Often the High Court will begin deliberating a case while people are still making submissions. However, no conclusion is reached until the period for making submissions has ended (and all of the submissions have been considered). This is important as it allows the High Court to attempt to deal with cases in a timely manner.

The amendment I am proposing is to clarify that this practice is in accordance with the Judicial Act. This is because the Act currently says 'Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, they will analyze the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion.' Some could take this to mean that the High Court can only begin considering its opinion after the period for submissions has closed.

Anyway, below is the text of my proposal. I think that it is a harmless clarification of a pre-existing practice which, hopefully, should prove uncontroversial. However, I am happy to be corrected if others do not see that as the case. Thank you for reading 
 

Judicial Act

...

3. Case Procedure

...

(6) Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, they will analyze the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion. Any individuals involved in the crafting of the opinion must be named within it. The opinion must be approved by another justice not recused from the case.

a. Provided that nothing is finalised until all timely submissions have been considered, the High Court may have internal deliberations on the eventual outcome of a case before the period for submissions has closed.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

For the sake of clarify, when you refer to "submissions" you mean "submission of briefs amicus curiae", right?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

For the sake of clarify, when you refer to "submissions" you mean "submission of briefs amicus curiae", right?

Yes, I am meaning briefs, including any factual evidence supplied. It may have made more sense if I included Article 3, Section 4 of the Judicial Act for context: 'Any member of the South Pacific may submit information, evidence, or opinions on the matter.' If you feel that it would be better to expand on the term submissions in the text, then I would be happy to consider doing so.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

I'm kind of confused about what the point of this is? Do we really need an amendment to say "the court is allowed to discuss its cases"?

Reply

I'm kind of confused about what the point of this is? Do we really need an amendment to say "the court is allowed to discuss its cases"?

If it is broadly felt that this is not needed then I am happy to drop the proposal.

I just read the Judicial Act saying: 'Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, they will analyze the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion.' And find that it is not unreasonable to take the text in two different ways:

1. 'Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, they will finalise analyzing the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion.' (this is current practice); or
   
2. 'Once the assigned justice has all necessary information and evidence, only then they will analyze the question with all deliberate speed to deliver an opinion.' (which would make current practice illegal).
   

The proposal I made would hopefully avoid a situation where a person can read the Judicial Act and think that widely-agreed practice (that is, engaging in preliminary deliberations) is not consistent with the law. Certainly, it is not an urgent matter and, as I said before, I am happy to drop the proposal if it is broadly considered to be a waste of time.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

I feel like the notion that Justices would be unable to have any sort of opinions or discussion about a case before that point is absurd by any definition.

Reply