Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Supreme Court Of New Zealand shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Supreme Court Of New Zealand offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Supreme Court Of New Zealand at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Supreme Court Of New Zealand? Wrong! If the Supreme Court Of New Zealand is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Supreme Court Of New Zealand then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Supreme Court Of New Zealand? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Supreme Court Of New Zealand and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Supreme Court Of New Zealand wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Supreme Court Of New Zealand then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Supreme Court Of New Zealand site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Supreme Court Of New Zealand, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Supreme Court Of New Zealand, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
The
Supreme Court of New Zealand is the highest court in the land and the court of last resort in
New Zealand, having formally come into existence at the beginning of 2004, and sitting for the first time on July 1,
2004. It controversially replaced the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in
London. It was created with the passing of the Supreme Court Act 2003, on October 15, 2003.
It is no relation to the "old" Supreme Court, which was renamed in 1980 (as the result of a Royal Commission recommendation) as the
High Court of New Zealand in anticipation of the creation of a court like the one that now bears its former name.
Composition
The Supreme Court sits in
Wellington. The Court is to get a new $67millon home to be built beside, and to expand into the historic High Court building, located near Parliament, although the court is being housed in temporary facilities while the new building is built and the High Court building refurbished.
Inaugural judges were:
The bench (with the exception of the Chief Justice, who had automatic appointment) were the most senior judges of the
New Zealand Court of Appeal. Their appointment to the new Court was said to have been based on seniority and merit.image:SCONZ.jpgSeveral acting Judges have also been appointed to sit whenever a permanent judge was unable to do so due to illness, or a conflict of interest. These judges were appointed from the retired judges of the Court of Appeal and including Justices
John Henry (jurist),
Edmund Thomas (jurist), former President of the Court of Appeal Sir Ivor Richardson and former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum. Acting judges only sit on substantive appeals, and not applications for leave, due to the requirement for appeals to be heard en banc by five judges.
On May 4, 2005, Attorney-General (New Zealand)
Michael Cullen announced the appointment of Justice John McGrath (jurist) of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court bench as its sixth permanent judge. On
February 21,
2006, the Honourable
Noel Crossley Anderson (at the time President of the Court of Appeal) was appointed to the Supreme Court. Thus the promotion of the most senior Court of Appeal member has continued.
Controversy
Although proposals for an indigenous final appellate court can be traced back to 1985, the creation of the Supreme Court was controversial. The
Supreme Court Act 2003 was passed by a relatively small margin - the governing New Zealand Labour Party and
New Zealand Progressive Party parties, supported by the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand , voted in favour, while the
New Zealand National Party , New Zealand First, ACT New Zealand , and
United Future New Zealand parties voted against.
Referendum
After the Opposition parties unsuccessfully called for a national referendum on the matter, they launched a petition for a non-binding referendum of their own. However, the petition failed to gain the 310,000 signatures needed. The legal profession in general were opposed to the creation of the new court, and members were generally concerned that such an important legal change was forced through in the face of heated opposition.
Appointments
One issue that was particularly contentious as the
Bill (proposed law) was being debated in Parliament was the appointment of judges to the Court, with opposition parties claiming that the
Attorney-General (New Zealand), Labour's
Margaret Wilson, would make partisan choices. These concerns were due to the fact that the entire bench was to be appointed simultaneously, and no clear statement had been made about how they would be selected. However, the level of concern was considerably lessened when Wilson announced that the appointments would be based on merit and seniority. Nevertheless, the issue of appointments still lingers; while the appointment of Justice McGrath was expected and unsurprising (McGrath and Anderson being the most senior judge on the Court of Appeal at the time of their appointments) whether future appointment will follow the same pattern remains unclear.
Cases
One of the grounds advanced for the creation of the Court was that it would allow more people to have access to the country's highest appellate court. The Supreme Court is likely to hear many more cases than were heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council due to its jurisdiction being considerably broader. For example, cases in the areas of employment, criminal and family law can be heard by the Supreme Court, whereas previously cases in both areas of law could normally progress no further than the
Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The proximity of the Court is another factor that is likely to contribute to it hearing an increased number of appeals and also allows appeals to be heard and determined considerable faster than under the former system.
The first substantive case to be heard by the Supreme Court was the matter of Donna Awatere Huata's expulsion from Parliament. Her former party,
ACT New Zealand, was appealing a decision by a lower court which invalidated attempts to expel her. The case began on
October 5,
2004, and the court issued its judgment (unanimously in favour of the ACT) on
November 18.
The court's second decision related to the case of
Ahmed Zaoui, an Algeria asylum-seeker detained by the government because the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service considered him a threat to national security. The Supreme Court decided to allow Zaoui to be released on bail, against the wishes of the government.
Since then, the Court has heard a further 11 substantive appeals (with decisions released in nine of those), along with approximately 55 applications of leave to appeal.
Leave
Unlike some other final appellate courts internationally, there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. All appeals are first required to apply to the Court for leave to appeal. This is granted or declined based on a number of factors listed in the Supreme Court Act, with the overarching principle being that it must be necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear the appeal. Leave applications are normally determined by any two judges of the court based on the written submission of the parties without an oral hearing; however, the judges hearing the application can decide to hold an oral hearing if they wish.
This system is also in place in the United Kingdom where the House of Lords Judicial functions of the House of Lords, the highest court of
appeal in the United Kingdom, also must grant leave for appeal for cases to be heard before it. Similarly, most litigants seeking to appeal to the
United States Supreme Court,
Supreme Court of Canada or High Court of Australia require leave before their case can be heard - although there are some exceptions to this the latter two courts.
See also
The
Supreme Court of New Zealand is the highest court in the land and the court of last resort in
New Zealand, having formally come into existence at the beginning of
2004, and sitting for the first time on
July 1, 2004. It controversially replaced the right of appeal to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, based in London. It was created with the passing of the Supreme Court Act 2003, on
October 15,
2003.
It is no relation to the "old" Supreme Court, which was renamed in 1980 (as the result of a Royal Commission recommendation) as the High Court of New Zealand in anticipation of the creation of a court like the one that now bears its former name.
Composition
The Supreme Court sits in Wellington. The Court is to get a new $67millon home to be built beside, and to expand into the historic High Court building, located near Parliament, although the court is being housed in temporary facilities while the new building is built and the High Court building refurbished.
Inaugural judges were:
The bench (with the exception of the Chief Justice, who had automatic appointment) were the most senior judges of the
New Zealand Court of Appeal. Their appointment to the new Court was said to have been based on seniority and merit.
image:SCONZ.jpgSeveral acting Judges have also been appointed to sit whenever a permanent judge was unable to do so due to illness, or a conflict of interest. These judges were appointed from the retired judges of the Court of Appeal and including Justices John Henry (jurist), Edmund Thomas (jurist), former President of the Court of Appeal Sir Ivor Richardson and former Chief Justice Sir
Thomas Eichelbaum. Acting judges only sit on substantive appeals, and not applications for leave, due to the requirement for appeals to be heard
en banc by five judges.
On May 4,
2005, Attorney-General (New Zealand) Michael Cullen announced the appointment of Justice
John McGrath (jurist) of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court bench as its sixth permanent judge. On
February 21, 2006, the Honourable Noel Crossley Anderson (at the time President of the Court of Appeal) was appointed to the Supreme Court. Thus the promotion of the most senior Court of Appeal member has continued.
Controversy
Although proposals for an indigenous final appellate court can be traced back to 1985, the creation of the Supreme Court was controversial. The
Supreme Court Act 2003 was passed by a relatively small margin - the governing
New Zealand Labour Party and New Zealand Progressive Party parties, supported by the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand , voted in favour, while the New Zealand National Party , New Zealand First,
ACT New Zealand , and United Future New Zealand parties voted against.
Referendum
After the Opposition parties unsuccessfully called for a national referendum on the matter, they launched a petition for a non-binding referendum of their own. However, the petition failed to gain the 310,000 signatures needed. The legal profession in general were opposed to the creation of the new court, and members were generally concerned that such an important legal change was forced through in the face of heated opposition.
Appointments
One issue that was particularly contentious as the Bill (proposed law) was being debated in
Parliament was the appointment of judges to the Court, with opposition parties claiming that the Attorney-General (New Zealand), Labour's Margaret Wilson, would make partisan choices. These concerns were due to the fact that the entire bench was to be appointed simultaneously, and no clear statement had been made about how they would be selected. However, the level of concern was considerably lessened when Wilson announced that the appointments would be based on merit and seniority. Nevertheless, the issue of appointments still lingers; while the appointment of Justice McGrath was expected and unsurprising (McGrath and Anderson being the most senior judge on the Court of Appeal at the time of their appointments) whether future appointment will follow the same pattern remains unclear.
Cases
One of the grounds advanced for the creation of the Court was that it would allow more people to have access to the country's highest appellate court. The Supreme Court is likely to hear many more cases than were heard by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council due to its jurisdiction being considerably broader. For example, cases in the areas of employment, criminal and family law can be heard by the Supreme Court, whereas previously cases in both areas of law could normally progress no further than the
Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The proximity of the Court is another factor that is likely to contribute to it hearing an increased number of appeals and also allows appeals to be heard and determined considerable faster than under the former system.
The first substantive case to be heard by the Supreme Court was the matter of Donna Awatere Huata's expulsion from Parliament. Her former party,
ACT New Zealand, was appealing a decision by a lower court which invalidated attempts to expel her. The case began on
October 5, 2004, and the court issued its judgment (unanimously in favour of the ACT) on November 18.
The court's second decision related to the case of
Ahmed Zaoui, an Algeria asylum-seeker detained by the government because the
New Zealand Security Intelligence Service considered him a threat to national security. The Supreme Court decided to allow Zaoui to be released on bail, against the wishes of the government.
Since then, the Court has heard a further 11 substantive appeals (with decisions released in nine of those), along with approximately 55 applications of leave to appeal.
Leave
Unlike some other final appellate courts internationally, there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand. All appeals are first required to apply to the Court for leave to appeal. This is granted or declined based on a number of factors listed in the Supreme Court Act, with the overarching principle being that it must be necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear the appeal. Leave applications are normally determined by any two judges of the court based on the written submission of the parties without an oral hearing; however, the judges hearing the application can decide to hold an oral hearing if they wish.
This system is also in place in the United Kingdom where the
House of Lords Judicial functions of the House of Lords, the highest court of appeal in the
United Kingdom, also must grant leave for appeal for cases to be heard before it. Similarly, most litigants seeking to appeal to the
United States Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Canada or
High Court of Australia require leave before their case can be heard - although there are some exceptions to this the latter two courts.
See also
- Constitution of New Zealand
