Mixed feelings over Privy Council dumping

11.45am

High profile criminal lawyer John Rowan, QC, has mixed feelings over New Zealand's switch from the British-based Privy Council to a New Zealand supreme court.

Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday said ties with the Privy Council would be cut, and the Government intended passing a bill setting up a Supreme Court next year.

The bill was introduced to Parliament yesterday.

Mr Rowan said today it was part of New Zealand's maturing as a nation that it should have its final appellate court here.

"But I do share the view of several people that in a relatively small country, which we are, it is a very big stretch on our judicial resources."

He advocated using one or two jurists from Britain, Australia or Canada on the supreme court panel "so that we are in touch, particularly with international developments".

"And we have a jurist with a much wider view than our own to assist the court in some of its more important decisions.

However, another prominent lawyer, Stuart Grieve, QC, opposed losing the Privy court option.

"Why do you throw something that is of proven quality -- namely the Privy Council -- why do you abandon it when you don't have to?"

Mr Grieve, former president of the Bar Association, said while it was likely the court would go at some point -- possibly at Britain's instigation as it was revamping its appellate court system now -- New Zealand should keep it as long as possible.

"Comparatively speaking we have a small population so our ability to produce a sufficient pool of judicial talent is limited -- we do produce them and I'm not being critical of our judges -- but we cannot on a population basis produce the depth of talent that countries with bigger populations are able to produce."

He also said problems were created by the smallness of the legal community here.

"Everybody knows everybody and sometimes that personal knowledge of either the lawyers involved or the personalities involved in the cases means that the decisions are being driven, even subconsciously, by personal impressions and views.

"The appearance of justice and the total objectivity and independence is difficult to achieve."


Highly respected jurist Lord Cooke of Thorndon, who has sat on the Privy Council, told National Radio today the council was valuable for New Zealand but the time had come for New Zealand to have its own highest court.

"No one suggests that the United Kingdom Parliament should make laws for New Zealand, no one suggests the United Kingdom Government should govern New Zealand."

He said there were some details in the proposal he wanted to see changed -- including adding an overseas member.

This person could be chosen from a panel of available people, rather than trying to appoint one person permanently.

Law Society president Christine Grice said while lawyers had passionate and varying views over the issue, the society was focused on making sure standards were maintained.

"The Law Society's main concern is that if (the Privy Council) goes there is a proper structure put in place before it goes, and importantly, that it is properly funded.

She said the bill included criteria to ensure high-calibre judges were appointed and followed other advisory committee recommendations.

Bar Association president Robert Dobson, QC, said the majority of members surveyed in two polls over the past 12 months were opposed to scrapping the Privy Council.

"Within that opposition there is a range of people who are just uneasy about some aspects of the proposed alternative court, through to a group of practitioners who are opposed to abolition simply on quality grounds...

"There are, of course, a number of people who are keen to constructively work on the replacement model and go forwards," Mr Dobson said.

The association intended to prepare a position paper to identify the issues and encourage debate.

- NZPA