Labour appoints judges who share their ideology. National just seems to accept whatever candidate the swamp offers up. When National is in power, the Attorney General or Justice Minister needs to thoroughly vet each candidate and reject unsuitable ones. If they do that, the problem will eventually go away. If they don't, it will be an uphill battle because it is so easy for judges to apply their own interpretation instead of what Parliament intended.
The entire report is an explanation of that. And you can add judges who think sentencing is more about the needs of the offender than protecting the public from future harm.
MayI suggest you read the section of my article about reforming the appointment process. Mr Partridges suggestions are a prospective interference with judicial independence although he would suggest otherwise. A more nuanced treatment than he gives is required.
As to your final comment may I refer you to section 8(g) of the Sentencing Act - Judges must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances - that is in the legislation that Parliament enacted. Legislative supremacy requires judges to take that into account. Your comment is, with respect, a bit simplistic.
Have significant sympathy for that comment Nigel, though to a large degree (and as AHalfling explains) the problem lies in the Sentencing Act. I speak as a retired judge.
Thank you for this David. I read Who makes the law? today.
I have been feeling uncomfortable with the superior courts (and the executive) when it comes to things treaty for some time now. Reading of Supreme Court judges’ concerns for decolonisation, as reported in this paper, was disturbing. Maybe this was a mis-chacterisation, or a bit of a stretch on the author’s part, but it would put that judge well out of whack with common understanding as to what it is legitimate to consider in rulings in NZ. (Many of us would also not be happy if a judge was to consider that in the body of the court before them might be lizard people on a rotation up from their base under the South Pole.)
I read the ‘Summary of Maranga Mai!’ on the Human Rights Commission website recently. Earlier today I read ‘A fair chance for all Breaking the cycle of persistent disadvantage’ which was a report commissioned by Treasury. In both cases they were referencing some colonial hell that I hadn’t been aware of, in a pidgin of English and Maori.
And then of course there are the 42 KCs who are not sure that parliament can legislate in the way that it thinks it can, and that even if it does try on something of the kind, that the courts would go along.
I agree parliament needs to step up and clarify how sovereignty works in New Zealand, and you make the case that a retrospective approach is probably best.
In addition there is a need for the wider community to have a say. I think this is the singular contribution that David Seymour’s bill makes. It is playing the role of the spark (by coming into being) and the catalyst (by staying in the select committee process for 6 months) to get this conversation going.
The idea of different rights for different New Zealanders based on ancestry is something that I think has a snowball’s chance. Nevertheless we are at the point where we need to have a good public barney to settle this nonsense. It is not healthy for social cohesion to have weirdness festering in Wellington, pissing the rest of the country off and building up unrealistic expectations in the minds of activists.
Your reply is timely. I read a letter from Sir Stephen Sedley (formerly of the English Court of Appeal) to the London Review of Books musing on the power of the Courts to overrule legislation. It may merit an article. Complex subject.
"Security of tenure and remuneration mean that Judges may be dismissed only for very limited reasons"; "Ensuring that judges have adequate and secure salaries eliminates financial manipulation as a tool of influence." These are valid points. Yes it's important that judges are properly remunerated and thus able to make provision for when they are no longer on the bench. So I won't be taking out a paid subscription to A Halfling's View thanks.
Labour appoints judges who share their ideology. National just seems to accept whatever candidate the swamp offers up. When National is in power, the Attorney General or Justice Minister needs to thoroughly vet each candidate and reject unsuitable ones. If they do that, the problem will eventually go away. If they don't, it will be an uphill battle because it is so easy for judges to apply their own interpretation instead of what Parliament intended.
By the way - I was appointed by a Labour Government back in 1988. Never voted Labour before or since
Define “unsuitable”
The entire report is an explanation of that. And you can add judges who think sentencing is more about the needs of the offender than protecting the public from future harm.
MayI suggest you read the section of my article about reforming the appointment process. Mr Partridges suggestions are a prospective interference with judicial independence although he would suggest otherwise. A more nuanced treatment than he gives is required.
As to your final comment may I refer you to section 8(g) of the Sentencing Act - Judges must impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances - that is in the legislation that Parliament enacted. Legislative supremacy requires judges to take that into account. Your comment is, with respect, a bit simplistic.
Have significant sympathy for that comment Nigel, though to a large degree (and as AHalfling explains) the problem lies in the Sentencing Act. I speak as a retired judge.
You could replace a reference to blue-eyed babies with one to KCs who have difficulty with our constitution.
Thank you for this David. I read Who makes the law? today.
I have been feeling uncomfortable with the superior courts (and the executive) when it comes to things treaty for some time now. Reading of Supreme Court judges’ concerns for decolonisation, as reported in this paper, was disturbing. Maybe this was a mis-chacterisation, or a bit of a stretch on the author’s part, but it would put that judge well out of whack with common understanding as to what it is legitimate to consider in rulings in NZ. (Many of us would also not be happy if a judge was to consider that in the body of the court before them might be lizard people on a rotation up from their base under the South Pole.)
I read the ‘Summary of Maranga Mai!’ on the Human Rights Commission website recently. Earlier today I read ‘A fair chance for all Breaking the cycle of persistent disadvantage’ which was a report commissioned by Treasury. In both cases they were referencing some colonial hell that I hadn’t been aware of, in a pidgin of English and Maori.
And then of course there are the 42 KCs who are not sure that parliament can legislate in the way that it thinks it can, and that even if it does try on something of the kind, that the courts would go along.
I agree parliament needs to step up and clarify how sovereignty works in New Zealand, and you make the case that a retrospective approach is probably best.
In addition there is a need for the wider community to have a say. I think this is the singular contribution that David Seymour’s bill makes. It is playing the role of the spark (by coming into being) and the catalyst (by staying in the select committee process for 6 months) to get this conversation going.
The idea of different rights for different New Zealanders based on ancestry is something that I think has a snowball’s chance. Nevertheless we are at the point where we need to have a good public barney to settle this nonsense. It is not healthy for social cohesion to have weirdness festering in Wellington, pissing the rest of the country off and building up unrealistic expectations in the minds of activists.
John
Your reply is timely. I read a letter from Sir Stephen Sedley (formerly of the English Court of Appeal) to the London Review of Books musing on the power of the Courts to overrule legislation. It may merit an article. Complex subject.
Maybe the Supreme court is getting the hint with today’s ruling in the Edwards case.
"Security of tenure and remuneration mean that Judges may be dismissed only for very limited reasons"; "Ensuring that judges have adequate and secure salaries eliminates financial manipulation as a tool of influence." These are valid points. Yes it's important that judges are properly remunerated and thus able to make provision for when they are no longer on the bench. So I won't be taking out a paid subscription to A Halfling's View thanks.
Which means you may miss out on some content 😂 but thanks for subscribing anyway. Much appreciated and thanks for your comment