CO885-(7-8) — Page 382

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

FILTICO.885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TỔ

34

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. With regard to how that is to be remedied, I say I have views upon it, but I should like to hear the opinions of others before expressing an opinion. Personally, I am inclined to think that it would be better to appoint men for life and to pay them. As to the question who is to pay them, that is a detail which may be considered later on. There is no desire on the part of the Government of the Cape to shirk our share of whatever the Conference think it right should be contributed by the Colonies. We are quite prepared to pay our share.. We know it must involve expenditure, but we think it would be better to incur that expenditure. Whether the Government pay all of it or part, or we pay all of it or part, we think it better that somebody should be appointed whose work should be to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that only, and not to sit upon a Court at Cape Town.

With regard to the question you, Sir, put as to whether, after a lapse of time, such a man would cease to be regarded as a representative of the Colony, I would say we hardly look upon him as a representative of the Colony; we merely look upon him as a contribution which the Colonics give towards strengthening the Court of Appeal, and so long as he keeps in touch with the law of the Colony that is all we ask. He would be a man who had been at the Bar and on the Bench for many years, and he would therefore have become saturated with the law. Ile would know what is most important in such matters, the local conditions of the country, and the local condi- tions which would surround an appeal which would come before the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council. He could keep that up either by occasionally visiting the Colony, or, if not, he would certainly read up all the law reports, and he would be acquainted with the different forms and any changes that might be made. We do not sec very much in the consideration put by Mr. Chamberlain just now. I think that is all I have to say at present.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: What would you say about the question of his being also a member of the House of Lords?

Mr. ROSE INNES: Well, Sir, if one contention is approved of-that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is kept intact-there would be no necessity to make him a member of the House of Lords.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: But you would desire that he should be?

Mr. ROSE INNES: We would desire that he should not be. I do not see that any good purpose would be served; in fact, we do not urge the objection to title quite as much as my friend opposite.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: It was not merely a question of title, you know, but a question of sharing in the judicial administration of the House of Lords.

Mr. ROSE INNES: Yes; I was coming to that. As regards sharing in the judicial duties of the House of Lords, we do not see that there would be any necessity for that, because the House of Lords would then deal only with appeals from the United Kingdom. There would be no necessity for sending local men to that Tribunal. If there were two Tribunals quite separate, then the question of making a local man a Peer falls away. Then there are many matters of detail, which, although they are matters of detail, are important matters, which, perhaps, it would be well to consider. For instance, there is the limit of appeal. I only refer to this now because at this stage it would be inopportunc to go into details, but I am inclined to think that 5001. is too low. In some Colonics it is 1,000l., and in some it is higher. I think 5001. is somewhat low.

Then another matter, which is more important, is with regard to the form of the Order. That, I confess, is a very difficult matter. For 300 years the form of an Order in Council, no doubt on sound constitutional grounds, the judgment of the Sovereign, as advised by the Judicial Committee, is one judgment. One sees that it is very difficult to avoid it. At the same time, if it were possible to avoid it, it would be a great gain.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: You mean each member of the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council should give his judgment separately.

35

Mr. ROSE INNES: That each member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should give his judgment separately as an addendum to the order of the Sovereign. I am only throwing it out as a suggestion; I do not say it can be done, but it is a very important matter. We feel--I speak with deference to the Judicial Committee-but we do feel that the judgments of the Committee are bald; they are bald necessarily, bald because we have an order embodying the conflicting views of a number of men, and we have none of those very valuable dicta and expressions of opinion upon the law which, in the judgments in important cases, do good, and we think it would be, if possible, an improvement. I merely speak with deep hesitation, because I see very great difficulties in the way, but if these could be overcome no doubt it would be a great thing.

The LORD CILANCELLOR: You are aware that that question has been dealt with, and the difficulty suggested, of course, is that sometimes, in order to get a judgment at all, the judgment ultimately delivered may be the judgment of a majority; that has happened.

Mr. ROSE INNES: Yes; but it is the judgment of the Sovereign.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am speaking now, of course, of the ultimate decision of the Sovereign on the advice given. thought you were using it in the sense in which we lawyers very often use it, meaning the reasons given for the judgment really.

Mr. ROSE INNES: Yes, my Lord, but take the case of where each member has on different grounds decided that the judgment was wrong. They would all join in advising His Majesty to disallow the judgment, and the form of order would be that the judgment should be set aside.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite true, and that is perhaps the advantage of the present system, because then you do not know that there has been any dissentient view, whereas you are advocating rather, as I understand, an exposi- tion of the grounds which have led to that judgment.

Mr. ROSE INNES: There are many advantages in having the present system. I quite see the difficulty, my Lord, that you point out, and I do not wish to underrate it; but it is possible that those who are more expérienced than I am in those matters might see where it could be overcome. There certainly is a great advantage in having the dieta and expressions of opinion of the different judges.

Another matter of detail is in regard to the time taken in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The delay in a good many cases is unavoidable.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is some little misapprehension about the delay. I was looking at the lists since I have presided over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I think it is a great mistake to suppose that there is much delay. Whatever delay there is I can answer for it for some years past it has been at the especial request of the parties; they have not been ready.

Mr. ROSE INNES: I was not referring to the delay when the case reached the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; I think there is delay on the other side.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: That makes me not responsible.

Mr. ROSE INNES: I am not very familiar with the rules of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but I fancy there is no time fixed for a Judge to send up his reasons, and the result is, these reasons are, as I know, very often delayed. That is a mere matter of detail. Perhaps it could be ordered that a Colonial Judge must send his reasons within three months of the appeal being laid. I know, indeed, that much of the delay which is complained of is attributed to that cause.

[882]

F 2

•

585

-