As a humble person with no legal background whatsoever, my take has always been that parliament writes the laws, judges administer them as they are written. It’s all very well for judges to complain that parliaments are imperfect, and they are, but it is entirely unreasonable for judges to assert that they are not
"None of which means Cooke’s era produced nothing of value. His contributions to administrative law, to procedural reform, to the clarity of legal reasoning in dozens of areas – these are real and enduring. The point is not that Cooke was wrong about everything. It is that his methodology was without recognisable constitutional warrant..."
Thanks Roger- even I, a “non-legal” could follow your reasoning. I wonder then whether the current Supreme Court justices are disingenuous by conveniently hiding under Cooke’s cloak to advance their own values agenda. This seems to me to be a very slippery slope. As slippery as tikanga - unwritten, un-codified, variable from tribe to tribe, and apparently infinitely malleable to suit the circumstances. How on earth could this be considered “law”?
Did MSM describe the underlying reasoning behind the Ellis decision (beyond explaining it was based on tikanga despite neither party having Maori connections), at the time, Roger?
I don't recall any of what you have detailed (the nuclear bomb aspects) being reported.
At the time, I didn't realise it was such extreme judicial activism. I thought it was good because it seemed Ellis had been unreasonably convicted; on the "evidence" of kids who said, for example, he'd taken them off in a spaceship....
Having read how bad things are now, I have to ask how do return to a Justice System that is subservient to Parliament?
How the heck did Judith Collins come to think extending Justice Glazebrook's term was a good idea??
Noel –you are not alone. Ellis was reported almost exclusively as a humane outcome for a man wrongly convicted, with tikanga treated as a procedural footnote. The constitutional dimension was barely covered. That is part of why this column work matters – the reporting did not do it.
On the return question: Parliament. Only Parliament can correct what Parliament’s silence has permitted. That is the argument in my report for The New Zealand Initiative, “Who Makes the Law? Reining in the Supreme Court,” and what the column series is building toward. The columns are well read in Wellington and are having an impact.
As a humble person with no legal background whatsoever, my take has always been that parliament writes the laws, judges administer them as they are written. It’s all very well for judges to complain that parliaments are imperfect, and they are, but it is entirely unreasonable for judges to assert that they are not
Very informative thank you. Perhaps Glazebrook only meant to say that tikanga was 'akin' to the 'First Law of NZ'?
Dodgy activist wankers know exactly what they are doing with their race relations narrative. Quite shameful.
what's more shameful is that Judith C re-appointed her for 2 years, after her retirement date.
How that hell did she justify that???
As Roger says;
"None of which means Cooke’s era produced nothing of value. His contributions to administrative law, to procedural reform, to the clarity of legal reasoning in dozens of areas – these are real and enduring. The point is not that Cooke was wrong about everything. It is that his methodology was without recognisable constitutional warrant..."
Thanks Roger- even I, a “non-legal” could follow your reasoning. I wonder then whether the current Supreme Court justices are disingenuous by conveniently hiding under Cooke’s cloak to advance their own values agenda. This seems to me to be a very slippery slope. As slippery as tikanga - unwritten, un-codified, variable from tribe to tribe, and apparently infinitely malleable to suit the circumstances. How on earth could this be considered “law”?
Did MSM describe the underlying reasoning behind the Ellis decision (beyond explaining it was based on tikanga despite neither party having Maori connections), at the time, Roger?
I don't recall any of what you have detailed (the nuclear bomb aspects) being reported.
At the time, I didn't realise it was such extreme judicial activism. I thought it was good because it seemed Ellis had been unreasonably convicted; on the "evidence" of kids who said, for example, he'd taken them off in a spaceship....
Having read how bad things are now, I have to ask how do return to a Justice System that is subservient to Parliament?
How the heck did Judith Collins come to think extending Justice Glazebrook's term was a good idea??
Noel –you are not alone. Ellis was reported almost exclusively as a humane outcome for a man wrongly convicted, with tikanga treated as a procedural footnote. The constitutional dimension was barely covered. That is part of why this column work matters – the reporting did not do it.
On the return question: Parliament. Only Parliament can correct what Parliament’s silence has permitted. That is the argument in my report for The New Zealand Initiative, “Who Makes the Law? Reining in the Supreme Court,” and what the column series is building toward. The columns are well read in Wellington and are having an impact.
Great
Please keep up the good work Roger.