PLANS FOR COURT OF APPEAL

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28260, 24 April 1957, Page 14

PLANS FOR COURT OF APPEAL

Permanent Body Of Three Judges

The Attorney-General (Mr J. R. Marshall) announced yesterday that the Government would introduce legislation to establish a permanent Court of Appeal at the next session of Parliament. Mr Marshall told the Dominion legal conference in Christchurch that it was proposed to have a Court of three Judges to sit in Wellington on both civil and criminal matters.

The Chief Justice would be a member ex officio, and the Judges of the Court of Appeal would be appointed from among the Judges of the Supreme Court, or from the Bar, and they would have the same status, privileges and salaries as the Judges of the Supreme Court, said Mr Marshall.

The president of the New Zealand Law Society (Mr T. P. Cleary) said that the proposal had the complete support of' the society and law practitioners generally. "I am sure that it would have the general and like support of the informed public. . . . This is the most important announcement, I think, in our series of legal conferences,” said Mr Cleary.

“This announcement can hardly be described as the best kept secret of the year. It has been the subject of prophecy in the profession and in the press for some time,” Mr Marshall said. Increased Bench

“The size of the Supreme Court has increased from six Judges in 1907 to 13 today. The two divisions of the Court of Appeal now consist of six Judges each. The problems which first gave rise to the proposal for a separate Court of Appeal have increased with the complexity of the law and the growth of the work to be done,”- said Mr Marshall “The main problem was succinctly stated by the Chief Justice in a memorandum to me when he said: ‘The greatest handicap to the work of the Court of Appeal as at present constituted is the fact that the members of each division are compelled to disperse on various circuit duties before they have had an opportunity of conferring upon judgments which have been reserved. You will fully appreciate how difficult and how unsatisfactory it is to prepare such judgments when conference is impossible and when members of the Court are all immersed in a long list of new criminal trials and civil jury actions.’ Delay of Work “This difficulty, with its consequences of delay and dislocation of the work of the Courts, has in recent years greatly reinforced the arguments long advanced for a separate Court of Appeal,” said Mr Marshall. “The proposed Court wall consist of three permanent members, and in addition the Chief Justice will be a member ex officio. The Court will have both civil and criminal jurisdiction. “The Judges of the Court of Appeal will enjoy the same status, privileges and salaries as the Judges of the Supreme Court. “The Judges of the Court of Appeal may be appointed either from among the Judges of the Supreme Court, which will be the rule, or from the Bar, which will be the exception.

“While the Court of Appeal will normally sit as a Court of three permanent members, provision will be made for Judges of the Supreme Court to sit with Judges of the Court of Appeal in the absence of any of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, 01 in addition to the Judges of the Court of Appeal on important cases. The Court will sit in Wellington, but may sit in other centres as it thinks fit. Size of Court “It may be said that a Court of three is not big enough. It may be argued that the Court of Appeal should consist of five Judges. This would certainly give greater strength to the Court of Appeal as a separate Court, and at some future time it may come, but in the meantime it has been rejected in favour of a Court of three.- A Court of Appeal of this size can, I think, deal satisfactorily with the majority of cases. “It can be augmented where

the Chief Justice, in consultation with the president of the Court of Appeal, considers that more than three Judges should sit to hear any particular appeal.' I think there is also some value for Judges of the Supreme Court to sit from time to time on the Court of Appeal. That is one of the merits of the present system which can in this way be retained to a limited extent.

“It has further merit, particularly for Judges in the South Island of enabling them from time to time to break out from their isolation. It also emphasises the equal status of the Judges. None of these advantages would accompany a Court of five which could be self-contained.

Judges’ Status “It is important I think in the proposed constitution for the Court of Appeal that the Appeal Judges will enjoy the same status privileges and salary as the Judges of the Supreme Court. It may perhaps be difficult to avoid entirely the idea of promotion to the Court of Appeal, but it will in fact be a transfer. “Where a summing-up provides grounds for appeal, as it has been known to do, it is desirable that those who sit on appeal should have had the experience of summing up. But the door has not been closed to the appointee from the Bar.

“There may from time to time be members of the Bar who would be unwilling and perhaps less suited to undertake the work of a Supreme Court Judge, but who would be eminently qualified for the Court of Appeal. • ‘lt is not proposed that the Court of Appeal should be peripatetic in the sense that it would have sessions in the main centres. It is visualised that it will be in regular session in Wellington dealing with cases as they are set down and ready for hearing. There will, however, be no restriction placed upon the Court to sit in other Centres as it thinks fit,” said Mr Marshall.