Wilkinson Kate: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2542] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). When the Ministry of Justice annual report of 2004-05 states that the workload at the Court of Appeal is at a historically high level—547 hearings in 2004-05 compared with 503 in 2003-04 which includes a substantial increase in the number of criminal appeal cases with 450 in 2004-05 compared with 371 in 2003-04—it is obvious that something needs to be done about the workload and the backlog. 
The report of Sir Thomas Thorp entitled  
Miscarriages of Justice 
 makes it clear that New Zealand lags behind the United Kingdom and other countries in terms of having the procedures in place to deal with miscarriages of justice. In fact Justice Thorp suggests that as many as 20 people may be wrongly incarcerated in New Zealand and it is obvious that something has to be done. 
When we hear of examples whereby Court of Appeal judgments have taken in some cases 1 year and 1 week or in another case over 7 months to be delivered it is obvious that something needs to be done. When we hear that recent 2005 crime statistics show that violent crime is up 6.9 percent grievous assaults are up 13 percent homicides are up 27 percent intimidation and threats are up 11 percent robberies are up 12 percent serious assaults are up 7 percent sex crimes are up 6.4 percent burglaries are up and busts for new drugs like P are up 29 percent on last year and up 179 percent since 2003 then we know that something needs to be done. Dealing with such an increase in crime at that level—the court stage—is certainly the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff but it must be a very very large ambulance if it is to deal with this. This bill is but one piece of the jigsaw. Yes it is bitsy as my colleague has said. Yes it is piecemeal. It is certainly not the whole jigsaw. There are still pieces missing but at least it is a start. 
This bill increases the number of Court of Appeal judges from six to eight plus the president. It means that the Court of Appeal will be better resourced. Yes we do have to be careful that we are not appointing too many judges but so too do we have to be careful that we have enough judges to ensure that access to justice is not denied that the integrity of our legal system is maintained and that confidence in our legal system is maintained. Miscarriages of justice ideally should be eliminated but if that is not possible they should at least be minimised. By further resourcing our Court of Appeal this bill goes some way towards that objective. 
As the Minister has stated this bill also deals with how the judgments of the Court of Appeal are delivered by providing that the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Appeal may be effected in any manner provided by the rules. At present under the Court of Appeal Rules the judgment of the Court of Appeal on appeal is delivered in open court by at least two permanent judges of that court. By comparison the High Court Rules lay down requirements for the giving of judgments whether orally or in writing but the actual delivery of those judgments can be done by the registrar of the court. The New Zealand Law Society submission on that point—and it is encouraging that at least the submission was listened to—suggested that the Court of Appeal may wish to adopt the same procedure so that judgments are given by the judges but delivered through the registrar. The provision as originally drafted included the words “and by any number of Judges” which of course could have led to the unintended interpretation that a judge was required actually to be involved in the process of delivering a judgment and that at least one judge might have to be there to deliver a judgment. It is pleasing that at least the judge now does not have to be present. It is a waste of judicial time if a judge has to be in a courtroom that may be empty merely for the purposes of delivering a judgment. It makes some sense to allow written judgments to be delivered through the registrar in certain circumstances freeing up judges’ valuable time so they can clear the backlog of cases waiting to be heard. What a waste otherwise of valuable judicial time for a judge to have to deliver a judgment personally when a registrar is just as capable of doing so and when the judge as was said would be far better employed clearing the backlog. 
This bill also addresses—not perfectly—the issue of appeals so that a decision of the High Court can be appealed with leave to the Court of Appeal or in exceptional circumstances directly to the Supreme Court. It can no longer be appealed to the Privy Council because as we all know that right to avail ourselves of those wonderful legal brains was taken from us. Unfortunately however when this Government abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council it did not seem to consider even momentarily the consequent pressures that that action might have on the Court of Appeal. The domino effect on the Court of Appeal was either ignored disregarded or not even thought about. The fact that the Court of Appeal judges of New Zealand might move on up to the newly established Supreme Court did not appear to have been given any attention whatsoever nor did the fact that when those top Court of Appeal judges moved up to sit on the Supreme Court a vacancy might occur in the Court of Appeal. Such matters as the fact that those vacancies would need to be filled and so on seemed simply to have been overlooked. So it is little wonder that the Court of Appeal found itself in the position of being overworked under-resourced and unable to deliver prompt judgments or make any dent in clearing the backlog of cases. 
I said before that this bill is part of a jigsaw and a missing piece of the jigsaw relates to District Court jury trials as my colleague Mr Finlayson has already alluded to. Currently appeals from District Court jury trials do not go to the next highest court in the land—namely the High Court—but in fact go directly to the Court of Appeal. There is merit in the suggestion that appeals in jury trials in the District Court could go directly to a full court of the High Court rather than directly to the Court of Appeal thereby alleviating some of the Court of Appeal’s workload. 
Increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal is not the absolute cure for all the ills of the legal system. We must also consider why there is a backlog of unheard cases in the Court of Appeal and why we have so many appeals in the first place. In this regard we must look at the number of appeals resulting from legal aid work. This Government has now increased the number of those eligible for legal aid from 700000 to 1.2 million even though there is anecdotal evidence that the supply of legal aid lawyers is dwindling. For several reasons convincingly debated in the readings of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) lawyers are walking away from legal aid work. That means that the few legal aid lawyers left will be overworked with the very real risk that their work will be rushed and not up to standard and with the consequence that miscarriages of justice may occur or more appeals may be made to higher courts including the Court of Appeal. This does not even start to consider those people on legal aid who may decide to give it a go in the Court of Appeal and that perhaps in a District Court jury trial the trial judge may have made a mistake or overlooked something. Such appeals would go directly to the Court of Appeal not the High Court and further clog up the workload of the Court of Appeal. Yet such appeals could be avoided if the issues of access to justice as raised in the debates on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) had been properly considered and addressed. 
There is definitely a sore out there. This bill is a band-aid but the sore remains. The bill may momentarily numb the pain but it will not remove it completely. Access to justice is vital. This bill does help that objective but it is just part of the jigsaw it is piecemeal and it is bitsy. It is not the panacea of all ills but at least it is an improvement. National supports this bill.