JUDICATURE AMENDMENT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18627, 24 July 1930, Page 9

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT.

JURORS IN CIVIL CASES. At present, under the Judicature Act, the rules of the New Zealand Supreme Court contained in the Code of Civil Procedure may be altered, revoked, or added to by the Governor-General in Council, with the concurrence of any two or more of the Judges; while a similar power in respect of the Rules of the Court of Appeal may be exercised by any three or more of the Judges, of whom the Chief Justice must be one, subject to the approval of the Governor-General in Council. An amending Bill to the Judicature Act has now been presented to Parliament in which it is proposed to transfer the functions of the Judges in relations to the amendment of the Rules of Procedure to a Rules Committee, the membership of which, in addition to the Judges, will include the AttorneyGeneral and representatives of the legal profession. This committee would be similar to the Rules Committee constituted in England under Section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. A few weeks ago the Crown Solicitor in Timaru (Mr W. D. Campbell) delivered an address on the jury system, in the course of which he pointed out that civil litigants had been deprived of the right to have civil actions heard bj T a judge and a jury. Mr Campbell affirmed the principle of extending that right to civil litigants just as is done to offenders before the criminal court; and a “Herald” representative yesterday secured from Mr Campbell his views on the new measure.

“First of all,” said Mr Campbell, “the Bill should definitely confer on the proposed Rules Committee, power to make rules, prescribing in what cases civil trials in the Supreme Court are to be with a jury and what cases are to be tried without a jury. This provision is contained in the Supreme Court of Judicature Consolidation Act, 1925, in England; and without It there would still be a doubt as to whether the Rules could interfere with the right of the litigant to a jury. Secondly, I think new rules should have the concurrence of the Attorney-General and of one of the barristers or solicitors on the committee; as well as of one of the Judges, otherwise the power of making rules would practically be put into the hands of the Judges. Thirdly, I think one of the barristers or solicitors on the committee should represent one of the smaller judicial districts, as in some respects special provisions are necessary for towns like Napier, Wanganui, New r Plymouth, Timaru and Invercargill, where there is no resident Judge; and practitioners in the large centres where a Judge resides do not always appreciate the difficulties and requirements of the profession in the secondary towns. I think these three matters would improve a very excellent Biff.*’