Sayers, Michael --- "Cooperation between Commonwealth law reform agencies" [2000] ALRCRefJl 18; (2000) 76 Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal 96

---

Reform Issue 76 Autumn 2000

This article appeared on pages 96 – 97 & 106 of the original journal.

Cooperation between Commonwealth law reform agencies

Michael Sayers – the Secretary of the Law Commission in London – will use the ALRAC conference as a forum to discuss the possibility of forming an Association of Commonwealth Law Reform Agencies.

The following note provides an outline of his proposed speech to the Perth event.

Most law reform commissions and other permanent law reform agencies have been established in the Commonwealth within the past 35 years. Over those years there has been substantial cooperation between those agencies throughout the Commonwealth. The following are examples of the way in which that cooperation is specifically forged.

• There is a widespread practice among law reform agencies of sending annual reports, law reform consultation papers and reports, and other public documents to other law reform agencies.

• Many law commissioners and senior staff visit other law reform agencies. There is also considerable bilateral exchange of information and views between agencies. This has been assisted by agencies which have gathered law reform information together from a number of countries and have made it widely available to others, for example British Columbia’s Internet catalogue of Commonwealth law reform materials, Alberta’s Internet site and England’s ‘Law Under Review’. It has also been assisted in recent years by agencies placing material on the Internet.

However, there may be scope for taking such cooperation further, so as both to improve law reform itself and to reduce unnecessary duplication of effort.

Some of the areas which could be further enhanced are:

• providing access to information about current law in the respective countries;

• pooling information about each other’s projects, recommendations and publications;

• sharing experience on methods and best practice for carrying out law reform;

• providing ready means of access to experts and expertise in particular areas of law across the Commonwealth;

• sharing experience about the implementation of law reform recommendations;

• giving mutual support when facing new trends or difficulties;

• exchanging information, using modern means of communication; and

• making arrangements about personnel, including possible exchange arrangements.

The following are just a few of the possible means of achieving those objectives.

Development of current activities. It is possible that some of the current cooperative activities between law reform agencies could be developed further, for example:

• visits by Commissioners and senior staff to other Commissions;

• exchange of information;

• further development of information databases;

• study visits by Commissioners and staff; and

• arrangements for a law reform agencies day at the Commonwealth Law Conferences.

Regional conferences. Some law reform agencies in a particular region, such as the Australasian area, meet for a conference every two years. Interest has been expressed in holding regional conferences for agencies in East Africa and in the Indian sub-continent.

Human & financial resources. Some law reform agencies would like to have one of their lawyers visit another Commission for a few weeks. Some agencies might be prepared to have somebody (a Commissioner or staff member) seconded to them.

It would be interesting to know where agencies have obtained resources. On financial resources, some may receive all those from their sponsor government department/ministry. Others may have obtained significant sums from other departments/ministries. Some may have also obtained small but significant pieces of work or sums of money from other sources, for example, from professional bodies and from fee income for consultancy work. It would also be interesting to know of funding sources for law reform in poorer countries.

On recruitment of legal staff, it would be useful to know whether law reform agencies have found that – apart from lawyers in the government service – whether secondments from universities have proved more (or less) practicable and successful than secondments from the legal profession or elsewhere.

Twinning. There might be advantages in twinning arrangements between law reform agencies, most obviously between a larger and a smaller agency.

Survey of law reform agencies. There could be benefits from a questionnaire for law reform agencies. The responses could provide a variety of information about the agencies and their work and methodology. The information could be particularly helpful for new agencies and for those that are threatened with closure, downsizing or sidelining.

Advancing the cause of law reform. There may be scope for individual law reform agencies, or groups of them, to pool their experiences in providing more and better information about the benefits of law reform and of law reform agencies. This could be beneficial both in countries where law reform agencies exist and elsewhere. This could apply both in the Commonwealth and outside the Commonwealth.

Association of Commonwealth Law Reform Agencies. There has been informal support for the idea of establishing such an association. It could take forward initiatives such as those mentioned in this note. It could share information through a newsletter.

It would need funding and, most importantly, one or more people to organise it. There would have to be careful thought in advance. It would be highly beneficial to contact a number of organisations for their advice, such as the Commonwealth Secretariat and existing Commonwealth associations of lawyers. There are of course parallel associations such as the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, the Commonwealth Association of Public Sector Lawyers, the Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association and the Commonwealth Association of Armed Forces Lawyers, besides associations of judges and magistrates. They would be of great assistance in providing information about the benefits which Commonwealth associations have found in other comparable spheres.

The establishment of such an organisation might be particularly appropriate at this time. Most law reform agencies are now well established, many are in a time of change – both in the law, in legal systems and in public sector management – and it is a time of particular pressure on many and not least on their resources. It is not known whether it has previously been suggested that such an association might be established. There could be advantages in establishing a relatively informal body at first, not least because the resources available would undoubtedly be limited.