Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Judgment: Criminal Bar Association of NZ v Attorney-General

[Judgment: Criminal_Bar_Association_v_AG.pdf]

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

MEDIA RELEASE

CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND v ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(CA606/2012) [2013] NZCA X

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

The Court has allowed in part an appeal by the Criminal Bar Association from a judgment of the High Court concerning the lawfulness of the Government’s criminal legal aid policy. Some background is necessary to explain the Court’s judgment.

In response to its concern over the rising cost of legal aid, the Government commissioned a review of the legal aid system. The outcome of that review was the passing of the Legal Services Act 2011. That Act disestablished the Legal Services Agency, and moved the task of granting and administering legal aid from the Agency into the Ministry of Justice. The Act gave the Secretary for Justice overall responsibility for administering legal aid. The Act established the office of Legal Services Commissioner within the Ministry, and gave the Commissioner responsibility for the grant of legal aid under the Act. The Act required the Commissioner to act independently when performing that function.

In March 2012 the Secretary for Justice introduced a new policy called the Criminal Fixed Fee and Complex Cases Policy and Procedures. This Policy fixes the fees lawyers are paid for providing particular legal services, regardless of how much time is involved. Only if amendment criteria set down in the Policy are met will more than the fixed fees be paid. When introducing the Policy the Government anticipated that the fixed fees would apply in 95% of criminal legal aid cases. Previously, lawyers had been paid at an hourly rate, up to a maximum number of hours.

The Criminal Bar Association represents lawyers practising criminal law. The Association applied to the High Court for judicial review of the Policy, alleging that it was unlawful in several respects. Justice Simon France dismissed the Association’s application, finding that there was nothing legally wrong with the Policy. The Association appealed that judgment.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment holds that the Policy is unlawful in two respects. The first is that the Policy was made by the Secretary. By the Policy the Secretary effectively dictates to the Commissioner in respect of the grant of legal aid for most criminal cases. That is unlawful because the Legal Services Act makes it clear that the grant of legal aid in individual cases is the function of the Commissioner, and one which the Commissioner is to exercise independently.

In this part of its judgment the Court emphasises the importance Parliament placed on the independent exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. The prosecution of crime is carried out by the Solicitor-General as an independent law officer of the Crown, to avoid any appearance of political decision making in relation to public prosecutions. Parliament considered it important that the granting of legal aid to those accused of crime be controlled by an independent person, as the Act provides. It is inappropriate that the Secretary dictate to the Commissioner how he should perform that independent function.

The Court also found the Policy is unlawful in that it unreasonably fetters or restricts the Commissioner’s discretion when exercising his independent functions under the Act. The Court’s view is that the criteria in the Policy are so unclear, inflexible and unachievable that they leave no room for the Commissioner to exercise discretion to depart from the fixed fees where the Commissioner considers they are inappropriate for the particular case.

The Court rejected the Association’s arguments that the Policy was unlawful in further respects. It held that cutting the cost of legal services was a lawful purpose of the Legal Services Act. It also held that the Secretary for Justice was entitled to delegate his functions under the Legal Services Act to a particular person who had also been appointed Commissioner.

Having found the Policy unlawful in two respects, the Court considered that, strictly, it did not need to decide three further challenges by the Association to the lawfulness of the Policy. However, the Court dealt with these for completeness, rejecting all three. It held that the Secretary, when developing the Policy, had properly taken into account defendants’ rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Further, that the Policy was not an unreasonable one, in administrative law terms. Finally, it held that the Secretary correctly regarded himself as bound by a decision of Cabinet in terms of the development and implementation of the Policy.

ENDS

[Judgment: Criminal_Bar_Association_v_AG.pdf]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

EPA: Board Of Inquiry Rejects Basin Flyover By Majority Of 3 To 1

The independent Board of Inquiry delegated to decide on the Basin Bridge Proposal has, by a majority decision (3 to 1), cancelled the Transport Agency’s Notice of Requirement and declined its resource consent applications for the construction, operation and maintenance of a flyover on State Highway 1 in Wellington City between Paterson Street and Buckle Street/Taranaki Street...

Parties specified under Section 149Q(3) of the RMA now have 20 working days to make comments on minor or technical aspects of the report. More>>

 

Parliament Today:

Red Tape: Local Regulations Go Under Microscope

The Government says it is accepting nearly all of the recommendations the Productivity Commission has made on ways to improve local regulations. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Non-Apology To Tania Billingsley

The refusal by Prime Minister John Key to issue a personal apology to Tania Billingsley has been accompanied by an array of excuses... Yesterday though, Key’s choice of words indicated that an apology was the last thing on his mind. More>>

ALSO:

Conventions: Winston Peters On The Nation

Winston Peters opens door to standing in East Coast Bays electorate, says it's an "exciting point" and he's thinking about it. "I’ve had a whole lot of people writing to me and calling up and saying ‘why don’t you have a go in East Coast Bays’." More>>

ALSO:

Waitangi Tribunal: Report On The MV Rena

In its interim report, the Waitangi Tribunal has found that the Crown’s conduct in response to the grounding of the MV Rena on Otaiti (Astrolabe) reef breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. More>>

ALSO:

Gaza: Wellington Protest For Palestine Calls For End To Bombing

Around 300 people gathered outside the Israeli Embassy in Wellington on Friday to protest Israel’s occupation of Palestine. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Failure To Prosecute The GCSB

So one hand of the state – the Independent Police Conduct Authority – has now washed the hands of its brother agencies, and declared that all hands are clean. Case closed. More>>

ALSO:

Illegal Search: Police Behaviour 'Reminiscent Of Tūhoe Raids'

"Māori will lose further trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) if the recent incident in Stratford is not adequately addressed. This behaviour would not occur in Epsom or Khandallah so why should police think that such behaviour was acceptable in Stratford," says Chris McKenzie. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news