Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2241] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The National Opposition will support this legislation. It makes a number of changes that are necessary—in one case which I will come to in Part 2 embarrassingly so. But let us look first at Part 1 which deals with three matters. The first is to increase the number of permanent judges of the Court of Appeal from six to eight. National says that is necessary because when the Labour Government stopped appeals to the Privy Council and created the new Supreme Court in its zeal and desire to say farewell to their lordships in London it forgot about the intermediate appellate court which forms such a fundamental part of our justice system. 
When Labour created the Supreme Court it moved four permanent judges of the Court of Appeal into the Supreme Court which I personally believe was the right thing to do when creating a new top court but it left the existing Court of Appeal really exposed because a number of new appointments needed to be made to the Court of Appeal. Those judges came from the High Court bench and they were placed under enormous pressure in having to come to grips with being appellate court judges. So this is important. The judges of the Court of Appeal do a good job but they have been under far too much pressure. Increasing the number of permanent judges to eight will ensure that the court can sit as two divisions and there will be a number of judges who do not have to sit every day because they can then get on with writing their judgments. 
At the second reading stage of this bill I suggested that perhaps the time was coming when in order to provide greater assistance to the Court of Appeal a leave provision should be introduced to regulate appeals to the Court of Appeal from the High Court and secondly that something ought to be done about the number of jury trials that are appealed from the District Court and go straight to the Court of Appeal. They are perhaps matters that can be debated some other day but I suggest that simply increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal is a good step that goes some of the way. There are further changes that need to be made. 
The second aspect of Part 1 is reflected in clause 5 which provides for the way in which judgments of the Court of Appeal may be delivered. In the old days a person used to receive a telephone call from the registrar to say the judgment in a particular case would be coming out the next morning. That person would have to tramp down to the Court of Appeal and at 10 o’clock Their Honours would appear and give a short précis of the judgment. This provision provides that the Rules Committee could make rules so that one does not need to go down to the Court of Appeal on the morning of the judgment; the judgment can simply be released. 
The rationale of the old practice was that if a person wished to seek leave to appeal to the Privy Council that person could simply leap to their feet and seek it orally—although that was sometimes regarded as very rude to the judges who had just delivered the judgment. More often than not one would file a written motion on appeal. But that kind of provision is no longer necessary especially given the fact that under the new Supreme Court procedures leave to go to the Supreme Court must be obtained not from the Court of Appeal but from the Supreme Court itself. So the existing procedure being redundant this provision is necessary. 
The only other thing I want to say about Part 1 is to address new clause 5A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 which proposes the insertion of new section 26IB. That provision gives to the judge or associate judge the power to preside at the hearing of specified matters by video link which simply reflects the fact that technology has made that facility available. In certain preliminary or interlocutory matters it makes a lot of sense that if a case is for example under the supervision of a judge in Auckland there should not be a need for a person to fly to Auckland to deal with the case on behalf of the client. It should be possible to deal with preparatory or interlocutory matters by way of video link. The new clause provides that the Rules Committee should be able to make rules under section 55 of the Judicature Act for the purposes of the section. I suggest that is a sensible move and it is one that I certainly commend. 
The only closing point I would make is that the Judicature Act—and this is something the Minister may care to think about—is a bit of a dog’s breakfast now and will be made more so as a result of these amendments. In an earlier debate I said that the District Courts Act was a dog’s breakfast as well. Perhaps the time is coming when there should be a consolidated “Courts Bill” that brings together all the various legislation dealing with the establishment and practice of courts in this country. They could be put into one “Courts Bill”. To do so by 2008 would be very appropriate given that it will be a century since the Judicature Act was passed. But that is further down the track. These amendments are practical and sensible and National will support Part 1.