NZ supreme court
On the first of January 2004 New Zealand introduced a new court system, establishing a Wellington based Supreme Court to replace the London based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The new court will stand as the final appellate court in the New Zealand judicial system, with its own judges and separate premises, sitting above the Court of Appeal. Arguments for and against the retention of appeals to the Privy Council have been well highlighted by the New Zealand media. They have raised important questions about whether the new system of appeals in New Zealand should have been put in place, and since its introduction how will it be structured and run, now that the link to the Privy Council has been abolished. I will elaborate on these arguments and perceptions comparing the different positions people have taken, and discuss how the system will work and what sections of the new court could be structured better in the opinion of the references used.Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, as the head of the New Zealand judiciary, heads the court and will normally be the presiding judge. There have been four other permanent judges, also appointed from within the New Zealand judiciary, Justices Thomas Gault, Sir Kenneth Keith, Peter Bl
With the detachment from the Privy Council, Maori have raised concerns about the relationship established between the Crown and Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. "In real terms it is the New Zealand Courts that have made the most substantial contributions to the development of law on Maori issues" (A new Supreme court). Only then will the court be seen as politically neutral. These accusations are well deserved because when looking into the newly appointed Judges history it is revealed that two of the five are de facto supporters of Labour's social democratic platform. There is a strong case in favour for the government and the judges already appointed. The Court itself will decide what cases the Supreme Court hears in full. The structure of the New Zealand Supreme Court will be a two-tier appellate system, meaning there is always the opportunity for at least two levels of appeal in all matters. There have been discussions about different options that should have been considered before finalising the two-tier appeal system. The selection and appointment of the judges has fuelled a debate about the risk of appointments to the Supreme Court being politically influenced. There have been two ideal solutions suggested, the first is that a broad-based, non-biased judicial commission makes appointments to the Supreme Court. With the availability of a second appeal the public of New Zealand will have a greater confidence in the system which is essential to the smooth running of this countries judicial system. New Zealand's judges have had the benefit of a world class legal educational system (NSC), and take their place on the Privy Council when it hears New Zealand appeals. Maori people of New Zealand have also had mixed views about retention of appeals to the Privy Council. The argument is then raised, why have appeals to the Privy Council been abolished if we have a New Zealand judging influence for the cases? One reason is the issues of cost to individual litigants.
Common topics in this essay:
Privy Council,
Supreme Court,
Chief Justice,
Court Appeal,
privy council,
Sian Elias,
Waitangi Government,
Geoffrey Palmer,
Court Appointments,
Zealand Courts,
Business Review,
supreme court,
zealand supreme court,
appeal system,
court system,
court appeal,
zealand supreme,
treaty waitangi,
appeals privy,
judges appointed,
appeals privy council,
appeal structure,
privy council maori,
two-tier appeal system,
privy council abolished,
|
Acceptance Essays
