Wednesday, 12 May 2004

Vote: Bills — Judicial Matters Bill — I gave two examples the other day, both of which I think bear repeating because they reflect the reality of life in the courts. The reality of life in the courts is that because there is a requirement to schedule cases, counsel are asked to make estimates of how long a case will last. Now, if we are to deal with what the Government apparently contemplates, which is a part-time judge or judges, we will find there will be occasions when such a part-time judge is simply unable to sit on all days of the week. So a 4-day case is ruled out for the part-time judge, and a 3-day case may also be ruled out. Those who have knowledge of the criminal and civil courts, in particular, will know that many cases run for those sorts of periods. What is the outcome? It is that the burden will be transferred on to the full-time judges in a way that is neither fair nor equitable. But that comment applies in the circumstance of scheduling where an accurate estimate is made of how long a case will last. It is often the case—and I instanced this to members the other day—that a case trickles on. It not only runs a day over the estimated time, but it may run 2 days over. In fact, there have been instances in recent times where the hearing duration of significant commercial cases has been hugely underestimated. So there will be the situation where a case runs on, and the part-time judge says he or she cannot continue to sit on the case.