rules-of-court
Court referring to resources barely available to the general public
<p>As a pro se litigant I have come across a judge referring in their minutes to a resource which is barely available to the general public. It is a loose leaf written by lawyers for lawyers on peculiarities of civil procedure which is constantly updated.</p>

<p>The cheapest option to get access to it is to pay $2k yearly subscription to the publisher. This price itself is not even publicly available. The publisher's website states "POA" (price on application), and I had to submit two POA requests plus a support request to finally get the offer.</p>

<p>I also tried public libraries. Some have that resource but outdated, and they no longer subscribe to it.</p>

<p>It is understandable that:</p>

<ol>
<li>Pro se litigation is not very common; and</li>
<li>Lawyers are all subscribed to those kind of resources.</li>
</ol>

<p>Still, representing yourself in court is a right, as is the right of natural justice. Does this not mean that there should be a right of access to whatever resources the judicial decisions that affect you refer to? Or would that $2k subscription fall into the category of litigation costs that I would be able to claim if I win?</p>

<p>Alternatively, could I perhaps seek that, instead of referring to a high-paywall resource, the judge refers to whatever underlying cases/laws the referenced provision is based on?</p>

<p>Answers for any English-centric jurisdiction are welcome, though specifically interested in New Zealand.</p>

<p>It is not the court's function to educate you in the law and civil procedure. If you don't know then the onus is on you to learn at whatever cost that comes at in time and money.</p>

<p>You have a right to justice - you don't have a right to zero cost justice. Just like having a right to bear arms doesn't entitle you to a free gun.</p>
