|
Council of Law Reporting Act 1969
Competition Policy Review Report - Option 4
Option 4 - The Court would publish all of the judgments and take on the value adding role of the Council
The main reasons advanced in support of this option were:
- With the development of specialist series of law reports, topic based loose leaf services and the move towards specialisation of solicitor’s practices, the purchase of authorised reports categorised by the court in which they were handed down may not necessarily be relevant to a practice;
- There is a need for quick access to law and reasons for decisions in order for legal practitioners to fulfil their obligations to clients and courts. However, the 3 - 6 month period for release of authorised reports means that there is a great deal of reliance placed on the copy released by the court on the day of judgment;
- The value of “legally significant” judgments is less relevant because of the faster availability of judgments through electronic medium; and
- The advances in information technology mean that access by the public to judgments and legal information generally is now much easier. The authorised reports are therefore less important in this respect.
The CEO of the Supreme Court, Ms Nerida Johnston also forwarded comments made by Registrars in the Court. While not favouring any particular option, the following points were made:
- To the extent that the question is a cost benefit analysis, it is unclear just how expensive the Council is to run;
- It is also unclear how effective its presence in the market has been in limiting over-reporting or containing the costs of reports;
- Many of the arguments which justified a limited reporting of authorised judgments, when the only way of making judgments available was a paper based service, no longer apply;
- There may still be some utility in having the Council determine those judgments that are most important,
- Potential publishers should be free to develop products that meet their clients needs. For example, potential purchasers may wish for a product which contains only the essential judgments, while others may wish for additional material; and
- Instead of the Council determining essential cases, a committee of judges of each court (or the Judicial Commission) might take on this role. The database of the Supreme Court could identify such cases in a particular way.
Adoption of this option would involve repealing the Council of Law Reporting Act 1969.
|
