|
The Dominion Post
December 14, 2002
A bastion of objectivity
Letter
to the Editor
by Peter Agnew, Titahi Bay
Severing our ties with the Privy Council is
akin to departing from Anzus -- some might see the move as the sign of a
maturing nation, but are we really as self-sufficient as we like to pretend?
The attorney-general points out that the location of a New Zealand Supreme
Court would make justice more accessible. She seems to overlook that a
Supreme Court, like the Privy Council, would still be our final court of
appeal. A litigant would still have to contribute considerable financial
resources to take a case to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it is the
importance of the legal issue, not the location of the court, that motivates
an appeal to the Privy Council.
The proposed requirement that one of the Supreme Court judges has Maori
ancestry should also be cause for alarm. Judges should be appointed on merit,
not racial ancestry. Such a requirement would seriously detract from the
impartiality of a Supreme Court and serve to undermine the quality of its
bench.
Lord Cooke correctly points out that Britain
does not govern, or enact legislation for New Zealand. But legislation can
be revoked or amended through the pressure of the electorate, while unpopular
governments can be removed through general elections.
But the public cannot revoke or amend a judgment handed down by our courts.
Such judgments can be appealed only and as the history of the Peter Ellis
case so clearly demonstrates, our Court of Appeal tends to put the reputation
of its judicial colleagues ahead of doing justice.
In a small judiciary, the Privy Council is a vital bastion of objectivity in
what is often an overly politicised judiciary. We sever links with the Privy
Council at our peril.
|
