Elias wary of blurring courts’ role
New Zealand’s top judge says changes in the administration of justice risk blurring the distinct role of courts.
In a recent speech, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias questioned whether the way judges were supported and the courts administered risked the detachment that was central to the criminal justice system and the confidence of the community in it.
As an example, she said it had originally been planned that in Christchurch’s new justice precinct – grouping related services in one place – police and court staff would share a cafeteria and have access to each other in the building to promote co-operation in their work.
The new public management model treated the wider criminal justice sector as an integrated system, Elias said.
‘‘Reducing cost and, in particular, the cost of prisons and prisoner movements, is a substantial focus of this joined-up model of government.’’
Recently, the Corrections Department had approached the Justice Ministry to reschedule cases because Corrections was short of remand beds for women.
‘‘The inappropriateness of this sort of private adjustment seems not to have been understood. There is a risk of breakdown in understanding of proper boundaries.’’
She said the 2010 Red Devils Motorcycle Club case from Nelson may have been an example of the dangers of informality and familiarity when police apparently felt it appropriate to get judicial approval for their operation.
This led to police issuing a false warrant and prosecution for an undercover police officer, hoping to bolster the undercover’s credibility with the Red Devils. A court later described the ruse as ‘‘significant misconduct’’.
She also saw a change in the character of hearings when defendants in custody were expected to ‘‘appear’’ in court by an audiovisual link (AVL) from a prison or police station, unless it was considered contrary to the interests of justice. Justice, Corrections, and Police wanted to use AVL in Christchurch even when defendants were in cells in the same precinct as the court where they were to appear.
The chief justice said she was told that to save prisoner movements, the police cells at Hamilton and Rotorua were to be used as hubs for defendants in custody from around the region.
‘‘Down the track are quite ambitious suggestions that where judges and counsel are located is immaterial. Cases may be queued to be dealt with by the first available judicial officer anywhere in the country, with counsel and accused attending by video link wherever they happen to be.’’
It may make good administrative sense but it showed the courts in the middle of a pipeline of justice, not seen as a separate institution of government, risking a blurring of the distinct role of courts, Elias said. In the Christchurch precinct, it was a battle to get signs acknowledging the High Court and District Court, Elias said.
It emerged from discussions that the Justice Ministry’s property strategy was to move away from separate courthouses and make ministry buildings multi-purpose, she said.
There may be good sense in that, and be ways to properly manage it, but it risked further ministry management of court offices – called registries – to suit other agencies and operations, and reduce the visibility of courts to the public.
Elias pointed to the ministry’s broad role, including administering courts and tribunals, as well as legal aid and the public defence service, which was intended to supply lawyers for about half of criminal legal aid cases.
With such broad responsibilities the narrower values of the criminal justice system applied in the courts were not the focus and could be overlooked, she said. There was little agreement about where judicial administration took over and the ministry left off.
Separation issues were flagged as problems from the time the ministry took over the Department for Courts in 2003. These had since become acute because of the erosion of the culture of courts within the ministry.