Law Society attacks supreme court plan

By HELEN TUNNAH

A proposed supreme court will weaken the standard of decision-making in legal appeals and in the New Zealand courts, the Auckland District Law Society has warned.

It said the new court would include the best judges from the Court of Appeal, reducing the pool of judges available to sit on that court and, in turn, the High Court.

The society also argued that the top members of the New Zealand judiciary were not likely to match the experience and depth of skills offered at the British-based Privy Council.

The justice and electoral select committee, sitting in Auckland, yesterday heard strong opposition to the Government's plans to abolish appeal rights to the Privy Council and replace them with a New Zealand-based final appeal court, a new Supreme Court.

Attorney-General Margaret Wilson has proposed the change, arguing that the Privy Council is too remote from New Zealand, costly and inaccessible.

The court would be composed of five New Zealand judges, appointed by the Attorney-General.

However, critics say that could lead to political interference in judicial appointments, while the Supreme Court would achieve little in widening access to appeals.

Labour's political rivals National, New Zealand First and Act have all backed a referendum before such a major constitutional change is introduced, and yesterday the Auckland law society agreed.

In a written submission to the committee, it said such significant changes to New Zealand society should not be adopted without a referendum, or the approval of 75 percent of all MPs.

Lawyer Max Rawnsley, a member of the society's courts committee, said the bill proposed a fundamental change in the relationship between the executive and the judiciary because of plans for the Supreme Court judges to be appointed by the Attorney-General.

He said that at the moment the New Zealand executive did not appoint judges to the final avenue of appeal, the Privy Council, and that independence should be retained.

The courts committee described as an "astonishing power" proposals for the Attorney-General to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.

It also said the plans would "encourage unprincipled and unchecked judicial activism", which would lead to uncertainty in the law.

New Zealand's small population meant it would not be possible to produce enough judges of sufficient stature and ability to staff a second appeal court locally.

There was also a risk that political factors might influence decisions, even subconsciously.

"In short, the abolition of the Privy Council will weaken the rule of law and progressively enfeeble the quality of the administration of justice in New Zealand.

"This will undermine confidence in our legal system, both domestically and internationally," the society said.

Lawyer Colin Amery, making a separate submission, said the planned legislation was clearly "ideologically driven by a manic political correctness on the part of the Attorney-General" to rid New Zealand of its ties to Britain.

Mr Amery also questioned whether New Zealand had a sufficient pool of quality judges to staff an Appeal Court and a new Supreme Court.