More problems for Justice Wilson
April 13th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarPhil Kitchin writes:
A supreme court judge under investigation for not fully declaring a conflict of interest has been accused by another judge of making up a story to avoid disclosing his true financial debt to a top lawyer.
The accusation against Justice Bill Wilson, who sits in New Zealand’s highest court, was made by distinguished retired judge Sir Edmund “Ted” Thomas in a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne.
Sir Edmund claimed Justice Wilson made up a “fictitious” story which Sir Edmund believed indicated Justice Wilson wanted to continue to withhold his true financial position from the Supreme Court.
Justice Wilson is at the centre of a mounting controversy about his repeated failures to fully disclose that he owed $242,000 to Alan Galbraith, QC, when he sat on Court of Appeal cases involving Mr Galbraith.
A point worth making is that the debt itself does not necessarily mean Justice Wilson was biased, or even should not have heard the case. The issue is that the debt should have been disclosed so Saxmere could decide whether or not they wanted another Judge.
Justice Wilson has in fact ruled both for and against Mr Galbraith’s clients in various recent cases. I don’t think he was biased. However as with Nixon, it is often the “cover up” rather than the original offence that does you in.
The growers later went to the Supreme Court alleging apparent bias against Justice Wilson. The court dismissed the growers’ complaint but at paragraph 25 of the judgment, Justice Blanchard effectively said the case might have turned out differently had there been evidence of Justice Wilson being beholden to Mr Galbraith by owing him money.
“However, the materials placed before the court reveal nothing of the kind. There is nothing to indicate any indebtedness,” Justice Blanchard said.
Sir Edmund’s complaint alleged Mr Galbraith said he phoned Justice Wilson after the hearing and was “astonished” to hear Justice Wilson say he was vindicated.
Sir Edmund claimed Justice Blanchard’s comments caused “considerable consternation” and Justice Wilson also told Mr Galbraith he had approached Justice Blanchard about paragraph 25 and was told the comments were only intended to apply to “on demand” debts.
“This advice was met with disbelief,” Sir Edmund’s complaint alleged.
“This story is fictitious. No such conversation with Justice Blanchard took place,” Sir Edmund told Sir David. He considered it “highly improbable” that Mr Galbraith would make such a story up.
Now this is only one side of the story, and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner should complete his work. I think calls for resignation are premature, and should not be based on newspaper stories.
However if the allegations, as reported, are correct they pose a severe challenge to Justice Wilson’s ability to continue. There is a considerable difference between an accidental non disclosure, and a deliberate one.
If the Judicial Conduct Commissioner finds that “an inquiry into the alleged conduct is necessary or justified” and “if established, the conduct may warrant consideration of removal of the Judge”, then a Judicial Conduct Panel will be established.
Any such panel will have three members – two judicial/legal and one lay. Its hearings will be in public, and will not be a lot different from a public trial. It is hard to imagine a Judge would go through such a public process, rather than resign if a panel is formed.
If the panel recommends dismissal, then the decision goes to the Attorney-General. He can not decide to dismiss, if the panel does not recommend it, but he can decide not to dismiss, if they do so recommend.
If the AG did decide to support dismissal, it would require a motion in Parliament asking to the Governor-General to do so.
Related posts:
- More pressure on Justice Wilson
- Justice Wilson
- A win for Justice Wilson
- Justice Wilson’s Judicial Conduct Panel
April 13th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Can I please have my Privy Council back?
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Why KiwiGreg? So you can continue sucking on the tit of the British taxpayer? It’s not your Privy Council anymore than the dole is the beneficiary‘s hard-earned money. The Privy Council was a privilege, not an entitlement. FFS.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 11:35 am
“The Privy Council was a privilege, not an entitlement. ”
Nah it was an entitlement. I got it as a package deal with loyalty to the monarch and membership of the Commonwealth.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Hmm, good point.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
It’s made more difficult as Finlayson & Wilson are apparently friends from working together (although the legal profession is fairly small so this isn’t that surprising).
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/article.asp?NewsID=1174
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
What the hell are any judges doing running a business ?
Vote:Not only should they be whiter than white but they should be seen to be whiter than white.
How come judges are not required to have their money making assets in blind trusts ?
April 13th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
KiwiGreg – Privy Council was not interested in cases with a Kiwi flavour. Their attitude was that the NZ Court of Appeal was better able to deal with them. The only real advantage of Privy Council was in commercial cases where it is desirable to keep NZ decisions ‘in step’ with those of other common law administrations.
As far as the Bain case was concerned, I favoured the Court of Appeal stance over the Privy Council stance.
The situation concerning Mr Justice Wilson could just as easily occur among the Law Lords and possibly has occurred on a few occasions. The reason it has blown into the open is that a litigant wanted a ‘second bite of the cherry’ at the Court of Appeal. In some cases such as that one litigants (or criminal defendants) cherish a chance to put a ‘plan B’ into effect when ‘plan A’ has failed and where both plans cannot be run simultaneously. For example in a criminal trial the accused chooses not to take the stand (to avoid being cross examined), but when found guilty is desperate for a re-trial where he can take the stand in the hope of persuading the jury of his innocence.
Grumpyoldhori – Owning racehorses can hardly be called a business. Churchill once said “many people have come to grief owning or backing horses, but no one has come to grief, except honourable grief, through riding horses”.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
You mean the same privy council that was essentially impossible to get to because of the high cost? And the same one that was often referring cases back to our Court of Appeal because it felt it was not sufficiently in step with NZ society to rule on our cases? Hmmm… nice one.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
peterwn, no, owning a race horse would not be a business, but, by the sound of it the judge has a share in a stud which is also looking to develop some land for housing etc.
Rather more than just owning one gee gee.
Then again the Chief Justice has hardly set the right tone in being involved in three horse racing ventures in the racing INDUSTRY.
(Although their business relationships have been terminated, the Chief Justice, together with her husband, Mr Hugh Fletcher, and Justice Wilson were partners in three ventures in the horseracing industry. These ventures have been referred to in the media. In addition, a weekly newspaper has without foundation questioned the Chief Justice’s actions in respect of Justice Wilson’s breach of ethics and posed the question whether she thinks she should resign.? )
I believe she should resign because a chief Justice should be like Caesar’s wife.
Vote:Or, should we expect less from judges than Ministers of the Crown ?
April 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
What I find staggering in this instance, was the Attorney General, Finlayson rightly saying it was not his place to interfere, then in the next breath express confidence in the judical system.
Vote:FFS If you are not going to interfere then don’t say anything, expressing confidence is interfering.
April 13th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I don’t know all the ins and outs, but it seems extremely unlikely that this was an accidental non-disclosure (what, he forgot he knew the person and had business dealings with them??) and if it was accidental then its proof that he’s not fit to be a supreme court judge and he should be dismissed (what other accidents would we be prepared for him to make in that position?)
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Surely the nub of the case is if Justice Blanchard or the others involved confirm that the conversation referred to did or did not occur. If the conversation did not occur then Wilson has probably lied which I would have thought automatically rendered him unfit for office.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Sadly this problem seriously undermines the integrity of the Court – which was set up by Margaret Wilson in controversial circumstances. Even though I personally favour setting up the Court, the National Opposition and many practitioners did NOT. The Court has given a tier of appeal which is effectively unavailable to many many people which is why I strongly favour the Court. But this problem is very serious. Sir Ted Thomas has thrown a hand grenade into the mix and I am not convinced the Supreme Court has dealt with the problem effectively.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I would like to see a proper investigation into Judge Fraser’s treatment of the prominent person found with 300,000 pornographic images many of them of children now that this case shows that judges are not above reproach.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Lipo, I wonder, is Fidlayson stating by other means that he has confidence in Wilson ?
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
When I lived in Te Anau road, Hataitai, there was a District Court judge living in the street and he would sometimes drive pissed down to the Hataitai Fish & Chip shop on a Saturday evening for takeaways. I thought he was bloody lucky never to be caught.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
the problem is there is no way to remove the justice…only a 2/3 in the house with GG approval apparently
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“[a judge] has been accused by another judge of making up a story”
What’s with the euphemisms?
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“KiwiGreg – Privy Council was not interested in cases with a Kiwi flavour. Their attitude was that the NZ Court of Appeal was better able to deal with them. The only real advantage of Privy Council was in commercial cases where it is desirable to keep NZ decisions ‘in step’ with those of other common law administrations.”
Couldn’t agree with you less. Although in fairness it is the commercial matters that I personally wanted to have the PC retained for. The PC overruled the CoA in a number of important commercial areas, establishing precedents which the Supreme Court is now frantically trying to overturn.
Vote:April 13th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
By not releasing details of the debt the Judge shows his judgement to be tainted. You don’t want a Judge with such obviously tainted judgement.
Vote:April 14th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Chuck Bird – The correct response to an inappropriate penalty is an appeal, not an investigation of the judge. The only exception would be where the penalty was on the light side AND the judge had some connection with the offender.
expat – There seem to be three stages:
1. A owing money to B but not yet due and B can pay (eg investment maturing, etc)
2. A owing money to B and B starting to leap down for it.
3. A owing money to B which influences A’s decision making where A owes a duty to others.
Last year’s Supreme Court hearing found that stage 1 existed, now it seems stage 2 existed, although IMO it is unlikely to have reached stage 3.
Vote: