Supreme Court of New Zealand - Criticism

Criticism

Since its foundation, the Supreme Court has been subject to "unprecedented public criticism". The quality of several Supreme Court judgments have been criticised in New Zealand and overseas, and concerns expressed about the impact on the country's case law and international reputation.

Critics include Jim Farmer QC, Tony Molloy QC, and former appellate judge Sir Edmund Thomas. The major criticisms are the Supreme Courts' lack of experience and its membership being drawn initially from the Court of Appeal.

In defence of the Supreme Court Rodney Harrison QC pointed to the benefits including easier access, particularly in areas of law other than the Privy Council's staple of commercial and tax cases. The fears that the Supreme Court would lack independence have been put to rest by a willingness to overturn Court of Appeal decisions.

Prior to abolition the Privy Council heard up to twelve cases from New Zealand a year. The Supreme Court has heard an average of 29 substantive appeals. A third of those have been criminal appeals, a much higher ratio than heard by the Privy Council.