Wilkinson Kate: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2468] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 This bill really reinforces the common theme over the past few weeks of access to justice. Firstly the bill increases the number of Court of Appeal judges. Why do we need to do that? We need to do that for several reasons. When the Supreme Court was created the Court of Appeal judges were taken out of that jurisdiction and dropped into the Supreme Court so the Court of Appeal was then under-resourced. We can also argue that we need the increased number of judges because if we look at the appalling crime statistics we see that more people will be in the court system so we need more judges to actually deal with those matters. The 2005 crime statistics that were recently released show that violent crime is up 6.9 percent grievous assaults are up 13 percent homicide is up 27 percent intimidation and threats are up 11 percent robberies are up 12 percent sex crimes are up 6.4 percent and burglaries are up. It is no wonder that we will need more resources in our judicial system. 
Secondly the bill deals with appeals. There are no longer appeals to the Privy Council because this Government abolished that right. We have to ask ourselves why this Government abolished that right of appeal to the Privy Council. Why did this Government deprive New Zealanders without their mandate or consent of their right to appeal to the Privy Council and of their right to avail themselves of the best legal brains in Britain—rights that did not cost New Zealanders one single cent? The same cannot be said of the Supreme Court. Why was no thought given at that time to the fact that New Zealand is small? It is like a village—a wonderful village but a village none the less—where it is not uncommon for our Supreme Court judges to have to excuse themselves from hearing a case because they may have heard it at a lower level or may know one or other of the appellants or participants. In fact one of our High Court judges has recently been challenged in a forestry case because he had an interest in forestry. New Zealand is small—very small—but despite all this our right to appeal to the Privy Council was unilaterally abolished. 
Part 2 deals with appeals. The decision of the High Court on appeal from an inferior court is final unless a party obtains leave to appeal against that decision to the Court of Appeal or directly to the Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances. One of the very purposes of the ability to appeal a lower court decision is to avoid miscarriages of justice and to ensure that justice is indeed achieved. As the famous quote states it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent one suffer. 
It is especially timely when dealing with appeals to refer to the report of Sir Thomas Thorp entitled  
Miscarriages of Justice 
. From that report it is 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 prisons. That is 20 people too many. We must have confidence in the integrity of our legal system and the appellate process is part and parcel of that integrity. 
Thirdly this bill deals with how the judgments of the Court of Appeal are delivered by providing that the delivery of a judgment of the Court of Appeal may be affected in any manner and by any number of judges provided for by the rules. At present under the Court of Appeal Rules a judgment of the Court of Appeal on appeal must be delivered on behalf of the court in open court by no fewer than two permanent judges of that court. No similar provisions apply to the High Court—the High Court Rules lay down requirements for the giving of judgments orally or in writing but the actual delivery can be done by the registrar. 
The New Zealand Law Society’s submission on this point suggests that the Court of Appeal may wish to adopt the same procedure as the High Court so that judgments are given by the judges but can be delivered through the registrar. We could interpret clause 5 and namely the words “and by any number of Judges” as actually implying that at least one judge must be there to deliver the judgment. At present at least two Court of Appeal judges must be present but the courtroom may be empty.