New Zealand Order of Merit: Te Reo Appellations

You probably know that I previously agitated for the return of titular honours for the NZ Order of Merit. My support for the return of the old titular honours - the Knighthoods and Damehoods - was, however, teamed with the belief that we could also make the titular awards more Kiwi by formally providing for Te Reo translations or equivalent appellations.

Possible appellations could be, "Tā" (Sir) and "Kahurangi" (Dame). However, the development of these appellations probably should involve Māoridom and the Māori Language Commission to ensure they are appropriate and supported. Honorands could choose to adopt the English version or Te Reo.

Constitutional review: broad cross-party support?

The constitutional review was finally announced last week:

- www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-begins-cross-party-constitutional-review

It's a long-term project, so forgive me if I take my time to digest it before posting more.

I shared some of my initial reactions on the Court Report this week:

- tvnz.co.nz/the-court-report/court-report-index-group-3602627

And my law buddy, Andrew Geddis, has some typically wise analysis and a set of predications over at Pundit:

- www.pundit.co.nz/content/what-the-constitutional-review-will-recommend-you-heard-it-here-first

But, one thought to set the rolling maul of constitutional navel-gazing off.

Bill English proclaimed that any significant constitutional changes would require overwhelming support:

"Significant change will not be undertaken lightly and will require either broad cross-party agreement or the majority support of voters at a referendum,"

Good call.

But, based on this principle, does that mean the government won't be amending the jury trial threshold in our Bill of Rights unless they can garner broad cross-party support for the change?


- www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0243/latest/DLM3360694.html 

TID-BIT: Provocative Provocation

I, for one, am pleased we got rid of the partial provocation defence and instead left matters of mitigation for judges in sentencing. The defence was plagued with uncertainty, complication and latent prejudice.

It's interesting therefore to see the Canadian Supreme Court response to some of these problems.  They had to consider whether the allegedly provocative act -- a woman's sexual involvement with another man after the couple had separated -- was sufficient to form a foundation for a provocation defence. It wasn't.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc58/2010scc58.html


An excerpt:

[18] The common law defence of provocation was adopted and codified in the Canadian Criminal Code from its inception in 1892. The wording of s. 232 remains substantially unaltered. The same cannot be said of the social context in which it is embedded. The continued appropriateness of the defence has been a source of controversy, both in Canada and abroad. Some commentators and reviewing bodies have recommended that the defence be abandoned altogether, leaving provocation, when relevant, as a factor to be considered in sentencing. For a discussion of such reform proposals in Canada and elsewhere, see D. E. Ives, “Provocation, Excessive Force in Self-Defence and Diminished Responsibility”, in Law Commission of Great Britain, Partial Defences to Murder: Overseas Studies, Consultation Paper 173 (App. B) (2003), 73, at pp. 78-81; Australia, Victorian Law Reform Commission, Defences to Homicide: Final Report (2004); New Zealand Law Commission, The Partial Defence of Provocation, Report 98 (2007).

[19] Parliament has not chosen this course and the defence continues to exist in Canada. This does not mean, however, that the defence in its present articulation should not continue to evolve to reflect contemporary social norms, and in particular, Charter values. Just as at common law the notion of an “insult ... sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control”, now codified under s. 232, is not frozen in time. By incorporating this objective element, the defence of provocation is necessarily informed by contemporary social norms and values. These include society’s changed views regarding the nature of marital relationships and the present reality that a high percentage of them end in separation.

TID-BIT: Privacy and Pike River

An excellent post from my colleague and privacy expert, Dr Nicole Moreham, on the legal implications of the media coverage of Pike River:

http://15lambtonquay.blogspot.com/2010/11/privacy-and-pike-river.html

POP QUIZ: Queen and Commonwealth

So, over the last couple of weeks we've been watching 54 Commonwealth nations battle for sporting medals.
But some constitutional questions:
Q1.  How many of the nations are monarchies with Queen Elizabeth II as Sovereign?
Q2.  How many of the nations are republics.
Q3.  How many of the nations are monarchies with a different Sovereign?
Answers in comments.