Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 28, 2024 8:26:02 GMT 12
SPOTLIGHT ON THE COURTS
“Houston, we have a problem!”
New Zealand’s Supreme Court – the highest court in our land – has been captured by activist judges.
What is heartening, is the emergence of a wide range of eminent legal voices all openly criticising the Court and calling for this problem to be addressed.
But first some background.
From the time New Zealand’s court system was established in 1841, our final court of appeal was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting in London. It was not until 1931, when New Zealand became fully autonomous through the passing of the Statute of Westminster by the British Parliament, that it became possible for the right of appeal to the Privy Council to be abolished.
In spite of many attempts, it wasn’t until 2002 that Helen Clark’s Labour Government chose to sever judicial ties with Britain.
The Supreme Court Act, which established our own court of final appeal and ended access to the Privy Council, included in its purpose: “Nothing in this Act affects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.”
The new Court sat for the first time on 1 July 2004 with a bench of five Judges.
At the time, the main argument for retaining access to the Privy Council was that New Zealand’s Court of Appeal had been captured by judicial activists and there were concerns that if a new court was established, that too would become captured.
A submission by the New Zealand Business Roundtable to a 1995 review into the future of Privy Council access, outlined the problem:
“There has been a pattern of ‘judicial activism’ rather than ‘restraint’. In this context, ‘activism’ means constantly seeking a law-making role, which can involve the disregard or undervaluing of established rules and precedents. It also implies giving low weight to stability and predictability, and excessive weight to idiosyncratic perceptions of ‘justice or ‘fairness’.
“Our Westminster-style government being premised on judicial restraint contains few forms of judicial accountability and the judiciary is traditionally perceived as the least dangerous branch of government. Indulgence in judicial activism raises the question of accountability: Who stops the judges from replacing the rule of law with the rule of judges?”
And this is the problem now facing New Zealand: Our Supreme Court has become infected by the virus of activism.....
Read on here > www.nzcpr.com/spotlight-on-the-courts/
“Houston, we have a problem!”
New Zealand’s Supreme Court – the highest court in our land – has been captured by activist judges.
What is heartening, is the emergence of a wide range of eminent legal voices all openly criticising the Court and calling for this problem to be addressed.
But first some background.
From the time New Zealand’s court system was established in 1841, our final court of appeal was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting in London. It was not until 1931, when New Zealand became fully autonomous through the passing of the Statute of Westminster by the British Parliament, that it became possible for the right of appeal to the Privy Council to be abolished.
In spite of many attempts, it wasn’t until 2002 that Helen Clark’s Labour Government chose to sever judicial ties with Britain.
The Supreme Court Act, which established our own court of final appeal and ended access to the Privy Council, included in its purpose: “Nothing in this Act affects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.”
The new Court sat for the first time on 1 July 2004 with a bench of five Judges.
At the time, the main argument for retaining access to the Privy Council was that New Zealand’s Court of Appeal had been captured by judicial activists and there were concerns that if a new court was established, that too would become captured.
A submission by the New Zealand Business Roundtable to a 1995 review into the future of Privy Council access, outlined the problem:
“There has been a pattern of ‘judicial activism’ rather than ‘restraint’. In this context, ‘activism’ means constantly seeking a law-making role, which can involve the disregard or undervaluing of established rules and precedents. It also implies giving low weight to stability and predictability, and excessive weight to idiosyncratic perceptions of ‘justice or ‘fairness’.
“Our Westminster-style government being premised on judicial restraint contains few forms of judicial accountability and the judiciary is traditionally perceived as the least dangerous branch of government. Indulgence in judicial activism raises the question of accountability: Who stops the judges from replacing the rule of law with the rule of judges?”
And this is the problem now facing New Zealand: Our Supreme Court has become infected by the virus of activism.....
Read on here > www.nzcpr.com/spotlight-on-the-courts/