Waikato Law Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Waikato Law Review |
|
THE EXPLOSION OF NEW ZEALAND LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP
IN THE 1960S
At the New Zealand Law Conference in 1960, prominent barrister Robin Cooke complained that “the lack of a critical law review like those published overseas has militated against the debate of legal issues”.[1] At the time, New Zealand was served by only two domestic legal periodicals. The established New Zealand Law Journal published some articles on legal topics alongside its notes on cases and legislation and general news for the legal profession. The Victoria University College Law Review was intended primarily as a pedagogical tool for students at the Victoria Law School. But by the end of the decade things were very different. A further four law reviews were being published in New Zealand, and all, to a greater or lesser extent, were proving “critical” in the way Cooke desired. This record – the emergence of four New Zealand law reviews in one decade – was not to be exceeded until the 1990s. In addition, a considerable number of treatises on New Zealand law were published during the 1960s.
For these reasons, it is fair to talk of an “explosion” of New Zealand legal scholarship during the 1960s. This essay explores both the how of this explosion, through an examination of legal publications of the time; and the why. It is argued that three phenomena were particularly important. First, the nature of legal education altered considerably during the 1960s, with the numbers of both full-time students and full-time faculty growing markedly. These trends helped bring about an amplified emphasis on legal research, with law reviews and treatises emerging as the natural forum for such scholarship. Second, the New Zealand Court of Appeal, constituted as a separate body in 1958, came to play an increasingly confident and obtrusive role in the development of New Zealand law during the 1960s. This obtrusiveness naturally led to comment from legal scholars. Finally, the 1960s were a time of change in New Zealand legislation, with Parliament attempting to resolve or minimise various social and legal problems through statute. Many of these statutes attracted the attention of academics. But it was not only the volume of New Zealand legal scholarship that grew during the 1960s. The quality of scholarship improved as well: many writers came to approach legal problems in a critical manner and looked to the social, theoretical and political aspects of the law.
During the nineteenth century, the Colonial Jurist and the New Zealand Jurist published articles on legal topics alongside their reports of cases. The one extant volume of the Colonial Law Journal, covering the period 1865-1875, featured 40 pages of notes and articles alongside 140 pages of law reports.[2] The New Zealand Law Journal first appeared in 1925, though it was known as Butterworths Fortnightly Notes for a number of years. The articles that appeared therein were, in general, geared towards providing practitioners with summaries of legal developments, though some more ambitious articles appeared from time to time.
Things changed somewhat during the 1950s. After a trip to the United States in the early part of that decade, Professor Robert McGechan of the Victoria Law School became fascinated with American methods of legal education.[3] He soon sought to imitate its best features at Victoria: a visiting lecturer programme was established, the use of the Socratic method encouraged, and a law review created. The Victoria University College Law Review, modelled on the American university law reviews of which the Harvard Law Review is the most famous, was intended primarily as a pedagogical tool. It drew largely on student writing in the form of case notes, with regular contributions from academics. However, though it sought to look beyond black-letter law to social and political aspects of law and legal doctrine, it had few ambitions beyond the university community. The pedagogical basis of the Victoria Review meant that it was largely written to be written, rather than to be read, in a non-pejorative sense.
While only one law review was founded during the 1950s, matters progressed much more rapidly in the 1960s. Four law reviews were created over the course of the decade: the New Zealand Universities Law Review (1963), the Otago Law Review (1965), the Auckland University Law Review (1967) and Recent Law (1968). This phenomenon itself deserves some attention: no new law review was established in the 1970s, and only one in the 1980s. Not until the 1990s did New Zealand see a comparable emergence of legal periodicals. Yet equally notable is the sense of reluctance that accompanied the birth of these law reviews. In the preface of the first Otago Law Review, the faculty’s Dean commented that:
I had certainly hoped that in a few years Otago would be able to produce a small publication of this type but in the meantime I thought that we were too small a Faculty ... [a] few enthusiastic students decided as an experiment and for their own pleasure and good to produce a small Review for this year only, leaving it to others to decide whether further issues might be published later ... there can be no promise of an annual Review.[4]
The foundations of the Auckland University Law Review were scarcely more confident. The Dean of the Auckland Faculty noted:
Most law schools with an enrolment of 600 already have a student law review. A number of reasons explain the relatively late appearance of an Auckland Review. We not only wished to be assured that student contributions could be maintained at a high level but we were also anxious to ensure that satisfactory editorial and management arrangements could be made.[5]
The respective Deans need not have worried. Each of these periodicals survived and prospered, as did the New Zealand Universities Law Review and Recent Law. It is worth noting that these latter two publications were not tied to any particular law school, and also sought to serve the profession as well as the education of students.
The reviews included articles from a wide range of contributors. The first edition of the New Zealand Universities Law Review, for example, contained one article by a retired judge, two by overseas jurists, and only one from a New Zealand law lecturer. One has to look to the case notes, legislation notes and book reviews to see names such as Keith, Coote and Richardson pointing to the future of New Zealand legal scholarship.[6] The Otago Law Review and the Auckland University Law Review, formed with pedagogy in mind, consisted largely of student writing, though some practitioners contributed as well. Though aimed at the profession, most of the articles in the first issues of Recent Law were by academics at the Auckland Law Faculty. Over the course of the decade, there was a clear trend towards most of the articles being by New Zealand legal academics rather than practitioners or overseas scholars.
The articles themselves spanned a myriad of topics. At the beginning of the 1960s, the emphasis was clearly on black-letter law, with some consideration of policy issues. The early numbers of the New Zealand Universities Law Review and the Otago Law Review, for example, carry articles on such topics as confessions, liability for animals, trust issues, and car park ownership[7] alongside more policy-oriented and theoretical articles on Australian precedents in New Zealand, “Law and Philosophy”, and indecent publications.[8] As the decade progressed, these two journals came to place increased emphasis on policy-oriented scholarship, with many articles explicitly addressing social and political issues.[9] Even those which dealt with “lawyer’s law” drew increasingly on comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives.[10] This trend was also apparent in the other two New Zealand law reviews established during the 1960s, with early articles in the Auckland University Law Review and Recent Law on privacy, automatism, and criminology,[11] alongside more doctrinal articles and notes.[12]
While there was initially some caution in creating the four New Zealand law reviews of the 1960s, each of them survived. Over the course of the decade, there was a clear trend towards the articles being written by academics and students rather than practitioners. There was also an increased slant towards contextual and interdisciplinary articles. Though doctrinal articles and brief notes of law changes remained important, by the end of the decade there were clear signs of the emerging “Great Project” to integrate legal research with the study of society in general.[13]
In 1962, the editor of the New Zealand Law Journal commented on the view of the “average practitioner” that it was only in the last few years that much progress had been made in the production of New Zealand legal textbooks. However, the editor argued, this was not the case: there had been New Zealand legal texts since at least the 1870s, and some later treatises, such as Stout and Sim’s Practice and Procedure (1892) and Morison’s Company Law (1904), had survived through to the 1960s.[14] New Zealand texts on other topics, such as personal property, criminal law, trusts and evidence also followed these, and the 1950s saw the first editions of Nevill’s work on trusts and Northey’s Commercial Law in New Zealand.[15] These latter books show considerable development from those published earlier. They are written as treatises rather than simply as annotated statutes, and they exhibit a greater concern for the conceptual unity of the subject.
As with the law reviews, however, it was in the 1960s that things really took off. There were books on hire purchase law, banking law, New Zealand editions of English texts on contract and evidence, and, towards the end of the decade, new works on public law subjects such as administrative law and town planning.[16] There were also scholarly essay collections, both specific and general,[17] and books written by lawyers and legal academics from historical and sociological perspectives.[18] During the 1960s, New Zealand legal books ran the whole spectrum of scholarship, from practitioner-oriented texts and annotated statutes to academic commentaries and interdisciplinary treatises of considerable depth.
Trade Unions and the Law may be taken as an example. Author Alexander Szakats was involved in teaching both Law and Political Science at Victoria University of Wellington. The book was “not intended to be a law book, but merely a brief introduction to the problems of trade unionism aimed at students of political science, economics and business”.[19] However, the book contains a table of cases and considerable exposition of the law, suggesting that it was intended to be used as a legal text as well. On the other hand, the jurisprudential discussion of law in labour relations and the outline of the role of trade unions in society – which include a number of references to economic and sociological sources – would hardly have interested many practitioners.[20] The book indicates that, by the end of the 1960s, New Zealand legal scholars were prepared to produce explicitly interdisciplinary material.
More traditional in style and scope was Banking Law and Practice in New Zealand.[21] Both case and statute law are considered, though the emphasis is on exposition of the law rather than criticism. The historical introduction is virtually the only part of the book that is contextual: the rest is purely a treatise on aspects of banking law. A similar approach was taken in a text on Justices of the Peace,[22] designed for the “informed layman”. Besides a brief historical outline in chapter 1, the remainder of the book is simply exposition, with some commentary on practical applications. These two books show that there was still plenty of scope for legal scholarship that simply collated the law on a subject from various sources and presented it in concise form for student, practitioner or public use.
The legal books of the time often served a different role from that of law review articles. Articles could critique minor changes in the law, while treatises were designed to provide more of an overview of their subject matter. While towards the end of the decade certain treatises took on critical and interdisciplinary perspectives, expository scholarship remained important as well. This probably reflects the texts’ intended use as a source of legal doctrine. In the law reviews, a greater proportion of work – particularly towards the end of the decade – was critical rather than merely expositive, and drew increasingly on interdisciplinary perspectives. It is fair to say that, in the 1960s, New Zealand legal scholarship went through an explosion in volume, in ambition, and in outlook.
Having seen how New Zealand legal scholarship prospered in the 1960s, this article explores the why of the explosion. It is argued that three factors, relating to changes in New Zealand legal education, the New Zealand Court of Appeal and statute law, were particularly important. This section discusses each of these phenomena in turn. However, the three factors should not be seen as entirely discrete: there was, on occasion, overlap between Parliamentary law reform, judicial law-making, and the commentaries of legal scholars with more time to analyse and critique the law than in previous eras.
All four law schools experienced considerable growth during the 1960s. While only around one third of students studied full-time at the beginning of the 1960s, by the end of the decade the large majority were full-time.[23] The university faculties themselves came to favour students spending most of their LLB programme in full-time study, and began to timetable lectures accordingly.[24] This made it difficult for students to maintain full-time jobs while studying. In addition, many students preferred full-time study, and government bursaries made this a more financially viable option for them.[25]
The increase in full-time students was matched by a marked increase in full-time faculty members. In 1960, there were “nearly 20” full-time law teachers throughout the country, while by the end of the 1960s there were over 25 full-time law teachers at Auckland and Victoria alone, with a further dozen or so at Canterbury and Otago. Twelve of this total held Chairs in Law.[26] Full-time faculty and students undoubtedly had more time to engage in legal research and scholarship than part-timers who necessarily expended most of their energies meeting the demands of legal practice. The production of scholarship boomed.
These trends – which were obviously interdependent – are not the full story. Law school libraries – “the most important part of any law school”[27] – also grew considerably during the 1960s.[28] The Legal Research Foundation, formed in 1965 as a cooperative enterprise between the legal academy and the profession, also provided for greater recognition of legal research.[29] Many of the increasing numbers of full-time students were keen to be involved in legal research and advanced legal studies, and the 1960s saw the introduction of LLB Honours courses and an expansion in post-graduate work, often with an interdisciplinary slant.[30] Subjects like comparative law and criminology became options in the LLB curriculum.[31] With both students and faculty having greater time, inclination and facilities for research, legal scholarship prospered, both in law reviews and in books.
The changing role of the New Zealand Court of Appeal was also important. Before 1958, the Court operated as a branch of the Supreme (now High) Court, with Supreme Court judges periodically exercising the appellate function. By the 1950s, this system, designed for a time when New Zealand judges were few, was recognised as problematic. Not all Supreme Court judges were suited to appellate work, and their switching back and forth between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal often gave rise to administrative problems, such as delays in hearings and in producing judgments.[32] In order to alleviate these problems, the Court of Appeal became a permanent and separate body in 1958. It was hoped that the separate Court would be able to act as an appellate court with greater speed, expertise, efficiency and collegiality.[33] The success of the separate Court of Appeal in building this collegiality is evident in the fact that all of the Court’s decisions in its first fifteen months were unanimous.[34] But while the separate Court of Appeal initially operated in “fairly leisurely fashion”, this was not to last. By the early 1960s the case load of the Court exceeded that of most final appeal courts elsewhere, and difficulties in managing the Court’s workload soon arose.[35]
The docket of the Court had a number of implications for legal scholarship. First, the large number of cases being heard meant that the members of the Court were sometimes unable to give individual cases the attention they deserved. This increased the chance that the decisions of the Court would be open to criticism. The large number of cases also meant that legal commentators had plenty to write about. Another factor played out during the 1960s was that societal change and social restiveness led to the Court hearing an increasing number of cases that impinged on major public and social issues.[36] When the Court was involved in law-making in such cases, legal commentators – often armed with time and interdisciplinary resources that the Court of Appeal did not have – were well positioned to critique the Court’s performance. Finally, the reconstituted Court worked more as an appellate body than it had previously. It heard more hard cases – and, while hard cases may make bad law, they can often make for good scholarship.
Throughout the decade, then, the role, function, and performance of the Court of Appeal was analysed and critiqued through legal scholarship. Corbett v Social Security Commission,[37] for example, was written about in the New Zealand Law Journal, the New Zealand Universities Law Review, and the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review.[38] Each of these contributions went beyond being a simple case note: issues such as the policy implications of the Court of Appeal following Privy Council but not House of Lords precedents, and of the courts reviewing Ministerial decisions, were teased out and discussed in some depth. This early 1960s case, and the academic comment it created, indicate that even at the beginning of the decade the Court of Appeal’s role in the development of the law was obtrusive and hence worthy of criticism.
But the legal scholarship being produced in the 1960s was not only reactive: it was propositional as well. In the latter part of the decade, the issue of the admissibility of judgments in subsequent proceedings was being considered by the Torts and General Law Reform Committee. Geoffrey Palmer, a New Zealand and United States law graduate then teaching Political Science, wrote an article on the topic as a contribution towards the Committee’s discussions.[39] Drawing on material from the United States, England and New Zealand, and a combination of case law, statute, law reform documents, and scholarship, Palmer argued against the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn[40] that a criminal conviction was inadmissible in subsequent proceedings to prove the facts on which it was based. But Palmer did not favour or expect judicial reform of the law:
What is called for is a detailed examination of the entire problem from the standpoint of principle. A piecemeal approach is to be avoided. ... Perhaps the increasing reluctance of judges to change judge-made rules can be compensated for by bold legislative activity.[41]
Palmer was wrong, however, about the reluctance of judges to get involved in such matters. A few months after Palmer’s article was published, Turner J of the Court of Appeal commented that he supported the abolition of the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn,[42] and the issue was directly addressed by the Court in Jorgensen v News Media (Auckland) Limited.[43] Palmer’s article was cited in argument, indicating the increasing importance of legal scholarship in the courts, and the Court agreed that the rule should be overturned. While the Court of Appeal was prepared to step up to law reform, however, Parliament was much slower: it was only in 1980 that there was legislative intervention of the kind Palmer envisaged.[44]
Scholarship appeared after the decision as well. Richard Sutton recognised the case as an important (though elusive) statement of the law of evidence; a decision that, though lacking an overall theory, provided a strong indication that the Court of Appeal was “irrevocably committed to a leading role in the reform of the adjectival law of New Zealand”.[45] Sutton was not alone in casting such judgment on the Court. Another scholar commented that the case of Dimond Manufacturing Co Ltd v Hamilton[46] lent support to his theory that New Zealand judges often interjected their own theories into judgments, and “[did] not accept the narrowing limitations on their own initiative which are sometimes found elsewhere”.[47]
By the end of the 1960s, the increasingly obtrusive and confident role of the Court of Appeal in law making was fertile ground for legal scholarship. The number of decisions heard, the “hard cases”, and the political and social issues before the Court all invited scholarly comment. Such comment often wandered “beyond the traditional paths of exposition and criticism”:[48] the scholarship being produced was policy-oriented, directed towards social issues, and often had reform in mind.
Legal historians have commented that the period from 1960 to today has been marked by an “invigorating climate for reform” and that “many areas of the law have been transformed by legislation”.[49] The 1960s certainly saw the emergence of a number of major statutes; far more than, say, the 1950s. This section of the article outlines how legal scholarship reflected, and sometimes influenced, statute law in the 1960s.
The social restiveness evident in many Court of Appeal judgments in the 1960s was also apparent in legislation. Obvious examples include the Narcotics Act 1965 and the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966. One commentator on the Narcotics Act observed that it was passed primarily in order to meet international obligations, with social factors also playing a role.[50] Particularly notable, however, are the perspectives taken in this analysis. Traversing contemporary American and English legal scholarship, modern policy considerations, international law and ancient common law rights, the writer examines common law “search and seizure” objections to the Act; the problems of the burden of proof in drug offences; and the socio-legal issues surrounding imprisonment for those with addictions.[51] This kind of critique clearly shows how the statutes of the 1960s demanded more ambitious, critical and interdisciplinary forms of legal scholarship.
David Williams wrote on defences to crimes committed under the influence of alcohol in early 1966.[52] Williams was aware that reform was imminent, and by the time his article appeared the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 had been passed. But this did not make Williams’ article redundant. Besides an analysis of the development of the common law in this area in England, the article considers United States case law, policy and jurisprudential issues, psychology and social science, and social trends in relation to alcoholism, and concludes by discussing the problems with the current law and the desirability of reform.[53] Just a few years earlier, an article of this scope and depth would have been unthinkable in New Zealand. Furthermore, Williams’ propositional scholarship placed him in an excellent position to criticise the legislation that actually emerged, particularly in the light of policy and socio-legal considerations.[54]
Family law was another area that was altered considerably by statutory reform in the 1960s. In the early part of the decade, the Matrimonial Property Act 1963 and the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1963 were passed. These Acts covered a number of different aspects of matrimonial law, including the rights of husband and wife to sue each other in tort, criminal offences, dissolution on the grounds of existing pregnancy, and the new technology of artificial insemination. The courts were also empowered to make orders as to the occupation of a matrimonial home. These developments were initially noted, in outline form, in the New Zealand Universities Law Review.[55] Another, more ambitiously comparative article, on the latter Act illustrates – as do the articles by Williams and Palmer noted above – the influence of overseas training in legal research and writing at a time when LLB Honours courses and legal research were still developing.[56]
The year 1967 represented 100 years since New Zealand’s first divorce legislation, and this milestone was celebrated with an essay collection published by the Victoria Law School.[57] The essays in this book considered both historical and contemporary aspects of family law, with the new matrimonial property regime receiving some attention, and interdisciplinary work making an appearance with an essay by a psychologist. A “source book”, including both statute and case law, appeared in the same year.[58] This area of law was clearly considered sufficiently interesting (and dynamic) to give rise to a wide range of publications.
Reform in this area of law proceeded even further in the latter part of the decade, with the Domestic Proceedings Act, the Guardianship Act, a new Matrimonial Property Act, and a Matrimonial Proceedings Amendment Act being passed in quick succession in 1968. One note observed that certain provisions of these Acts reformed the law considerably: the length of time for some grounds of divorce was shortened, and serious disharmony was established as grounds for a separation order. A “totally new procedure” for court-assisted reconciliation was put in place.[59] Another note on these reforms, written while they were still going through Parliament, was more critical, arguing that an overall consolidation should be preferred to piecemeal development through separate Acts.[60] The relatively rapid pace of law reform in this area made things difficult for some legal scholars: one text on family law was effectively out of date by the time it appeared.[61] It is clear from reading publications of the time that exposition-based scholarship was still popular;[62] however, interdisciplinary work on the “social implications” of the family law reforms appeared as well.[63]
The areas of drug law and family law illustrate how changes in statute law helped produce different kinds of New Zealand legal scholarship of the 1960s. Some was “black-letter” scholarship, aimed at summarising legal developments without critique. Some took a nominally critical approach, pointing out where the law could be improved, and in what ways. Other scholarship was explicitly interdisciplinary, using a range of sources to reflect more broadly on the law. Law reviews, essay collections and legal texts all featured these varying approaches to greater and lesser extents. Of further significance is the fact that the pace of reform in these areas gave legal scholars plenty to write about.
The notion that the 1960s saw an “explosion” of legal scholarship is easily shown by the sheer volume of periodicals, articles, essays and texts that appeared during that decade. Also apparent from a close reading of this literature is that, particularly towards the end of the decade, the scholarship being produced was increasingly critical, ambitious and interdisciplinary, though expository scholarship remained important.
Three key factors explain the explosion. Changes in legal education saw greater numbers of full-time faculty and students in the law schools, many with a strong inclination to research and write, and with improved facilities for doing so. The separation of the Court of Appeal from the High Court in 1958 saw it take on a much more conspicuous law-making role during the 1960s, and this phenomenon attracted the attention of legal scholars. A number of statutory law reforms during the 1960s were also deemed worthy of comment, and those reforms which touched on social issues as well as “lawyer’s law” often required interdisciplinary approaches in order to be critiqued effectively.
But not everyone saw the explosion of legal scholarship in the 1960s as a good thing. Towards the end of the decade, Sir Alexander Turner of the Court of Appeal suggested that, while some New Zealand legal scholarship was admirable, some was not. He wrote that examples of the worst variety of legal scholarship could be found:
among contributions, sometimes rather hastily put together, of junior university staff to legal journals ... the rat-race has invaded the universities, and what had its origin in a praiseworthy desire to do a decent job of legal research ... has in some universities involved the junior lecturer in a frantic necessity to publish, publish, and publish again, even if he has nothing much to say, and what he has be not particularly sound.[64]
Chief Justice Richard Wild held similar views. He welcomed the development of the periodical law reviews as “a mark of the increasing maturity of the law schools”, but thought it important not to sacrifice quality for quantity: “[t]o write merely for the sake of filling half a page of type is scarcely worth the trouble”.[65] Wild also thought that a number of errors were creeping into legal commentaries.[66]
These criticisms show that not everyone saw the explosion of legal scholarship in the 1960s as an inherently good thing. Nonetheless, over the course of the decade, New Zealand legal scholarship had became more voluminous, more ambitious, more critical, and more diverse. In short, Robin Cooke’s call for more debate of legal issues was manifestly and undoubtedly answered, in a way which still resonates for the New Zealand jurisprudence of today.
* BSocSc LLB(Hons) (Waikato), Solicitor, McCaw Lewis Chapman, Hamilton.
1 Cooke, “The Changing Face of Administrative Law in New Zealand” [1960] NZLJ 128.
[2] Irvine, “Law Publishing in New Zealand” [1962] NZLJ 73, 75. Some of these articles could hardly be called scholarship, however, as they were rather casual commentaries on such topics as cricket matches and law examination papers.
[3] See McGechan, “Law Teaching Overseas” (1951) 27 NZLJ 361.
[4] Guest, “Preface” [1965] OtaLawRw 2; (1965) 1 Otago Law Review 13.
[5] Northey, “Preface” (1967) 1 AULR i. Similarly cautious in praise, in introducing another law review Barrowclough CJ stated: “In universities such as ours which are not so well endowed as the older British universities and which have not as yet been able to make any great provision for post-graduate study and research in the field of law the production of this Review is something of a triumph” (Barrowclough, “Foreword” (1963) 1 NZULR 1).
[6] Keith, “Corbett’s Case” (1963) 1 NZULR 124; Coote, “Book Review: Cases and Materials on Contract” (1963) 1 NZULR 172; Richardson, “Book Review: Sir William Martin” (1963) 1 NZULR 168.
[7] Adams, “Confessions” (1963) 1 NZULR 5; Davis, “Liability for Animals in New Zealand” (1964) 1 NZULR 206; Burns, “Salvage of Trusts with Mixed Charitable and Non-Charitable Purposes” [1965] OtaLawRw 5; (1965) 1 Otago LR 41; Rutherford, “Liability of Car Park Owners” [1965] OtaLawRw 9; (1965) 1 Otago LR 83.
[8] Mathieson, “Australian Precedents in New Zealand Courts” (1963) 1 NZULR 77; McElrea, “Law and Philosophy” [1965] OtaLawRw 6; (1965) 1 Otago LR 48; McKean, “The War Against Indecent Publications [1965] OtaLawRw 8; (1963) 1 Otago LR 75.
[9] See eg Turner, “Changing the Law” (1969) 3 NZULR 404; Sim, “F W Guest Memorial Lecture: Jurisprudence and the Legal Process – Some Contemporary Trends” [1969] OtaLawRw 1; (1969) 2 Otago LR 1; Symposium on “Report of the Royal Commission on Personal Injuries” [1969] OtaLawRw 4; (1969) 2 Otago LR 32.
[10] See eg Palmer, “The Admissibility of Judgments in Subsequent Proceedings” (1968) 3 NZULR 142; Tobin, “Products Liability: A United States and Commonwealth Comparative Survey” (1969) 3 NZULR 377.
[11] Hammond, “Privacy and the Press” (1967) 1(1) AULR 20; Flitton and Palmer, “The Right to Privacy: A Comparison of New Zealand and American Law” [1968] Recent Law 86 and 149; Keene, “The Problem of Automatism” (1968) 1(2) AULR 15; Seymour, “The Mental Health and Criminal Justice Amendment (No 2) Bills: Implications for Criminal Justice” [1968] Recent Law 160.
[12] Blanchard, “The Requisitions Clause” (1968) 1(2) AULR 1; McMorland, “Indefeasibility Under the Land Transfer Act” [1968] Recent Law 143 and 187; “Four Family Law Bills” [1968] Recent Law 193.
[13] See Sutton, “The Law Faculties – A Reminiscence” in Barker, Sir Ian (ed) Law Stories: Essays on the New Zealand Legal Profession 1969-2003 (2003) 325, 327. Coote, “A Law Teacher Looks at His Trade” (1968) 3 NZULR 38, 49 believed that law teachers had the task of showing New Zealand lawyers out of the ivory tower that the common law system had built around them, by opening the law “to scrutiny by the light of other disciplines ... sociology, anthropology, economics, history and political studies, in addition to philosophy and comparative law”. Sim, “Legal Education in the United States and New Zealand” [1968] NZLJ 87, 89 noted the increasing tendency “to emphasise a sociological approach to legal problems” in much LLB (Hons) seminar work.
[14] Irvine, supra note 2, at 73-74.
[15] Nevill, P Concise Law of Trusts, Wills and Administration in New Zealand (1955); Northey, J F and Leys, W C S Commercial Law in New Zealand (1956).
[16] Dugdale, D F New Zealand Hire Purchase Law (1960); Bright, T N Banking Law and Practice in New Zealand (1961); Northey, J F The Law of Contract by G C Cheshire and C H S Fifoot (NZ edition, 1961); Cross, R Evidence (NZ Edition, 1963); Paterson, D E An Introduction to Administrative Law in New Zealand (1967); Robinson, Keith The Law of Town and Country Planning (1968).
[17] Inglis, B D and Mercer, A G (eds), Family Law Centenary Essays (1968); Northey, J F (ed) The A G Davis Essays in Law (1965).
[18] Foden, N A New Zealand Legal History (1642-1842) (1965); Szakats, A Trade Unions and the Law (1968).
[19] Szakats, ibid, at v.
[20] Ibid, at ch 1-2.
[21] Bright, T N Banking Law and Practice in New Zealand (2nd ed, 1969). Note that this was the second edition of this book; the first appeared in 1961.
[22] Burns, P and O’Keefe, J A B The Functions and Powers of Justices of the Peace and Coroners (1968).
[23] Spiller, P, Finn J and Boast, R A New Zealand Legal History (1995) 271, note 212 give the following figures for 1969: Auckland 567 FT, 161 PT, Otago 220 FT, 33 PT. The Auckland Dean noted in 1970 that around 80% of students were taking at least three years of the degree full-time, with an increasing number completing all four years as full-time students. See also Northey, “Trends in Legal Education” [1970] NZLJ 250, 250-251.
[24] Wilson, “A New Look at Legal Education” [1960] NZLJ 148, 152-153 described the “secret ambition” of some university members to make the entire law course full-time. Wilson, a QC, was “wholly unconvinced” that this was beneficial. At the other end of the 1960s, Temm, “Legal Education in the Seventies” [1970] NZLJ 345, 347 saw the preference for full-time study which had developed over the decade as “a marked change for the better”.
[25] See Temm, “The Profession and the Future Years” [1964] NZLJ 80 and 104, 106.
[26] Northey, supra note 23, at 250.
[27] Derham, “Legal Education” (1966) 2 NZULR 130, 142.
[28] Spiller, Finn and Boast, supra note 23, at 272.
[29] See “Legal Research Foundation” [1970] NZLJ 455.
[30] Collinge and Shenkin, “Legal Education: A Student Viewpoint” [1962] NZLJ 544, 546; Northey, “Practical Training in University Law Schools” [1964] NZLJ 132, 133; Sim, supra note 13, at 89.
[31] “Comparative Law at Victoria – The First Year” [1969] NZLJ 48; “Criminology in the University of Auckland” [1964] NZLJ 516.
[32] Spiller, P The New Zealand Court of Appeal 1958-1996: A History (2002) 2.
[33] Ibid, at 4.
[34] Cooke, “Dangerous Premises: Court of Appeal Decisions” (1959) 35 NZLJ 117, 117. Cooke called this a “remarkable and perhaps unique record”.
[35] Spiller, supra note 32, at 5.
[36] Ibid, at 6.
[38] See Cooke, “The Board of the Lords?” [1962] NZLJ 463 and 534; Keith, supra note 6; “Investigate or Override?” (1963) 1 NZULR 137; Mathieson, “Some reflections on Corbett v Social Security Commission” (1965) 4 VUWLR 55.
[39] Palmer, supra note 10, at 143.
[41] Palmer, supra note 10, at 168.
[42] “Introduction and Discussion” [1969] NZLJ 240, 242.
[44] Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980, s 23. See Spiller, supra note 32, at 391.
[45] Sutton, “Judgments as Evidence” [1970] NZLJ 81, 82.
[47] Ryan, “That Damned Elusive Special Relationship!” (1970) 4 NZULR 48, 49, 50.
[48] Sutton, supra note 45, at 85.
[49] Spiller, Finn and Boast, supra note 23, at 120.
[50] Clark, “Narcotics Act 1965” (1966) 2 NZULR 92, 92, 97.
[51] Ibid, at 92-97.
[52] Williams, “Drunkenness and the Criminal Law in New Zealand” (1967) 2 NZULR 297.
[53] Ibid, generally.
[54] Williams, “Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 – Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1966” (1968) 3 NZULR 90.
[55] “Family Law” (1964) 1 NZULR 328.
[56] Gould, “The Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1963 and the Conflict of Laws” in Northey, supra note 16, at 26. In addition to their New Zealand law degrees, Gould had studied at Oxford, Williams at Harvard, and Palmer at Chicago. Gould’s essay was described as being of considerable “practical value” by a reviewer: Turner, “Book Review: The AG Davis Essays in Law” (1967) 2 NZULR 361, 363.
[57] Inglis and Mercer (eds), supra note 17.
[58] Webb, P R H, Caldwell, R A and Davis, J L R Source Book of Family Law (1967).
[59] Sim, “Matrimonial Proceedings Amendment Act 1968 – Domestic Proceedings Act 1968 – Guardianship Act 1968 – Matrimonial Property Act 1968” (1969) 3 NZULR 460, 460-471.
[60] “Four Family Law Bills” [1968] Recent Law 193, 212.
[61] Inglis, B D Family Law: Volume 1 (1968). See Webb, “Book Review: Family Law” [1968] Recent Law 217.
[62] See eg Webb, “The Maintenance Proceedings of the Domestic Proceedings Act 1968 – An Introduction” [1968] Recent Law 327.
[63] Woodhouse, “Family Law in Society” (1969) 1(2) AULR 44, 62. See also Bisson, “The Reform of the Law Regarding Maintenance and Settlement of Property Rights Between Spouses in Matrimonial Disputes” [1963] NZLJ 241.
[64] Turner, supra note 9, at 408. At 417, Turner went on to say that “the academic lawyers may be thought of as praying every night before retiring to rest that the law may change tomorrow, in which direction it matters not, so long as there is some change which may be the subject of a paper to be published in the reviews”.
[65] Thomson, “Opening of New Law School” [1969] NZLJ 453, 453 (comments of Wild CJ).
[66] Ibid.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/WkoLawRw/2004/3.html