By AUDREY YOUNG
A decision on ending appeal rights to the London-based Privy Council should be made by the end of next month, says Attorney-General Margaret Wilson.
But any break might take years to take effect.
"If the decision was to proceed, then one would proceed carefully and cautiously and not rush it," she told the parliamentary justice and law reform select committee.
In language suggesting that the break would happen, she said: "We could introduce legislation but not necessarily legislation that [we] would implement immediately.
"People need to know where they are going and have an opportunity to be able to prepare well."
Any replacement appellate body required adequate funds and clear jurisdiction.
What would replace the Privy Council appeal right is unclear.
Ms Wilson issued a discussion paper last December with three key options, and said she favoured keeping two tiers of appeal.
The options were:
* Making the Court of Appeal the last step.
* Appeals from the High Court going to three-judge civil and criminal divisions within the Court of Appeal. A final appeal could be made to a full bench of five Appeal Court judges.
* An appeal division of the High Court would hear all appeals brought against High Court and District Court decisions. Unsatisfied litigants could then go to the Court of Appeal.
After receiving submissions on the discussion paper, she said, "Those who would support disestablishment would favour a separate stand-alone final appeal."
Some submissions from business had suggested that the links to the Privy Council could be kept by some of its judges being based in New Zealand. "So instead of us sending judges to the Privy Council, they send judges here. I think that would be a matter for the Lord Chancellor in terms of what resources he had to be able to do that."
Some of the submissions had talked about a South Pacific higher court which she did not think was realistic.
Most of the judges were New Zealanders or Australians "and I don't think that quite captures what people were looking for."
"But certainly a Commonwealth court would have been the way to go."
Act MP and lawyer Stephen Franks said he favoured retaining the Privy Council link. He was disturbed that the Attorney-General was raising the possibility of importing judges to sit on a New Zealand court of final appeal.
"At least it seems to acknowledge the risks of being confined to our own tight little pool."
But it was unrealistic to expect judges of the quality that New Zealanders could now get on the Privy Council.
He said talk of a Commonwealth court was "detached from reality."
"Why does she think that we would be interested in the decision of a judge from Malawi on international commerce or from Malaysia on civil rights?"
Privy Council appeal change 'to take years'
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.