courts

If our Courts don’t get the point of a mihi, then will they get what is really being said in arguments over mana whenua or tangihanga practices? Or, why appearances in Te Reo are more than a question of linguistic choice.

Last week there was a bit of media reporting around a High Court hearing and the use of Te Reo Māori.

It is important that judges face criticism―but not attacks like those on the judges who decided the Brexit case

In my other blogging endeavours, I often criticize judges, either for specific decisions or for their broader views of the law and of their own role, on which many of them are fond of expounding extra-judicially

Sick of #Brexit analysis? While most legal proceedings are more boring than watching grass dry, this one crazy transcript will shock and amaze you!

Having tired of perusing the interweb's voluminous reckons on Brexit, I chanced upon a gem of a story regarding an interchange between a defendant and a judge in Georgia (the U.S. variant) that did ... not go well.

Parliament seems about to drop New Zealand's commitment to the rule of law from the Act underpinning the judicial branch. Retiring Supreme Court judge (and former Solicitor-General) John McGrath thinks that's worrying. He's right. There's still time to lobby the Minister of Justice.

One of the first legislative measures of the young colony, back in 1841, was the creation of what we now know as the High Court. That legislation has been updated over the years, significantly in the 1880s before consolidation in the 1908 Judicature Act. 

Our constitutional arrangements work on an implicit bargain - the principle of comity - that the Courts and Parliament don't mess with each other's turf. I think that bargain just got broken.

I really don't want to be "that guy" who leaps up at monotonously regular intervals to proclaim that a latest constitutional outrage marks some sort of nadir in governmental practice.