Borrows Chester: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2250] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) and I take note of some of the comments made by other speakers particularly Hone Harawira. It is a shame that he has expressed some dissatisfaction with the way that the Court of Appeal and other courts have treated lay people over time. I recall another comment he made a few speeches ago in relation to his decision never to appear in court without defending himself because of the lack of service he received from those who were appointed to appear for him. 
The problem is that whether we like it or not the court system is there and will remain. People have a right to receive justice in a timely manner—and if they do not see it as justice at least a decision in a timely manner. That is a basic right in a free and democratic society. Many of us have the perception that any matter that goes before the court will be dealt with in a cumbersome and an expensive way and that in many cases it is hardly worth the effort. But sight should not be lost of the fact that a case well presented even by lay people is frequently a breath of fresh air in the courts and tends to get a reasonable hearing in any event. 
It is unfortunate that the cost of appearing before the court and so of taking a matter before the Court of Appeal is beyond many of those who would seek justice and would seek an answer to their claim. Many people start to go through the court system based on a matter of principle but unfortunately the truth is that principles cost money. Waiting for a matter to be heard costs big money too. Waiting to find a point on appeal or to hear a decision that will decide whether a person can proceed with one initiative or another not only costs money but frequently costs jobs. In respect of businesses that are seeking to start initiatives shift them or continue working with them there are people at the bottom of the tree who suffer from the lack of a timely decision as well. The very nature of matters that go before the Court of Appeal tends to be complex and important and the matters tend to affect people’s lives even if for most of the people in this nation those things carry on far above their heads and do not seem to be of any real substance as far as they affect them. 
I found in my dealings with the court system that I was much happier whether I was working as prosecutor or as defence counsel when someone had belted someone someone had pinched something or someone had been found where he or she should not have been—and frequently with his or her pants down—because the arguments were fairly tangible. 
Hon Member 
: You’ve got my attention. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I thought I would. I was asked earlier by a colleague from the Green Party to try to liven it up a little bit and I am doing as good as I can. 
The fact is that most of us think of the court system as operating at a very low level but the proof of the integrity of the system is that we get things right at the top of the tree as well. Although it may be absolutely boring—and to be honest to listen to some of the speeches especially from the professionals as much as I love them dearly is as boring as all hell—it is important to get the integrity of the system right at the top. Our legal system whether or not we like it is one of the few areas in life where justice does trickle down. If we stuff it up at the top and if we stuff it up when we set up for instance the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and the intricacies of the way they will work then we will stuff it up further down the tree as well. 
It is good that people coming from the lowest level of the court system have the opportunity to appeal to the courts above. I can think of one of our colourful countrymen Sir Robert Jones who fortunately has the wealth to be able to take what seems on the face of it to be the smallest of issues to the highest of courts in his attempt to effect justice. He is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and that is a good thing. The trickle-down effect of that is that once the case is won at the highest levels justice does trickle down and the authorities charged with enforcing the law of the land as we dictate it to be in this Chamber then apply it to those in our society least able to afford to make those defences.