NEW ZEALAND AND THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 211, 1 June 1920, Page 6

NEW ZEALAND AND THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Sir,—One of the first official acts performed by Prince of Wales after arrival in Australia was the summoning of Mr. 1 Justice Adrian Knox, recently appointed Chief Justice of the High- Court'of Australia, to the Privy Council, thereby again securing to the Commonwealth legal representation on th'e Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest appellate court within the British' Empire. Remembering that the former Chief Justice of ti.6 Commonwealth (the late Sir Samuel Griffith), as well as his colleague (Hip late Sir Edmund Barton)," were both members of tho Judicial Committee, and bearing in mind that the latest appointee has yet to prove lvis ability on the bench as primus inter--pares, it seems a fair assumption that the status of Chief Justice of Australia is ipso facto to be a qualification for appointment to the highest tribunal in tha realm. . . ~ t. A similar condition obtains in the Dominion of Canada, where the present Chief Justice (Sir Lpuis Danes) and Ins colleague, Mr. Justice Lyman Poore Duff, are both on the Judicial Committee of the Privv Council, while the ex-Chief Justice (Sir Chatlcs Fitzpntriok). who is now; Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec, hns boon a member for many years past. Likewise, in the Union of South Africa, the Chief Justice (Sir James Rose-limes) is, us his predecessor (the late Lord De Villiers) was, on the Judicial Committee. ~,... t Why New Zealand should fail to ob-, tain similar recognition and secure representation on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is hard-.to explain, seeing that the Dominion is constantly having flourished before it its own importance ns an integral portion ot tho British Empire. Once, and once only has this Dominion enjoyed such a distinction, viz., when the late revered Sir Joshua Williams was appointed at the close of an honourable career. The non-existence of a New Zealand representative on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a distinct reflection upon the present occupants of tho bupierae Court bench in this Dominion, and, especially as the States of New South Wales (by the late Sir Frederick parley) and South Australia (by the late Sir Samuel Way) were both represented many years ago, this omission calls for explana-"on--lamiI.CEKCIVALTt.WADDY. : Wellington, May 31, 1920.