Is there a spanner in the works over the appointment of members of Sir David Carruthers' Independent Police Conduct Authority? Photo / Martin Sykes
Is there a spanner in the works over the appointment of members of Sir David Carruthers' Independent Police Conduct Authority? Photo / Martin Sykes
Is there a spanner in the works over the appointment of members of Sir David "Budgie" Carruthers' Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA)???
Insiders claim the re-appointment of IPCA members Angela Hauk-Willis and Dianne Macaskill and a new appointment of Tyrone Laurenson were approved around June last year but nothing has happened since.
CaseLoad asked Justice Minister Amy Adams what is the status of Hauk-Willis and Macaskill; whether they have been re-appointed and if not, why not.
Adams was also asked to clarify the status of former police officer Laurenson, and whether or not he has been, or is to be, appointed and, if not, why not.
For those who don't know, Hauk-Willis is a former deputy secretary of the Treasury and Macaskill was chief executive and chief archivist at Archives New Zealand and was previously deputy government statistician.
Watch this space...
Footnote: Well-worn British police joke: "I'm popping down to the Yard (Scotland Yard) to find out what's afoot ..."
Save this judge from wicked gossip
No stone is being left unturned to hunt down a scurrilous crew alleging regally-coiffured Justice Simon Moore was nicknamed "Dunny Brush" at law school.
"This is an outrage to His Honour's life-long tonsorial splendour," said a senior judicial communications officer (Name never disclosed).
Justice Simon Moore. Photo / Dean Purcell
"For a start, it is factually incorrect. A dunny brush is a stiff-bristled, manually-operated, lavatorial cleaning appliance, usually associated with red-headed folk. And anyway, His Honour's hair is not red, so there ..."
The "Dunny Brush" allegation - openly bandied about among a mischief-making gang of the usual suspects - comes hard on the heels of a claim by someone from Te Awamutu (CaseLoad, April 2) that Justice Moore wears a wig - something firmly challenged by Jim the Judges' Barber.
"I know a lot about what happens on Simon's head but I am sworn to respect the sanctity of barbering and I certainly won't be talking to the slavering media about it," said Jim.
CaseLoaders will recall how Justice Moore appeared immediately before his 2014 swearing-in with a much shorter haircut than his flowing locks were accustomed to - some even say it was a Number 3.
Word around the judges' common room was that the ceremonial longbottom wig would not fit "judicially" enough without sacrificing much of Simon's unruly mop.
(Snide reference was also made at the time about the peculiar "peaked" appearance of Justice Paul Heath's longbottom).
"Someone needs to give this judge a juicy murder trial to sink his teeth into," chorused A Pair of Mature Lady Briefs from the Ladies & Escorts Lounge happy hour.
"Are you allowed to publish stuff like this about High Court judges without inviting a sound public horse-whipping on the back porch of the N*rth*rn Cl*b ???" said Our Man At The Bar, eyeing up the two-up school.
"Hot pokering's too good for him ..." said The Scunner.
What's the rule of law got to do with anything?
Controversy rages over political plans to drop New Zealand's commitment to the rule of law from the statute book (CaseLoad, April 10).
Retiring Supreme Court judge Sir John McGrath expressed concern that current provisions in the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which recently had its second reading, would effectively repeal New Zealand's continuing commitment to the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament.
Retiring Supreme Court judge Sir John McGrath. Photo / Marty Melville
CaseLoad asked two leading legal academics - the University of Auckland law school's Associate Professor Bill Hodge and Otago University's dean of law Professor Mark Henaghan - if the rule of law was an outdated concept and, if anyone cared about it, why.
Here's what Hodge had to say:
"I think Justice McGrath's farewell speech is a very nicely expressed confirmation of the success of the New Zealand constitutional arrangement as it is, without a fully written constitution.
I am frequently asked to speak on the subject of a written constitution, as an American, and people are usually surprised when I say that I think the New Zealand constitutional arrangement works pretty well and I wouldn't tinker with it.
I think it should be emphasised that the rule of law was not created in s 3(2) of the Supreme Court Act and it will not be threatened if that statute is replaced by a re-written judicature act.
Auckland university law school's associate professor Bill Hodge. Photo / NZME.
The rule of law was recognised there, not brought into being.
The rule of law is, I think, a powerful convention, going along with the independence/impartiality/immunity of the judiciary.
It guarantees that 'King's Men' i.e. agents of the government, have no special powers or privileges or immunities other than those expressly given by statute.
And that the proper interpretation of statute should err on the side of protecting liberty of the individual as opposed to conveniently expanding, by generous interpretation, those powers.
The most recent examples generally and specifically of that issue may by the interception of communications by institutions such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), as well as related search warrants.
In specific cases, the courts remaining open to people like Kim Dotcom to argue about things such as search warrants.
No, the rule of law is not outdated, it is more relevant than ever, and if judges do nothing else, they do care about it.
Although the GCSB is pretty remote to most people, issues such as powers of single-desk marketing authorities do affect a lot of people, and issues such as wool levy rebates must be seen to be done fairly.
So the comment by Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart in England in 1924, that justice must be done and be seen to be done, remains an important version of the rule of law."
Professor Henaghan completely agreed. Here's what he had to say:
"The rule of law is crucial to a democracy. It is based on the idea that it is better to be ruled by law to which we all have input into rather than the rule of individuals who are unaccountable to law. The courts are a crucial check and balance through the law on the exercise of power. Remember the famous case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon, where the prime minister at the time (Robert Muldoon) thought he could change the law via a press statement.
Former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon. Photo / NZ Herald
"Via a statute, the 1974 Labour government introduced, contributions by employer and employee to a superannuation scheme became compulsory. Muldoon, after a landslide election victory, said in a press statement that the compulsory requirement to contribute 'will cease from today'. [Two months later Chief Justice Sir Richard Wild declared Muldoon's statement to be an unlawful purported suspension of statutory obligation and a breach of Article 1 of the 1688 Bill of Rights, which prohibited the suspension of the law by regal authority.] "John McGrath's speech is a timely and important reminder of the key and important role that the rule of law plays in our constitutional structure. It is good to see a senior judge is reminding us of the rule of law, which we tend to take for granted until it was taken away and then we would simply have the rule of arbitrary law."
Footnote: What The English Judge Really Said.
In 1923 a British motorcyclist named McCarthy was involved in a road accident which resulted in his prosecution before a magistrates court for dangerous driving.
Unknown to McCarthy and his solicitor, the clerk to the justices hearing the charge was a member of a firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against McCarthy arising out of the accident that had given rise to the prosecution.
The clerk retired with the justices, who returned to convict McCarthy.
On learning of the clerk's closeness McCarthy applied to have the conviction quashed.
The justices swore affidavits stating they had reached their decision to convict without consulting their clerk.
The appeal was heard at the King's Bench division by Lord Chief Justice Hewart who, in a landmark and far-reaching judgment, said: "It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman (the clerk) retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the notes of the evidence in case the justices might desire to consult him, the justices came to a conclusion without consulting him, and that he scrupulously abstained from referring to the case in any way.
But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. (CaseLoad's italics).
The question is not whether in this case the deputy clerk made any observation or offered any criticism which he might not properly have made or offered; the question is whether he was so related to the case in its civil aspect as to be unfit to act as clerk to the justices in the criminal matter.
The answer to that question depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done."
