Dear Fitty,

Thank you for your email. Please find attached a transfer letter as the Crown Law Office will respond to your OIA.

Best regards,
Daniel

show quoted sections

Dear Fitty

 

By request dated 16 October 2016, transferred to this office on 17
October, you asked:

 

Please detail the rules (if any) and the process [for selecting and
appointing Queen’s Counsel]. Please provide copies of the decisions either
appointing or declining applicants in the last two years to illustrate the
factors taken into account when making these decisions.

Yours faithfully,

Fitty

The rules pertaining to the appointment of Queen’s Counsel are set out in
the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, at ss 117 – 119C, and in the
Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers Queen’s Counsel ) Regulations 2012. 
 Regulation 5 of these regulations provides the Chief Justice and the
Attorney-General may issue guidelines in relation to both the
qualifications and experience that should be possessed by candidates for
appointment as Queen's Counsel and the process by which such candidates
may be recommended for appointment.  A copy of the current guidelines is
on the Crown Law Office website, as is the application form.

 

The Regulations prescribe an application form which requires applicants to
set out their professional details and eligibility for appointment.
Commentary on the appointment process may be found in a New Zealand Law
Society article by James Greenland dated 10 September 2015 entitled
“Taking Silk”, and in “Some QC facts and figures”, a 9 June 2016 Law
Society article by Geoff Adlam.

 

In 2016 twelve Queen’s Counsel were appointed: John Prebble, Ken Johnston,
Victoria Casey, Una Jagose, Derek Nolan, Aaron Perkins, Kieran Raftery,
David Bigio, Jane Anderson, Marc Corlett, Vanessa Bruton and Richard
Raymond.  In 2015 Richard Boast, Mark O’Brien and Margaret Casey were
appointed.  The Crown Law website also contains a list of Crown Queen’s
Counsel appointments from 1907 to 2016. 

 

You seek copies of the decisions appointing or declining QCs in the last
two years.  To the extent Crown Law Office holds such information it holds
it on behalf of the Solicitor-General in relation to his functions as the
junior Law Officer.  The Chief Ombudsman has ruled that the
Solicitor-General, when performing law officer functions, falls outside
the scope and jurisdiction of the OIA (Case No W44280). 

 

Even if the OIA did apply, withholding this information is necessary to
protect the privacy of natural persons (s 9(2)(a) of the OIA.), and to
protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence where
the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the
supply of similar information, or information from the same source and it
is in the public interest that such information should continue to be
supplied (s 9(2)(ba) of the OIA).  We do not consider the reasons for
withholding this information are outweighed by any public interest in
disclosing this information.

 

We apologise for the delay in responding to your request.  Unfortunately
our normal procedures for ensuring requests are responded to in accordance
with the Act’s timeframes failed on this occasion.  We intend to consider
whether there is anything further that may be provided in answer to your
request and if so advise you of our response no later than 31 January
2017.  

 

You may if you wish seek a review of this decision by the Ombudsmen.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Peter Gunn

Crown Counsel/Team Manager Constitutional and Human Rights Team

Crown Law Te Tari Ture o te Karauna

DDI:  +64 4 494 5561

M:     027 702 2511

[1]www.crownlaw.govt.nz

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/

Dear Fitty

 

In my response to your request dated 16 October 2016, sent on 22 December
2016, I said we intended to consider whether there was anything further
that could be provided in answer to your request and if so advise you of
our response no later than 31 January 2017.  This email advises that we
have undertaken that further review and do not consider there is anything
further that may be provided in answer to your request, for the reasons
outlined in my earlier email.

 

I repeat my apologies for the delay in dealing with your original
request.   

 

You may if you wish seek a review of this decision by the Ombudsmen.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Peter Gunn

Crown Counsel/Team Manager Constitutional and Human Rights Team

Crown Law Te Tari Ture o te Karauna

 

 

 

show quoted sections