Page 3562 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A significant reform could be that the courts would have common rules and procedures, except where differences of function dictate different procedures. The civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court could be defined as at present, but without limitation as to monetary amount. However, the lower court would not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction under this proposal where the amount at issue exceeded $50,000. The Magistrates Court could, on Mr Curtis' proposal, be given additional powers in relation to granting specific performance and injunctive relief.
The judicial system itself could, under Mr Curtis' model, determine in which of the two courts an action is to be brought. He recommends that:
Jurisdiction should be distributed within the court structure according to the sound management principle that a task should be performed at the lowest level in an organisation at which it can be most effectively and efficiently performed.
On this basis, it would be possible to transfer cases, in Mr Curtis' view, to the most appropriate forum. This would produce economies for litigants and facilitate the resolution of their cases.
One result of Mr Curtis' proposal would be that, from the litigant's viewpoint, the threshold between the two levels of courts will be largely invisible. This process would be encouraged by having a common public counter and staff.
With regard to the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, Mr Curtis does not feel that it would be desirable to follow the New Zealand decision to give the lower court a completely concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. Mr Curtis suggests that the "radical step" of creating a jury trial jurisdiction in the lower court ought not to be taken until there has been a comprehensive examination of the management of jury trials in the Supreme Court to determine whether more effective and efficient use can be made of the available resources, including those of the police, prosecution and defence, by having jury trials in the lower court.
The discussion paper notes that it might aid flexibility in deploying judicial resources if summary trials were left to the lower court, with the Supreme Court continuing to hear jury trials, but having some lower court judges empowered to sit in the Supreme Court for certain types of matters. The discussion paper suggests that the range of cases which might be dealt with by the lower court on a plea of guilty might be extended to all offences with a penalty other than life imprisonment. Similarly, the Supreme Court might be given jurisdiction to deal summarily with summary offences relating to a trial for an indictable offence.
I should mention that Mr Curtis favours the retention of committal proceedings, but incorporating the procedural reforms now being put in place by the Chief Magistrate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .