No announcement yet.

Wellington District Court swamped with backlog of cases


  • Wellington District Court swamped with backlog of cases

    Click image for larger version

Name:	district Court.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	9.5 KB
ID:	24752
    The Wellington District Court court has advised Crown and defence counsel that the court system is being swamped with a backlog of cases and a stakeholders meeting will be held at the court on the 27th of July 2012, seeking input from those concerned. There are currently 261 trials outstanding and a number of pre-trial conferences to be held. Fixtures are jammed full until the end of the year, with about 30 cases to be called on 31 August for allocation of trial dates in 2013

    At stake, is the ability of the courts to provide defendants in the criminal jurisdiction to exercise their right to trial by a jury of their peers. Civil jury trials have, for all practical purposes, been done away with in New Zealand. The last known case of trial by jury was Menzies v Attorney General (CIV2002 418 00005) in late 2004. The shift away from juries has occurred without any law change. Rather, it has evolved quietly, by judicial fiat. It is now routine for judges to simply rule it is 'inconvenient' to have a jury trial or ambiguously - if not spuriously - claim that civil cases are too complicated for juries, or that the law is inextricably linked to the factual issues long accepted in law as suitable for a jury determination.

    While juries remain an option in criminal trials in New Zealand, they too are under serious threat of extinction. High Court Justice Tony Randerson publicly blamed the increased NZ Court backlog on criminal jury trials, noting the large increase in methamphetamine cases in particular. Accordingly Randerson J implored Parliament to act to relieve the backlog. Many saw this as a veiled promotion to abolish jury trials altogether. In a 16 May 2008 publication of LawNews, retired District Court Judge Ron Gilbert questioned the fairness of jury trials although, paradoxically, his own experience admittedly supported the use and retention of jury trials. Why then should jury trials be abolished? The implication in that article was that jury trials delay, if not defeat, justice.

    This view is in stark contrast to the crucial origins of English law. Before the Magna Carta came into existence, the King was able to rule by decree - and whim. Adjudication by one's peers of conflicts with the Crown was considered an essential ingredient to natural justice in a legal system where the King's appointments governed the Courts, Judges had inherent conflicts. The 14 year New Zealand Court battle of Keith and Margaret Berryman and their counsel Dr Rob Moodie to merely get the uncensored government report regarding the Te Rata bridge collapse into evidence proves that reasoning is as sound today as it was at any time.

    Should we care that judges generally consider juries have outlived their usefulness in the New Zealand civil justice system?Not only has the jury model worked for almost 800 years, it is widely recognized as the yardstick in distinguishing democracies from autocracies. The right to trial by jury has direct lineage to the MagnaCarta, one of only three clauses which are still law - and certainly the most famous. The principle that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land is considered so fundamental to a free and just society that it resonates forcefully in the American Bill of Rights and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    More than any other right, the right to trial by jury singularly provides a safeguard against despotic state rule. It is virtually impossible to overstate the importance to democracy of this judicial safeguard.

    We believe overwhelmingly as a people that democracy is safe in New Zealand. Yet, in one fell swoop last year, New Zealand Courts ordered 17 citizens held without bail as terrorists while suppressing the 'evidence' that purported to prove they deserved to be imprisoned ahead of trial. Fortunately, in that case, sustained public protests were followed by a change of heart by the Solicitor General. Sure, this was a criminal proceeding where those accused could still, eventually, elect to a jury trial when the Court got around to trying them. The most alarming aspect is more than one judge not only got it terribly wrong in depriving an essential liberty but also single-handedly had the authority to suppress the evidence which would have revealed how wrong they got it. We all know how prevalent suppression orders are in NZ Court cases. Prudence alone dictates not putting such absolute power in the hands of one individual and then trusting that judge to summarize the case completely, no matter how clever and legally qualified they are.

    The decision that gave Britain, and the world, the independent jury is the Bushells case of 1670, when a jury cleared the Quakers William Penn (a barrister who later founded Pennsylvania) and William Mead who had been improperly charged with unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Sreet, in London.The judge wanted a conviction and told the jury: “you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept.”The jurors were then locked up without food or drink, and when they refused to submit to the judge’s demands, they were fined for their defiance. But, they refused to be browbeaten by the Bench.One juror, Edward Bushel, appealed against his treatment and eventually won the jury’s right to come to a verdict according to their own opinion even if it is a verdict the judge does not want

    Remember 'Mt Erebus'? Remember the Winebox scandal? Along with the Berryman case these cases demonstrate, even in high profile cases where there is considerable media scrutiny, judges can and do succumb to undue influences. For every Winebox or Erebus, scores of cases wither under the public radar, becoming mere footnotes in the legal lexicon by virtue of judicial decrees that purport to accurately summarise the case as they primarily justify the judicial position taken by the judge.

    This may be fine where the judge's objectivity is not compromised and where they have no personal connection with any of the litigants. But this is New Zealand. Because we are a small country we have been indoctrinated to, firstly, accept judges can hardly avoid knowing one of the parties in many cases and, secondly, trust our judges are accustomed to presiding in such cases and therefore accustomed to putting aside their innate human bias when allies do appear before them. You can add to the mix that lawyers are forbidden from publicly criticizing judicial decisions. When cries do arise that judges fictionalised some critical facts, most likely by one of the litigants, the tendency of the public is to instinctively dismiss such claims as sour grapes.

    Defamation cases, in particular, highlight how far the Courts have regressed in law on the right to jury trials. By definition, defamation is a factual determination based upon what meanings the ordinary person attributes to words used - and pointedly not what one judge who is taught to argue the meanings of words on the head of a pin thinks. But even in these cases, where a jury determination would seem a foregone conclusion, the Courts have intervened to prevent this from occurring.

    In July 2006, Television New Zealand appealed a High Court decision denying them a trial by jury as defendants in defamation proceedings to the Court of Appeal (TVNZ Ltd. v Haines and ors [2006] NZCA 243 (6 September 2006). In a ruling by Susan Glazebrook J on behalf of the appellate panel, a trial by judge alone was upheld on the premise that "the issues of law are tightly intertwined with the facts at each stage of the inquiry." In ruling so, the Appeal Court appeared to condone taking obvious cases out of the hands of juries simply because the judge might otherwise need to give the jury careful instructions on the legal issues - something which has always been considered customary practice but now allows trial judges greater discretion to prevent jury trials, which may disappear altogether if long fought for constitutional guarantees are allowed to be eroded by misguided judicial activism.

    • innocence project
      innocence project commented
      Editing a comment
      We have been monitoring the courts and believe the current situation is emblematic of a judicial system which is trying to disavow the right to trial by jury in New Zealand. Court cases throughout New Zealand are at an all time low. Is it not curious that jury trials are said to be impeding swift justice in New Zealand? Innocence project considers these arguments have been used before - and that history has demonstrated the swift justice which occurs without the disciplining influence of jury by one's peers is an abomination on natural justice. The powerful judicial lobby in New Zealand - the Rules Committee - is behind this despicable propaganda.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Latest Articles


    by admin

    In a land where victims with legal claims must pay the defendants' anticipated legal costs into court before a judge will allow their claim to be heard, it makes sense such victims not be allowed to congregate, discover they have similar experiences at the hands of the powerful partisans of the Crown and - God forbid - find a lawyer who will screw them out of their well earned poverty.

    This story begins with the life nurturing bankers and the threat to New Zealand's rule...
    09-07-2013, 10:44 AM
  • Pensioner evicted over rates protest
    by admin
    A Levin pensioner who has been staging a one-man rent revolt has been evicted from his flat by police. Sam Probert had been barricading himself inside his flat for the past month to protest a $15 rent increase on his council-owned pensioner flat, which he has refused to pay since last September. It took four police officers to carry him from his flat, although he had planned a more dramatic exit. "I thought I did but I had no kick and scream left in me. I'm worn out, but that's what this co...
    28-06-2013, 09:04 PM
  • Claim on deposit shocks couple
    by admin
    A Wellington couple are infuriated and shocked the second receiver of the failed kitchen supplier Kitchen House is looking to claim customer deposits worth $177,876 for the former owners of the firm. Andy Morse and partner Rowan White paid a 20 per cent deposit on a $13,000 kitchen in October 2011 to the Kitchen House as part of renovation project on their Brooklyn home. However, the six-store chain, run by CGKH Ltd, collapsed not long after and was placed in receivership. The s...
    05-02-2013, 05:53 AM
  • Relieved Blue Chip investors 'don't trust anyone'
    by admin
    "We don't trust anyone any more". As they toasted each other at avoiding bankruptcy after a landmark Supreme Court decision, elderly victims of the failed Blue Chip property scheme last night agreed they had learned the harshest lesson of their lives. For others the advice - and the court ruling in their favour - has come too late: they have lost their homes, their health and, in some cases, their marriages. More than a dozen Waikato Blue Chip investors are thought to be in...
    10-08-2012, 11:41 AM
  • Forum on insurance for the elderly
    by admin
    Hundreds of elderly Christchurch residents have vented their anger at major insurance companies , saying they were too old to keep "boxing with shadows". The 300-strong crowd at the eastern suburbs older generation's forum last Frdiay went head to head with senior managers from IAG, Lumley, AA Insurance, Vero and Southern Response and the chief executive of the Insurance Council. The elderly spoke of their frustrations with insurance companies, including listening to "daft music" while o...
    07-08-2012, 05:29 PM
  • Crown lawyers rack up 4000 hours on Dotcom case
    by admin
    New Zealand taxpayers have paid the equivalent of two lawyers' full-time salaries for work on America's bid to extradite Kim Dotcom, according to official figures. The Crown Law Office has now spent 12 months working on the case since the United States first asked for assistance in July last year. In that time, according to figures released under the Official Information Act, its lawyers have spent 4041 hours - 101 weeks - working on the case. Dotcom...
    03-08-2012, 09:47 AM