Talk:Supreme Court of New Zealand

New Zealand Top‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can anyone down that way get an image of the Supreme Court building that is currrenly been used Brian | (Talk) 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're currently using part of the (new) Wellington High Court. The old High Court (next to the Law School) is to be used as the Supreme Court sometime in the future. --Lholden 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this goes in the article but at one stage it was going to be called the "Final Court of Appeal", but they decided to go with "Supreme Court of New Zealand" (SCONZpronouced "scones")instead. --Midnighttonight 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see on the news tonight "Privy Council Appeal" <-- shame it will be one of the last Brian | (Talk) 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight - I think that was the first proposal back in the 80s under Palmer as MoJ.

Brian - Yeah, interesting because the new UK Supreme Court will surely be sitting soon... --Lholden 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear - number of judges[edit]

The article talks about the appointment of a 6th permanent judge and then another. It's not particularly but I assume that these judges were to replace existing judges who stepped down? Or does the court now have 6 or 7 judges? Nil Einne 08:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal profession opposition?[edit]

Can we cite sources for the claim that the legal profession generally opposed the creation of the Supreme Court? I'm looking at the New Zealand Law Society's submission on the Supreme Court Bill [1] and it doesn't have that sense. It's more like, if you're going to drop the Privy Council, it should be replaced with a quality Supreme Court, and here are some ideas for making it good quality. --Tirana 02:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement is accurate, although finding a source maybe difficult, as most opposition is anecdotal. I think the NZLS position wasn't that well supported by lawyers either, although I personally agree with it. --Lholden 02:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim and added in the statement by the Monarchist League, which appears to be its actual source. --LJ Holden 09:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Decisions[edit]

"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." This sentence is now somewhat out of date. As of March 2008 there have been 56 substantive decisions handed down. However I wonder if it is no longer apt to keep track of the number of cases the court has gone through. This might have been appropriate when the court was relatively new and the number of cases it had managed to hear was still noteworthy, however I think that this time has now passed. This sentence ought to be deleted. If not it should be updated regualarly until the point of exhaustion is reached. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10803600. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Neljack (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neljack, I've edited my contribution again and added in a citation. By the way, it's unhelpful to drop in threats of editors being banned when you're explaining why you've made changes to an article. Whether an editor is banned is determined by a process. If there's specific concerns about my contributions then feel free to follow the process. --LJ Holden 21:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]