Hodder, a barrister and senior King’s Counsel, was speaking at last week’s Legal Research Foundation conference to commemorate the Court’s anniversary.
His paper, One Advocate’s Opinions – The Least “Dangerous Branch”? Predictability and Unease, was couched in the politest terms. But it delivered a withering critique of a court with fundamental misconceptions of its role gravely exceeding its bounds.
The Supreme Court derives its authority from an Act of Parliament, the Supreme Court Act 2003. This means Parliament is ‘sovereign’ and sits above the Court.
It might be expected that one of the Court’s tasks would be to give full and fair effect to laws passed by Parliament. And certainly, that is the orthodox view.
But as Hodder points out, the Supreme Court has increasingly favoured a more activist approach. Sometimes called “the principle of legality”, this involves the courts interpreting their way around the words used by Parliament if they believe a statute conflicts with what the Court perceives to be ‘fundamental rights.’
It doesn’t take much wisdom to realise this approach is a slippery slope. And when successive court decisions on highly political issues have gone against the apparent wishes of Parliament, this, in Hodder’s words, “demonstrates inconsistency with wider public assumptions about just who does (and should) make the law.”
But Hodder’s paper reveals an even bigger concern. The Supreme Court now considers it is the Court’s role to divine changing societal values and then use them to ‘develop’ the common law. (For example, in the Ellis case, by deciding the time had come for the courts somehow to “weave” tikanga Māori into every aspect of the law.)
Yet, the Supreme Court Act does not refer to ‘development’ of the law. Rather, it expressly refers to the ‘rule of law.’
Two critical requirements of the rule of law are the law’s accessibility and predictability. The idea of 'developing’ the law to reflect the court’s view of changing societal values torpedoes both requirements.
More troublingly, the court is ill-equipped to discern societal values. In practice, the words are just code for the values of the judges.
Inevitably, this politicises the judiciary. Yet the courts lack the democratic legitimacy or accountability needed for political decision-making.
Hodder’s paper ends by predicting a time of “unprecedentedly sharp political debate” about the role of the Court.
Sadly, that would be wise.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
It might be expected that one of the Court’s tasks would be to give full and fair effect to laws passed by Parliament. And certainly, that is the orthodox view.
But as Hodder points out, the Supreme Court has increasingly favoured a more activist approach. Sometimes called “the principle of legality”, this involves the courts interpreting their way around the words used by Parliament if they believe a statute conflicts with what the Court perceives to be ‘fundamental rights.’
It doesn’t take much wisdom to realise this approach is a slippery slope. And when successive court decisions on highly political issues have gone against the apparent wishes of Parliament, this, in Hodder’s words, “demonstrates inconsistency with wider public assumptions about just who does (and should) make the law.”
But Hodder’s paper reveals an even bigger concern. The Supreme Court now considers it is the Court’s role to divine changing societal values and then use them to ‘develop’ the common law. (For example, in the Ellis case, by deciding the time had come for the courts somehow to “weave” tikanga Māori into every aspect of the law.)
Yet, the Supreme Court Act does not refer to ‘development’ of the law. Rather, it expressly refers to the ‘rule of law.’
Two critical requirements of the rule of law are the law’s accessibility and predictability. The idea of 'developing’ the law to reflect the court’s view of changing societal values torpedoes both requirements.
More troublingly, the court is ill-equipped to discern societal values. In practice, the words are just code for the values of the judges.
Inevitably, this politicises the judiciary. Yet the courts lack the democratic legitimacy or accountability needed for political decision-making.
Hodder’s paper ends by predicting a time of “unprecedentedly sharp political debate” about the role of the Court.
Sadly, that would be wise.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
More than high time for a review.
The current SC is a very dangerous entity.
Yes, it has lost its way.
Hear, hear! Our Courts are like our schools and universities, they have well and truly lost their way. It's time they were reined in.
When the SC was proposed at the turn of the century, I believe one concern was the relatively small pool of candidates in the NZ legal profession as well as how interconnected the profession is. This compared unfavourably with the PC, and left the SC vulnerable to going 'rogue'.
I've concluded after several pretty outlandish decisions over the years that those concerns were well-founded.
On the other hand, NZ does need a strong, rational court system, amongst other things to keep Parliament honest. Perhaps an Australasian SC would be better? I doubt there's the political will or desire from the electorate to take that path, though.
Not sure what the best pragmatic solution is. And as legal training seems to be increasingly left-wing and captured by identity politics, I can only see the SC itself getting worse (more biased and at odds with most of the country) in the years ahead.
LFC
Judges of the Supreme Court:
The Right Honourable Helen Winkelmann, Chief Justice.
The Honourable Justice Susan Glazebrook.
The Honourable Justice Ellen France.
The Honourable Justice Joe Williams.
The Honourable Justice Stephen Kós.
The Honourable Justice Forrest Miller.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.