PRIVY COUNCIL

Hokitika Guardian, 3 May 1930, Page 3

PRIVY COUNCIL

MOVING COURT SUGGESTED

EXPENSE OF APPEALS.

..NORANGE OF tNEYV ZEALAND LAW.

Speaking at.the Law Conference this week, Mr J. J. Siillivan (Auckland)/ made a strong plea of the alteration of. the system of Privy Council appeals. ’Mr Sullivan was speaking in a discussion on a .paper read by -Mr J.,, B. Callan (Dunedin), and he said that, both Mr Callan and Sir .Francis Bell had raised a great subject to a high plane. , When the question of the retention, or abolition of the Privy Council" was discussed; it was with some bitterness, particularly in uninformed quarters, said Mr Sullivan, but the utterances of the two speakers he had mentioned, .dealing with the constitutional position, of the Irish Free State, should shed some light on dark places. , ; He had intended to deal with the constitutional position of the Irish Free State and the Judical Committee, of the Privy Council, but both Mr Callan and Sir Francis Bell had rendered that- unnecessary. He, therefore, as -a New Zealand citizen, proposed to deal with the practical side. of the question. First he emphasised the fatn that a high court- of appeal was necessary in the British Commonwealth of Nations. There were two points, however, that called for immediate attention.’ The one was its accessibility to the New Zealander desirous of appealing or when his lease was appealed against, being represented in London. Sir John "Simon, one of the most eminent jurists in England to-day, ported the view that the Judical Committee of the Privy Conueil should go round,” should sit in the capital of the various states of the Empire. “If the Privy Conueil does not ‘go round’ as I have -suggested,” Mr Sullivan, “what chance has the bushfeller who had succeeded in New, Zealand in a claim for damages against his employer, of fighting him, at law, in London, where the professions are not amalgamated as here, in first retaining a solicitor w’ho in tur n must instruct counsel, and possibly a junior as well, to appear for him at Downing Street! Or again, take an actual case oi the widow who succeeded in obtaining a verdict against a big company in i.ew Zealand, arising out of the death of her husband, and could not pay the- expenses entailed in finding the necessary legal assistance in London to represent'her on an appeal by tlie employers against the New Zealand decision?” Then there was another point: "Mr Callan had .read what Sir Joshua William said 27 years ago regarding the importance of the decisions of the New Zealand Court of Appeal being siH• ject to review by a higher court. Sir Joshua Williams, however, said Mr Sullivan went further when he said,'; “whether, however, they should be reviewed by the judical Committee of the; privy 'Council, as at present constituted, is a -question worthy of -consider-’ anon. That Court, by its imputations' in the present case (Wallis and others and His Majesty’s Solicitor-General qi New Zealand), -by ;the ignorance ii has shown in this and other cases oi our history,, of our legislation, and of our practice, and by its long delayed judgements, has displayed every characteristic of ail alien tribunal.” That really was his 'second point—the want of knowledge of New Zealand’s laws and customs that might enable the Judical Committee of the Privy'Council to arrive at a decision. In the statement already quoted regarding the ignorance of New Zealand laws and customs, Sir Robert Stout had given three or four instances oi -where the Privy Council arrived at wrofig -decisions as a result of its ignorance. In our own day and not long before he became Chief Justice, Sir Charles Skerrett had suggested that the New Zealand law reports and New Zealand statistics should be sent to London fbr the use of the Highest Court in the Empire. To remedy 'tliA' state of affairs and to prevent a repetition of miscarriages df justice, Mr Sullivan suggested that an eminent New Zealand , juirist . from the' New Zealand Bench or the Bar, should be' appointed to, the .judical committee of the Privy Council. Thus, Sir Robert. Scout held such a position, but he did not .leave New Zealand, and. it was. essential that a New Zealander, should be associated in name add in. fact with the judical committee of the, Prjivy Conueil,, at .leaA when New Zealand appeals were being'heard and. determined.