Neil Sands
Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann says there are no plans to make karakia (prayers) compulsory at court sittings and she will discuss a proposal to extend their use in Northland with Chief District Court Judge Heemi Taumaunu.
Winkelmann’s clarification comes after barrister Gary Judd KC raised concerns that the karakia’s religious nature meant its use in the courts breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) and undermines the courts’ neutrality.
However, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa|The Māori Law Society (THRMOA) co-president Tai Ahu said using karakia helped make the courts a more welcoming place for Māori and should be allowed at the presiding judge’s discretion.
In a letter sent to Winkelmann, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, Judd wrote: “The karakia proposal is an egregious departure from the tradition of neutrality. It is in conflict with the judicial branch’s duty to uphold NZBORA rights and freedoms and consequentially it is also a breach of the rule of law.”
Judd’s complaint was sparked by a proposal from management at Whangārei District Court to extend the use of the Te Ao Mārama karakia to court sittings where it was “deemed suitable by the judiciary”.
A spokesperson for Winkelmann’s office said the Whangārei proposal was a local initiative and there was no plan to expand its use more broadly.
“The Chief District Court Judge is currently gathering information on the nature of that [Whangārei] initiative and will be discussing it with the Chief Justice,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
“For clarity, there is no contemplation that courts will be required to begin and end court sittings with karakia.
“Karakia are sometimes said in courtrooms. This is generally at the request of the parties and agreed to by the judge once the lawyers for both parties have agreed.”
LawNews asked for an explanation of the purpose of karakia in courts, as well as context around their religious and cultural significance, but these issues were not addressed in the response from Winkelmann’s office.
‘Entirely inappropriate’: Judd
THRMOA’s Ahu said the karakia were not widely recited in courts, mostly taking place at cases involving Māori parties, particularly those with whānau and hapū in the public gallery or involving marine and coastal area issues.
“Historically, the courts have not been a friendly place for Māori and recognition of tikanga and their broader cultural interests… so I think we can cope with giving judges a bit of discretion for certain cases,” he said.
“I don’t think it does any great damage to the dispensing of justice to have a karakia, particularly where there are Māori claimants involved.”
Judd said the Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, which is published by the Ministry for Culture & Heritage, clearly stated karakia are a way to communicate with the Māori gods.
“How would people feel if a Catholic prayer were to begin and end each court day? Or the Lord’s Prayer? Or verses from the Quran?” he said.
Judd said he was once involved in a High Court hearing representing a party who was in dispute with a Māori trust, when the presiding judge allowed a karakia and said “Amen” at its conclusion.
“As I stood, I had to be stony-faced because I thought this was entirely inappropriate,” he said.
“Not just because I’m an atheist and I don’t actually like to be compelled to engage with things which are against my own conscience, but in that particular case, it was even worse, because it was signalling what could be seen as partiality to my opponents.”
‘No big issue’: Ahu
Ahu said the religious and cultural significance of karakia was complex and should not be subject to a blanket ban.
“I’m not a particularly religious or spiritual person myself, but from the perspective of tikanga Māori, being a system of culture and values, a karakia is an appropriate thing to do,” he said.
“It doesn’t come with the same connotation and risk of the need to separate church and state. It doesn’t have that whakapapa.
“It’s done as a recognition of a Māori cultural value system and operation. And I think that’s a good thing for our courts to have some discretion around… Frankly, I don’t see what the big issue is.”
0 Comments