NZ: Courting change
From http://www.peterellis.org.nz/FamilyCourt/2004-0323_ODT_CourtingChange.htm
Otago Daily Times
March 23, 2004
Courting change
Editorial
If our courts system was any other kind of business, it would have been re-evaluated and overhauled well before now, such is its inadequacy. The Law Commission's comprehensive review with far-reaching recommendations, presented to Parliament last week, contains many worthy suggestions, but it also presents the Government with a mighty legal headache at a time when it is already under political duress.
For although the review addresses the telling shortcomings of our court structure - the fact it is overloaded, expensive, slow and alienating - the commission's proposed restructuring has not yet been costed in detail. That is the task of a Ministry of Justice team which is due to have some idea of the proposed restructuring's cost within six months, when the Government is scheduled to give its response to the commission's 160 recommendations. But already, the list of recommendations has been enough to provoke Justice Minister Phil Goff into describing them as "costly". While taxpayers will surely be pleased to learn of the Minister's continuing caution with their money, it should be remembered the present court structure, described by Law Commission president Justice Robertson as at times little better than a "cattle market", carries a cost too - for the thousands of people who use it, voluntarily or involuntarily, in one way or another. It is at its worst at district court level, where, the commission says, the court structure is least efficient, most costly and least effective.
In the biggest review of our court system since magistrate's courts were replaced by district courts almost 25 years ago, the commission says it has been clear from consultation and submissions that district courts are overloaded, the breadth of their jurisdiction and caseload growing beyond anything envisaged when they were set up in 1980. The commission's restructuring plan is comprehensive - from establishing a state agency overseeing the provision of legal advice to restructuring the workload of the Court of Appeal. It recommends replacing the district courts with a community court, which it describes as "the gateway for the local community to the justice system". As the main court of nine primary courts, it would have the highest workload, dealing with less serious criminal and civil cases. Its successful introduction at the base of a much more streamlined and logical court structure would depend, however, on a change of court practice and a change in culture throughout the courts system, including from police, court staff and lawyers - and changes in legislation. Among the suggestions aimed at turning around the alienation felt by many using the courts are new court liaison groups, a national advisory group to help establish community courts and wide community consultation, including with Maori leadership.
Undoubtedly, the proposed court structure would be more easily understood by the public, progressing logically from primary courts to the High Court (for more serious offences), Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. But there is some detail in the commission's report, called "Delivering Justice For All", that will not please everyone. We applaud the proposal to lift the threshold for the right to jury trial to offences liable to a five-year prison term or more. The present three-month threshold is ridiculous and a totally unnecessary privilege which slows the administration of justice. It is in line with moves overseas and would more properly reflect society's view of what is serious crime. Nevertheless, it is still likely to be contentious. Similarly, lifting of some reporting restrictions on Family Court and Youth Court proceedings would be hotly debated, and media interests will point out a myriad of problems with a recommendation to extend name suppression for people charged until "the substance of the case" is heard before a court.
The overall thrust of the report, however, is likely to be widely welcomed. Who could argue with wanting a more open, inclusive and user-friendly courts system? Who could object to the State having responsibility for ensuring public access to information and legal advice? These proposals would affect far more people than has replacement of the Privy Council with the Supreme Court. Implementing change to this extent, however, requires the kind of large political and financial commitment that, sadly, has been rare. This report draws in previous Law Commission recommendations that have been gathering dust and puts them into an all-encompassing context. How welcome it would be if, after an appropriate period of study and debate, there was enough political will to crank the wheels of justice into action.
END
|
