THE Otago Daily Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1871.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3067, 5 December 1871, Page 2

THE Otago Daily Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1871.

Our readers are already acquainted with the recommendations as to the establishment of a Court of Appeal for these Colonies contained in the Report of a Royal Commission which investigated the subject last year in Victoria. In a despatch to Earl Belmore, the Governor of New South "Wales, dated Bth August last, portions of which have been published, Lord Kimberley conveys a reply by the Lord President of the Privy Council to the allegations made in the Report of the Commissioners. From this it appeal's that the c6mplf»int of egregious delay is not so well-founded as we had been led to suppose. The Royal Commissioners were led by the evidence put before them to say that ' the number of appeals from the vast dominions of the Crown is greater than the Privy Council is able to deal with.' The Registrar of the Privy Council, in a memorandum which is enclosed in Lord Kimberley's despatch, says, in reply, that 'nothing has occurred to justify' this assertion, there being no excess of appeals except from Bengal. He states, moreover, that the Indian appeals are not allowed to interfere with those from other parts of the Empire. The Judicial Committee divides its time equally between the different Colonies from which appeals come. Appeals from Australia and New Zealand appear to have been disposed of, as a rule, in. from three to six months after they have been set down for hearing. The Registrar suggests that the great delays complained of are caused by the attorneys in whose hands these cases are placed. He gives a statement of all the appeals from these Colonies that have been dealt with since 1842 :— < From 1842 to 1871 the total number of appeals to the Queen in Council from the seven Colonies of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, West Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, is 112; 64 have been lodged from New South Wales j 32 from Victoria ; 3 from Tasmania ; 1 from Queensland; 3 from New Zealand; 9 from South Australia ; none from West Australia. Of these, 71 have been heard, and 5 are still pending; 36 have been dismissed for non-prosecutioa or withdrawn. .

These numbers comprise the whole of the appeals which have been brought from the Australian Colonies to England.'

The Registrar's figures show that the appeals from these Colonies are very much fewer than we might have expected them to be. However rapidly they may have been disposed of by the Judicial Committee, the smallness of their number is of itself sufficient to demonstrate that a more readily accessible Court of Appeal is required. Under the best circumstances, an appeal to the Privy Council from these Colonies must be a lengthy and expensive affair. The smallness of the number of cases from New Zealand, although partly owing to the youth of the Colony, is also an illustration of the effect that the existence of a local Court of Appeal has in restraining the desire to carry causes to so distant a tribunal as the Privy Council. The New Zealand Court of Appeal has not final jurisdiction. The right of the subject to appeal to the Throne itself for justice is in no way interfered with. Yet experience has shown that the formation of- this Court iias virtually put an end to such appeals. If a Court composed of really eminent men were constituted to deal with all appeals from Austi'alian and New Zealand Courts, there appears to be no reason why it should not have final j jurisdiction conferred upon it. In such a case, it would be practicable to secure judges who were not occupied with any other work. They would also have that special knowledge of Colonial law, and of the circumstances out of which great litigations arise in these Colonies, which the Lords of the Privy Council have not, and cannot be expected to attain. Almost all the really important cases in which appeals to the Judicial Committee are made are cases which arise out of squatting tenures. These require some considerable acquaintance with the circumstances and condition of things which give rise to them, and probably all but the most litigious of persons would prefer to rest satisfied with an appeal to a Colonial Court rather than prosecute their supposed rights in England, and before judges who cannot have that sj>ecial knowledge to which we refer.

The delay caused by appeal to the Judicial Committee is, however, the strong point in favour of the establishment of a Colonial Court of Appeal, having final jurisdiction. There would, in all probability, be many more appeals, if the Court to which they had to be referred were within convenient distance. With greater promptitude in dealing with suits, a most important reduction in their expense would also be secured. The suggestion which appears to find favour in Australia is that each Colony should appoint and pay one judge, and that the Court should be held alternately at Melbourne and at Sydney, the sittings being twice a year. Any arrangement that may be made will, of course, be less convenient for New Zealand suitors, than for those of the Colonies on the mainland. But we have a compensation for this in our local Court of Appeal. The special circumstances of this Colony, and the wide separation of our judges, rendered the necessity for such a Court more early felt here than it has been in the older Colonies. As we find that its establish ment has virtually put an end to appeals to the Judicial Committee, so it would certainly be found that its existence would greatly mitigate the number of appeals to a Colonial Court. New Zealand may, therefore, without any serious inconvenience, join in any scheme by which the Australian Colonies may ultimately set this question at rest for themselves.