Smith Murray: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Smith Murray: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21117] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on United Future’s behalf in support of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). It seems a long time ago that I commenced my speech but this is a reasonably straightforward bill and it has been interesting to see the way that the Opposition has tried to make a meal out of a relatively straightforward but important measure. Apart from the deletion of a clause that is no longer applicable the bill really has only three provisions to it: the first increases the number of judges in the Court of Appeal the second provides that the rules in regard to the delivery of judgments that apply in the High Court and the Supreme Court will also apply in the Court of Appeal for the purpose of consistency and the third provides for additional rights of appeal to the Supreme Court from certain judgments. I will deal with each of those matters. 
We have had the need to provide for extra judges in the Court of Appeal for a considerable time. The huge pressure currently on the Court of Appeal is such that the court is literally nearly at breaking point in terms of its workload and its ability to cope. The last time that the number of judges was increased was in 1987. The number of cases before all our courts and the amount of work for the courts have certainly increased dramatically over the period since that time. This bill would increase the number of judges from seven to nine. Although that seems a modest increase in terms of being only two judges it would be sufficient in the view of the judiciary to provide greatly needed relief of pressure. 
Of course it is notable that with the passing of the Supreme Court Act and the hearings in that court more cases are coming on appeal and particularly people are taking themselves to the Court of Appeal in the knowledge that they will have a further step in terms of appealing to the Supreme Court. That I think contributes to some of the increase. So we see that the increase in cases comes from right across the board. A maxim says that justice delayed is justice denied and one of the real concerns in our judicial system is the amount of time that our courts currently take to deal with matters. It is not just the Court of Appeal that is at fault in that regard but it is right through our court system. The delivery of additional judges in the Court of Appeal will at least provide some resolution there but it seems to me that we need to look at far more fundamental reforms if we want to provide a judicial system that operates more efficiently so that people are not in the position of having to wait months and months and even years to have their cases resolved. 
The second thing that this bill does is to allow the flexibility to deliver judgments of the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules that are to be developed. The expectation is that those rules will be consistent with those that currently apply in the High Court and the Supreme Court. It seems to be a waste of judicial time that two judges must currently be present in the Court of Appeal. They must both sit there while one of them delivers a judgment yet often in this day and age counsel are not present when the judge delivers the judgment verbally to an empty court. That seems to be rather an anachronistic expectation when in this day and age judgments are written up and can be transmitted very quickly to the parties so that they are aware of the judicial decision. 
Certainly it is hard to see why counsel need to be present in court to hear an oral judgment when they can get the written document in their hands virtually simultaneously. So I think it is a very good move to allow judges to deliver judgments in accordance with the rules and to have flexibility in that regard as long it continues to be a minimum requirement that judgments be delivered in writing and be readily available to the parties to the media and publicly available immediately after the judgment has been written and delivered. As long as that is the case it seems to me that this provision fits the bill very well and that we lose nothing by it. 
The provision for High Court appeals from district courts and other lower-level courts to be appealed in the Supreme Court is also I think a positive development. One could criticise the fact that that will mean effectively that there are four tiers of hearings—the District Court High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court—and that the situation could arise where there are three different levels of appeal. One could say that that is over the top. With regard to the Supreme Court we do have the protection that one needs permission to go to the Supreme Court—one has to seek leave—and that it is reserved for matters of important principle. The Supreme Court unlike the courts below it has an obligation to look at broader principles that are needed in the development of New Zealand law. It and it alone has that real obligation. Therefore it is quite conceivable that the lower-level courts might have dealt with the facts and with some of the minor points of evidence and legal principle in a case but that even by the time it gets to the Court of Appeal an important point of law has arisen that needs the guidance of the Supreme Court because it is a point that will affect many other cases. The case would therefore go to the Supreme Court so that its judges could rule on that point of law. Any case that goes to a fourth tier and a third appeal—that goes to the Supreme Court—is likely to have a very narrow basis in terms of the questions of law that it raises. I do not see that as an impediment to the system. It will I think be a positive development in our jurisprudence. 
The major criticism I have heard from Opposition parties on this bill is the fact that it is being referred to the Government Administration Committee instead of to the Justice and Electoral Committee on which I sit. Certainly at first glance one would think that this bill which changes matters relating to the operation of our courts would go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. But the realities of the situation are firstly that these are very straightforward measures as I have outlined and secondly that these measures particularly with regard to the increase in the number of Court of Appeal judges need to be dealt with urgently. I am informed that the Government Administration Committee has very little work on but the Justice and Electoral Committee is overburdened. I have noted that we are dealing with nine different matters at the moment: an inquiry into the 2004 local body elections a petition on the Christchurch civic creche the Sex Offenders Registry Bill which we have just got back the New Zealand Sign Language Bill the Coroners Bill the Evidence Bill the New Zealand Day Bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill of my colleague Gordon Copeland and a petition of Larry Baldock and Gordon Copeland supported by 203000 signatures to abolish the Prostitution Reform Act and review that law. 
We have simply reached a position on the Justice and Electoral Committee where we will not even be able to embark on the hearings on those matters prior to the election. We certainly do not have time to deal with a bill such as this which addresses the need to increase the number of Court of Appeal judges urgently. Therefore in this instance I and United Future support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee.