, its society and its problems, Mr Joseph suggested.

“There have been suggestions that we should be looking at a regional version of the Privy Council; a Pacific Court of

Appeal which would have jurisdiction in New Zealand, Australia and the Pacific Basin. This has been a perennial topic of discussions but one which does not seem to have received_ active suonort. A logical proposal would be the expansion of the existing Court of Appeal to consider criminal and civil appeals. The Court could divide into two benches to hear many cases but sit together to hear matters of public importance. Mr Joseph said that the recent appeal by the, Maori Council typified a case which, coqld be heard by ah enlarged Appeal Court.!

A second-tier appeal system in New Zealand could result in protracted bearings rather than providing relatively quick judgments.

“Between 1840 and 1932, only 104 appeals were taken to the Privy Council from New Zea-

land. During the last five years, 1.9 cases a year were heard by the council. It must also be remembered that the council has said that it was reluctant to hear criminal appeals." Its responsibility lay in civil actions. Mr Joseph’s view was earlier echoed by a large number of delegates to the 1987 Law Conference in Christchurch, including the President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Sir Robin Cooke, and a visiting Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in the House of Lords, Lord Griffiths. Sir Robin had earlier told a seminar op New Zealand’s legal identity that the natioh , had reached the point of no return.

“We must accept responsibility for our own national legal destiny and recognise that the Privy Council appeal has outlived its time,” he said.