Committee looks into District Court

The District Court is facing a major overhaul.
That’s what the Justice, Police and Prison and Land and Titles (J.P.P.L.T.) Committee recommended to Parliament to consider.
The Chairman of the Committee is the Associate Minister of Finance, Tuisa Tasi Patea. This is the report in full:

The Justice, Police & Prison and Land & Titles Committee recommends that the Assembly takes note of its Report.

1. RESOLUTION: At the conclusion of its considerations, the Committee resolved to recommend that the Assembly:- Approve P.P. 2013/2014 No.6, Report of the Samoa Law Reform Commission on the District Court Act 1969, Report 12/13.

2. RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of its findings, the Committee recommends the Government: To consider the report of the Samoa Law Reform Commission and its Recommendations for the reformation of the District Court Act 1969.

3.FINDINGS: The reviewing and reforming of the District Court Act 1969 was based on the reference to the Commission from the Cabinet in November 2008. Due to the preliminary consultations and research undertook by the Commission, they were able to present a number of recommendations directly affecting the reviewing of the District Court Act 1969. There were five (5) key matters that were mainly covered by the recommendations presented due to its research, as well as its consultations and written submissions by interested parties. - Jurisdiction of the District Court: One of the primary factors that the Commission considered includes:

(i) Civil Jurisdiction of the

District Court:
There were various views expressed by stakeholders, however most were more on the actual monetary limit of the civil jurisdiction, with some suggesting $20,000, $40,000 or $50,000, Most stakeholders commented that a lot of the claims that are tried in the Supreme Court are cases that could be heard and determined in the District Court. The commission also considered provisions that are placed and operated within overseas countries such as New Zealand and Victoria Australia regarding the matter of civil jurisdiction of the district court, and attempted to compare them with Samoa’s current operations. According to this, the Commission recommended that the civil jurisdiction of the District Court is to remain at $10,000 for the hearing of claims within the court. These cases includes civil monetary claims, namely under statute, debt or damages.

(ii) Civil Jurisdiction of the

Faamasino Fesoasoani:
In relation to the civil jurisdiction of the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court, many stakeholders considered that there was no need for an original or an extended jurisdiction as it was found to be impractical and slowed down the hearing of minor matters. It was recommended by stakeholders that the jurisdiction of the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court be raised to $5,000. The Committee noted, the Commission considers the civil dual jurisdiction (ordinary and extended) of the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court, is now unnecessary. The requirement for the approval of the Chief Justice to extend the jurisdiction of the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court tends to unnecessarily prolong proceedings. As such, the Commission recommends that the extended jurisdiction of the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court be removed, particularly in light of the Commission’s recommendation to increase the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court’s ordinary civil jurisdiction from $1,000 to $2,000.

(iii) Criminal Jurisdiction of the District Court:
According to the Commission’s findings, the District Court under its criminal jurisdiction may try any offence that is punishable by a fine, penalty or forfeiture of any amount or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. The Committee noted, there was a general consensus that the jurisdiction of the District Court in both civil and criminal cases should be increased. In contrast with jurisdictions overseas, Samoa‘s jurisdiction is quite low. Further, the introduction of the Crimes Act 2013 has increased many of the penalties for criminal offences, and Samoa’s growing economy means that many civil proceedings also deal with higher monetary claims. The Commission recommends increasing the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court to try any offence that is punishable by a fine, penalty or forfeiture of any amount or a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven (7) years (an increase from the current maximum the of imprisonment of five (5) years). The Committee considers the recommendations given and accepts as presented by the Commission.

(iv) Criminal Jurisdiction of the Faamasino Fesoasoani:
As in the civil jurisdiction, the Faamasino Fesoasoani has both an ordinary criminal jurisdiction and extended jurisdiction. In its ordinary jurisdiction, the Faamasino Fesoasoani can hear, determine and impose sentence for any offence for which the maximum penalty does not exceed one year imprisonment or a fine of $1,000. Even though there were various opinions viewed by stakeholders, the Commission recommends that the criminal jurisdiction of the Faamasino Fesoasoani is to remain as it is. The Committee considers this recommendation from the Commission and fully supports it.

(v) Summary Jurisdiction:
The Commission had also raised the issue whether summary judgment should be included in the jurisdiction of the District Court as currently there is no provision that allows for summary judgment. It is also recommended that to further avoid delays in the determination of simple civil claims, the jurisdiction of the District Court should also extend to include summary jurisdiction. With summary jurisdiction, summary judgment can then be utilized where necessary on a case by case basis. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the District Court (including the Faamasino Fesoasoani) to be a court of summary jurisdiction. The Committee noted the importance of how the Commission considered this situation and recommended upon it in order to uplift the service of the Justice department. For that reason, the Committee approves the recommendations given by the Commission.

Transfer of Proceedings:
(i) Transfer of civil proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court: Based on the provisions of the current Act, a matter that is initiated in the civil jurisdiction of the District Court can be transferred to the Supreme Court if the matter exceeds $5,000 and, as such is outside the District Courts jurisdiction. The defendant may seek leave of the District Court to object to the matter being heard in the District Court. The Judge upon notice of such objection must order that the transfer be made to the Supreme Court. Also any civil claim not exceeding $5,000 which is commenced in the District Court may also be transferred to the Supreme Court.

(ii) Transfer of civil proceedings from the Supreme Court to the
District Court:
A transfer of a civil matter that was commenced in the Supreme Court to the District Court can occur either because the subject matter of the proceeding is within the jurisdiction of the District Court or with the agreement of the parties. A Supreme Court judge on the application of any parry to the proceeding can order that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court. There are no provisions in the Current Act on whether matters can be transferred between the District Court and Faamasino Fesoasoani. Throughout the consultations undertook by the Commission, few recommendations were brought forward including: 1. The amounts in the transfer of proceedings sections to be increased from $5,000 to the current jurisdiction of $10,000. 2. Transfer of proceedings to be a discretional power of the Judges based on jurisdiction. 3. All parties to the proceeding to be informed in writing by the Registrar if the Judge is of the opinion that it is to be transferred either from the District Court to the Supreme Court or from the Faamasino Fesoasoani to the District Court. The Committee noted every finding by the Commission due to these matters and found it appropriate, and fully considers it and approved.

Roles, Responsibilities and Duties of the Judiciary and Court Officers Currently in the District Court Act, it does not expressly set out the roles, powers and responsibilities of District Court Judges except to state their secondary role as Coroners by virtue of their office.

There are no provisions that set out the functions and roles of a Faamasino Fesoasoani except the provision on the appointment and tenure of Judges and Faamasino Fesoasoani. The Committee considered the importance of protection and having honesty in all cases operating as well as making decisions. It is the Commission’s view that the Act should clearly set out provisions encompassing the appointment, tenure and removal of the District Court Judges (including

Faamasino Fesoasoani). According to the United Nation Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary sets out that persons selected for judicial office should be individuals with integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. The Committee noted that these recommendations from the Commission are appropriately set out due to the results of their finding. The Committee considers and approves it.

The Different Divisions of the District Court There are currently three divisions of the District Court: 1. Youth matters; 2. Family matters; and 3. Coronial inquests apart from its general jurisdiction. However, these divisions are not formally set out in the District Courts Act. Rather, the Youth Court is established by the Young Offenders Act 2007 as a division of the District Court. The Young Offenders Act 2007 sets out the jurisdiction of the Youth Court which are proceedings of the criminal nature. The District Courts Act also contains provisions that refer to matters such guardianship, custody of infants and destitute and delinquent children.

The Committee noted from the Commission’s findings that the Youth Court is well established by the Young Offenders Act 2007. However, the Commission considers there is value in recognizing the Youth Court as a Division of the District

Court in the District Courts Act. In terms of family matters, they are brought under the Infants Ordinance 1961 and the Maintenance and Affiliation Act 1967.

The Commission stretched its investigations on other overseas countries such as Victoria Australia, who also set out and establish provisions for different divisions of the Magistrates’ Court which includes Family Violence Court Division. It is the Commission’s view that the District Courts Act should establish the Family Court and clearly define its jurisdiction. The recent passing of the Family Safety Act 2013 further creates the need for the District Courts Act to formally establish the Family Court under its auspices.

The Commission sees advantage in establishing a further division of the District Court called the Drugs and Alcohol Court. The Commission also believes that the Alcohol and Other Drugs Treatment Court (AODT) is a pilot designed to supervise offenders whose offending is driven by their alcohol or other drug dependency. The AODT Court focuses on treating a defendant’s alcohol or other drugs dependency to help prevent them from committing further crime, it aims to: - reduce reoffending - reduce alcohol and other drug use dependency - reduce the use of imprisonment - positively impact on the defendant’s health and wellbeing, and - be cost-effective It is certain that alcohol and drugs presents major problem to Samoa’s court and to Samoan society. Therefore it is important that the Courts take a proactive stance towards reducing reoffending as a result of alcohol and drugs. All the significant factors as laid in the Commission’s report such as Recommendation 21 and Recommendation 22 to enable the establishment and enforcement of the Family Court, Youth Court and Alcohol and Drugs Court as divisions of the District Court. Further, to create jurisdiction and procedures for the Youth Court, Family Court and the Alcohol and Drugs Court to be established and included in the District Court Act. The Commission had also raised the issue whether the Faamasino Fesoasoani should be established as small claims court According to its consultation with several stakeholders, opinions were viewed that the current structure of the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court is fine as it is. The Commission recommended through its Recommendation 23, that the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court is to remain as pan of the District Court and to have its jurisdictions and procedures set out as well as limitations on what the Faamasino Fesoasoani Court can hear and determine. The Coroners

Ordinance 1959 establishes the functions and powers of coroners. In Section 9 of the District Court Act refers to District Court Judges as Coroners. However, the Commission does not recommend that the Coroners Court be recognized as a division of the District Court. The Commission reminded their Final Report on the review and reform of the Coroners Ordinance l959 recommended that the appointment of coroners should be separate from the judiciary to ensure that persons appointed as Coroners have the required skills and expertise. All in all, the Committee considers the recommendations given by the Commission and entirely approves clue to its findings that they commenced.

4. ASSISTANCE (T.T 156):
The Committee sough assistance from the Ministry of Police & Prisons during the course of its deliberations:- Samoa Law Reform Commission. Leota Theresa Potoi - Executive Director Pale Fuimaono - Assistant Executive Director

5. RECCOMENDATION FOR REFORM: Changes and recommendations have only been made where the Law Reform Commission considered appropriate in order to improve the duties and roles of the District Court. The reforms by the Commission take into account in order to enhance Samoa‘s society, culture and economy to better address the needs of the Government and the community. The Committee in its review of the Report of the Samoa Law Reform Commission on the District Court Act 1969, 24 Recommendations were outlined within the report.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The Committee acknowledges the Commission for the hard work put into making this report possible in order to meet the Commission’s main objectives.
7. STANDING ORDERS 173: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders 173, it shall be the duty of the Committee to:- (a) To consider any Bill, petition or other matter referred by the Assembly or pursuant to Standing Orders; and such Estimates or review of ministerial performance as maybe referred by the Finance & Expenditure Committee; (b) To consider private bills; (c) To examine the policy, administration and expenditure of the ministries and associated government organizations related to central government advisory services, security intelligence, statistics and services to Parliament.

8. RESOLUTION:
At the conclusion of its considerations, the Committee resolved to recommend that the Assembly P.P. 2014/2015 No.6, Report of the Samoa Law Reform Commission on the District Court 1969, Report 12/13. Tuisa Tasi Patea, CHAIRMAN
Afoafouvale John Moors, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Tapuai Toese Ah Sam, MEMBER Lenatai Victor Tamapua, MEMBER Lafaitele Patrick Leiataualesa, MEMBER Papali’i Lio Masipau, MEMBER Lefau Harry Schuster, MEMBER Erosi Koria, COMMITTEE CLERK

{googleAds}<script async src="http://www.samoaobserver.ws///pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>