Chapter 6: Inherent jurisdiction, interim orders and reasons
Chapter 6
Inherent jurisdiction,
interim orders and
reasons
6.1
The High Court is a court of ginherent jurisdiction.h This means it has powers to
enable it to act effectively as a court of justice to support its rules of practice, fulfil
its judicial functions of administering justice according to law, and prevent any
abuse of its processes.135 a court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction when it faces
an issue that it cannot deal with using only statutory powers o
The inherent jurisdiction has been described as a reserve or fund of powers,
6.2
a residual source, which the court may draw on when necessary, whenever it is
just and equitable to do so.136 These powers are affirmed (but not created) by
section 16 of the Judicature act 1908. The High Court cannot exercise its
inherent jurisdiction in a way that conflicts with statutes, rules or regulations.137
The inherent jurisdiction can be displaced by legislation.
The District Courts only have the jurisdiction conferred on them by statute,
6.3
and do not have a full inherent jurisdiction. However, District Courts do have
some inherent powers, which enable them to do what is necessary to exercise their
statutory functions, powers and duties, and to control their ow
138
s
ection 138(5) of the Criminal Justice
a
ct 1985 makes it clear that the powers
6.4
conferred under subsection 138(2) to clear the court, suppress evidence,
submissions and names of witnesses, are in substitution for any such powers the
court had under its inherent jurisdiction, or at common law. In other words,
it ousts the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in this respect. In the past,
this subsection has sometimes been taken to apply to all the powers of suppression
provided in sections 138 141 of the Criminal Justice a
ct 1985.
139
However,
135 Taylor v Attorney-General
136
s
ee Jacob, gThe Inherent Jurisdiction of the Courth (1970) CL
137 Paraha and ors v New Zealand Police
138 McMenamin v Attorney-General
139
s
ee for example
R v Appelgren
scope of
inherent
jurisdiction
44
Law Commission Issues Paper
