New Supreme Court opens in humble style

By AUDREY YOUNG

The ceremonial first sitting of the Supreme Court will take place this morning in most unceremonial surroundings - in the basement floor of the High Court in Wellington with its five judges bearing no wigs or finery.

And the first proper hearing of the court next Wednesday is likely to be no more exalted an occasion.

A man convicted of stupefying, burglary, indecent assault, kidnapping and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection will seek the leave of the court to have his appeal heard.

Pourshad Marco Arvand had his sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal from 17 to 13 years but he wants the conviction overturned.

The basement will remain the temporary home of the court until the dilapidated High Court building in Wellington has been restored.

The Supreme Court replaces the Privy Council in London as New Zealand's final appellate court.

The passage of its enabling law through Parliament last year was marked by bitter disputes between those who argued it would give more people access to an appellate court and those who said there was no reason to dispense with such a legal body.

Today's ceremony will also mark the failure of a citizens initiated referendum launched last year by National, New Zealand First and Act to gather enough signatures for a referendum on the court.

To succeed, it needed about 310,000 signatures by tomorrow; it appears to have fallen short by about 300,000.

One of the petition organisers, Act MP Stephen Franks, said the motivation had gone out of it once the law had been passed in October last year.

He would turn up to the first sitting today because it was a constitutional occasion.

"Dumping what we had was a mistake but it's setting up for business."

Asked if he would be taking a particular interest in any tendency towards judicial activism, Mr Franks referred to a speech by Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen on the subject and said: "I think my concerns about that are now felt even more intensely by the Government than by me."

Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said similar debates on judicial activism were occurring all over the world, and she had not seen Dr Cullen's speech as an attack on the judiciary.

She said the Supreme Court had been a long time coming. It had been first raised in 1904 "so we haven't done it quickly".

"Now everyone actually does have an opportunity to get to their final court of appeal."

Criminal cases rarely reached the Privy Council, and appeals from the Environment Court and Family Court never did. They were largely commercial cases.

The opposition to it was a "bit of a political beat-up, which is normal".

The first vacancy on the five-judge bench will occur next year when Justice Sir Kenneth Keith turns 68, the compulsory retiring age. (He will also seek election next year to the International Court of Justice.)

A panel comprising the Chief Justice, the Solicitor-General and former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves made the five first appointments - the most senior members of the Court of Appeal. But there may be another procedure for the next vacancy.

That would be determined after consultation on a discussion paper on judicial appointments was completed in a few months.

Speeches today will be made by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, Margaret Wilson, the president of the New Zealand Law Society, Chris Darlow, and Robert Dobson, QC, on behalf of the New Zealand Bar Association.

The court has turned down two applications for leave to appeal, for which no hearing was held. Only two judges need be present for leave applications. Substantive hearings require a full bench.

The Chief Justice receives $335,000 and other Supreme Court judges $313,900.

Court of Appeal judges receive $292,000.

Criteria for leave to appeal

* A matter of general or public importance.

* A significant Treaty of Waitangi or tikanga Maori issue.

* A substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless leave is given.

* A matter of general commercial significance.