BRITISH JUSTICE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 29 November 1933, Page 7

BRITISH JUSTICE

.“NOTHING LIKE IT” EFFICIENCY WITH DIGNITY BARRISTER’S ADDRESS “There is nothing like the British judicial system in the world,” said Mill. P. Richmond, of Auckland, who recently appeared in legal proceedings before the Privy Council. He addressed the members of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce (reports the “Star”). “One has to go to America to appreciate fully the extraordinary efficiency, the speed without haste, of tlie findings, the dignity and the utter incorruptibility of the Britisli Courts,” said Mr Richmond. “You ancl others in the Empire take tlie fact as a matter, of course, as you do the rising, of tlie sun, but others do not. The American Bar is frankly hopeless of ever being able to attain to the position held by the, British system of justice, tlie apex of which is that little office in Downing Street which has jurisdicdiction over one quarter of the

world.” SCOPE OF COUNCIL’S ACTIVITY An idea of the scope of the Court’s activities and the great demands made upon it could ho judged by the fact that on one day tho members might lie called upon to adjudicate upon the possession of an Indian temple —this involving knowledge of, Indian customs and religions; the next might be from Quebec—requiring consideration of French-Canadian customs and laws; tlie next from Mauritius, where the Code Napoleon was observed. Again tlie Privy Council might have to deal with a case involving the marriage customs of the Chinese in Malaya, of the Maoris in our own country, of with one from Ceylon where Dutch law still remained.

In these days of Imperial autonomy it was well to recall that the High Court was the only institution to which the whole of the Empire still looks for guidance, said Mr Richmond. “The silken bond of jurisprudence holds us together to-day.” Describing personal experiences of tho Privy Council, Mr Richmond said that the Court held its sittings in an unpretentious building in Downing Street. There was less display than even in a Magistrate’s Court in Auckland, for he did not notice even a solitary policeman on guard. The members of the Court were not arrayed in wig and gown, but comfortably attired in dress suitable for the hot spell then being experienced. Counsel did wear wig and gown, but there was no formality and no crying out of a, case by an orderly. Submissions were listened to with exemplary patience. Taken altogether, the atmosphere was all that could ,be wished* for as a place that litigants were encouraged to utilise.

When tho Court had heard counsel it did not deliver judgment, but according to constitutional procedure it “humbly advised His Majesty” to dismiss or grant the appeal. In tlie Privy Court there was only ono finding; no dissenting judge. This was different from the House of Lords Judicial. Committee, which might give many diverse reasons from different minorities.

I lie speaker concluded bis remarks by explaining tlip necessity of such a tnbuiuil for ensuring uniformity in the administration of common law throughout the Empire.