OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14473, 13 September 1910, Page 7

OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

NEED FOR REFORM.

Thk judicial system of New Zealand has been subjected to a good deal of criticism at various times, but never more so than at the present time, and nowhere so frequently as in Auckland. Everywhere are heard complaints that the work of the Supreme Court is accumulating, and that judges cannot be obtained to cope with it. Several suggestions have been made to meet the diniculty, but so far nothing has actually been done in an official way. In Auckland the general demand seems to be that a resident judge should be appointed. There can be no doubt that the system which takes the Auckland judge to Wellington and elsewhere for about four months of the year, and allows work to pile up here and be held over for months, is weak. Mr. Justice Edwards is nominally the Auckland judge, but in reality he is only here at session time, and has to "squeeze in" the banco and other work as opportunity affords. At the present moment he is in Masterton, whence he goes to New Plymouth, while the Chief Justice is in Auckland taking the work which rightly belongs to Mr. Justice Edwards. Such a system must at least be uneconomical.

The solution of the difficulty which is generally proposed is that there should be two classes of judges—the Justices of Appeal, and the Justices of the Supreme Court. This would, of course, require some enlargement of the present bench of judges, but it is contended that the working of the courts would be greatly facilitated, and would probably in the end be more economical. Further, this system lias the hearty approval of the Chief Justice, who strongly recommended it from' the Bench in Wellington a month or two back. Shortly after his appointment as Attorney-General and Minister for .Justice, the Hon. Dr. Findiay brought out an elaborate proposal to the same effect, but it never came before Parliament in the form of a Bill. This fact indicates that somewhere there is considerable opposition to the new scheme. The present Bench consists of the Chief Justice and six judges, one of whom, however (Mr. Justice Sim), is President of the Court of Arbitration and is but rarely engaged in the Supreme Court proper. Further, there is almost always one judge absent from the Dominion on leave. The Chief Justice returned from Britain at the beginning of this year, and Mr. Justice Denniston immediately left. He is due back next February, and then Mr. Justice Cooper goes. Mr. Justice Williams was also absent for some months this year in Australia, although most of his term of leave was in the ordinary Ion? vacation of the Court. Thus for three years at least there are really only rive judges to do the whole work. No* wonder judges complain of overwork, finding it necessary to take long holidays at the expense of brother judges, and lawyers that they cannot tret judges to hear their cases until months after they are ready. . However well the scheme now in operation has worked in th« past, there can be no doubt that it is nowadays deficient, and that some change is absolutely necessary.