Privy Council Debate Resurfaces

New Zealand has now had its own top tier appeal court for five years now, since 2004. Despite the dire predictions made at the time, the Supreme Court hasn't caused the sky to fall in, nor were the appointments made by the former Labour government partisan in any way. Dr Robert Mann, former vice-Chairman of the Monarchist League, writes to Pat Booth in the North Shore Times on the issue of the Privy Council.

"When first the idea was mooted of cutting New Zealand off from its final court of appeal, the judicial committee of the Privy Council, marked dismay was rife in New Zealand legal circles, especially commercial law.

Proposals to abolish appeals to the Privy Council date back to at least 1947, when New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster. There were proposals again in the mid-1980s, and the Bolger Government got very close during the 1990s. So Labour's proposal in 2000 was hardly new.

"This fount of judicial wisdom was held in highest esteem, and was available for those who could afford it without significant New Zealand government costs.

So, it didn't cost the New Zealand government much - but that's irrelevant. In its final years of operation, the Privy Council heard few cases for New Zealand - just 11 from 1998 - 1999. And even then, most were referred back to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.

Few New Zealanders could afford appeals to the Privy Council. That's why appeals to the Privy Council were essentially limited to big business (the appealants were typically companies that are 'household' names in New Zealand - Carter Holt Harvey, Telecom, ECNZ, etc).

The only other group which featured was criminal appeals. These appeals cost the taxpayer in terms of legal aid, and most were not considered by the Privy Council anyway.

"Top New Zealand judges such as the late Sir Thaddeus McCarthy sat on this court from time to time – it is not an exclusively Pommie bench.

...and who could forget Lord Cooke of Thorndon, the New Zealand jurist in favour of abolishing. Sure, the bench wasn't "Pommie". But that's irrelevant.

"One senior National Party lawyer MP promised (to me and another councillor of the Monarchist League) that if he became Minister of Justice he would tear up on the steps of the palace of Westminster the warrants of the new Wilson/Clark Supreme Court.

This is an intriguing statement. Not only is the MP ignorant of how judges are dismissed (under the Constitution Act judges have security of tenure, to prevent political interference, and can only be removed by a resolution of Parliament).