Judicial Conduct Panel Proceedings
July 6th, 2010 at 10:10 am by David FarrarI’m at the initial hearing of the Judicial Conduct Panel, hearing the complaints against Justice Wilson. It started shortly after 10 am.
One of my media benchmates asked me if I knew about the 30 minute delay on live reporting. I thought they were kidding, but in fact they were saving me from a contempt charge, as the rules for the hearing do specify no live broadcast or reporting, including over the Internet.
So I’ll only be able to start reporting the substance at around 10.40 am, and am going to have to try and keep in my head how long ago something was said!
We wondered if it would be like a normal court, and we should stand when the panel entered. The clerk removed the need for us having to guess by saying “All Stand”.
Justice Wilson had failed last week to injunct the panel before his judicial review hearing, but the panel decided (as all counsels agreed) to delay the substantive hearings until after the judicial review which is set down for 1 to 3 September.
They mentioned that Sir Ted Thomas had also written in urging a delay. After his evidence was found to be largely incorrect hearsay by the Commissioner, I’m surprised he is still offering his opinions on the issues.
The next meeting of the panel is set for Friday 1 October.
The former wool board is represented by counsel, but mentioned that if no other parties apply to be represented, they will not continue to attend. Hence it will be just the counsel for Justice Wilson and the Special Counsel.
One significant problem is that it seems the Acting Attorney-General has not formally referred the exact issues around Justice Wilson to the panel as required by the Act. The Special Counsel will seek a formal referral letter through the Solicitor-General, and then use that to effectively place “charges” against Justice Wilson. The use of “charges” does not mean criminal behaviour, just alleged misbehaviour for a Judge.
The panel recessed at around 10.30 am and will come back shortly to record a formal minute, and it should all be over by 11 am.
The panel chair has read out a minute, and this initial session is concluded. The next stage is the judicial review. I’m too busy to spend three days in court covering it, but may pop in for the opening and closing.
Related posts:
- Justice Wilson’s Judicial Conduct Panel
- Justice Wilson’s Judicial Conduct Panel
- Supreme Court Justice faces Judicial Conduct Panel
- Special Counsel appointed
July 6th, 2010 at 10:42 am
What is it with the judicial system? Bill of Rights be damned any time it suits them, it seems. What I consistently see from the judicial system is a mild abuse of their privileged position, whether it be the low threshold in deciding to stop people voicing an opinion or the contempt with which jurors are treated. And all based on the untestable, increasingly questionable idea that justice is so important that such means are justified.
Applied more broadly these practices would quickly produce tyranny. Shame on the judicial system.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Expensive waste of time if you ask me.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Contempt of a Judicial Conduct Panel? They’re dreaming. While some of the powers of a Commission of Inquiry apply to a Judicial Conduct Panel (see s 26 JCCJCPA), section 13B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 (Powers to Punish for Contempt) is not one of them. The powers of a panel under s 4 of the CIA, giving the Panel the powers of the District Court in respect of citing only relate to parties, and maintaining order generally at the hearing.
Similarly to Whaleoil, the most you’re likely to have faced would have been a fine under s 30 of the JCCJCPA, and I’m not even sure that applies – it gives the Panel to power to order suppression, but given this was it’s first meeting, I doubt was a power that could have been exercised, and factually probably wasn’t.
Edit: Where’d they hold the thing?
[DPF: It was at the Holiday Inn. If you seriously think the Panel does not have the power to demand a 30 minute delay, then I'd be keen to raise that issue for future hearings]
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Finding out about the 30 minute delay via a chance conversation shows there is a problem with the system. The rules for reporting should be clearly laid out to prevent any misunderstandings.
I guess this is a legacy of court reporting previously being confined to a few regular court reporters but in this day and age any person can easily “publish” material from an open court (or from just outside if judges ban devices from the room itself)
The rules for reporting ( including suppression orders) should be posted (and updated) in the court so that everybody who goes into the court has access to them.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
>It was at the Holiday Inn
Seriously? We spend a fortune on court buildings, then hold judicial hearings in hotels?
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Simon: As it was not a normal court, there was no noticeboard so to speak. I am now listed with the Ministry as media for the panel, so presume I will get updates in future directly.
David: I guess all the court rooms are busy.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
It’s not a judicial hearing.
Which is why I asked – I’d wondered if they were just going to purloin a courtroom to hold it, which would have been very wrong.
Probably not that expensive. The cost of running a Commission of Inquiry – which is effectively what this is – is usually primarily taken up by payments to those conducting it. In this case, they are two full-time judges and a full-time ombudsman. It may be that there will be a payment from one fund to another to balance things out, but their salaries won’t be going up to cover this – they’ll just get whatever they were earning before.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
DPF..I am going to have to try and keep in my head how long ago something was said!
Hell thats a worry..
Why not just write it when it was said with time it was said… then send it 30 minutes later.
Problem solved for all of us…
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
“Why not just write it when it was said with time it was said… then send it 30 minutes later.”
Vote:Because putting it that way doesn’t make it sound so dramatic.
July 6th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Bill Wilson ???
Vote:From personal experience – Amiable solicitor / Barrister and very able negotiator.
As judge …. ???
No comment
But the NZ lake is far too small so the same fish keep popping up, nibbling then spitting out the hook.
Bring back the Privy Council.
As for contempt….. Give them a centimetre and they will grab a kilo.
Go get ‘em, DPF
July 6th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Process and circumlocution will be the order of the weeks ahead then more weeks for consideration of verdict. Commonsense and interrogation should establish the truth in a couple of hours.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
What, “Crusher” Collins inept in her understanding of the law?! Who’d'a thunk it, huh?
[DPF: Collins is a former Vice-President of the Law Society, so no legal novice. Like all AGs she would be guided by Crown Law. I would point out that this procedure is never tested before, so not surprise that there are some aspects not perfect]
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
> After his evidence was found to be largely incorrect hearsay by the Commissioner, I’m surprised he is still offering his opinions on the issues
You mean Alan Galbraith and Justice Wilson aren’t close mates and business asociates? You mean Wilson disclosed to the Court in a timely manner that he (Wilson) owed his mate and business associate a large sum of money? You mean that Wilson was upfront and honest from the get-go?
Justice Wilson, it seems, has had many opportunities to put the record straight. For whatever reason, he hasn’t availed himself of those opportunities.
[DPF: The panel hearing will look into the nature of the relationships, but that is not primarily what Ted Thomas complained about. Many aspects of his complaint was based on hearsay, and the principals gave a different story to the Commissioner. It did not reflect that well on him - even though I am sure his motivation was genuine]
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Meanwhile, according to Vince Siemer:
“According to key investigation documents, Wellington lawyer Colin Carruthers QC personally pleaded with Wilson early on in the scandal to disclose his financial indebtedness to Galbraith. Wilson refused. In a move which is as unlawful as it is effective, Wilson has now hired Carruthers as his lawyer. Hiring Carruthers makes Carruthers immune from having to testify as to these material facts of Wilson’s misconduct.”
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
“Hiring Carruthers makes Carruthers immune from having to testify as to these material facts of Wilson’s misconduct.””
And means Colin’s wife can’t write a column about it either.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10121905
Vote:July 7th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I agree that Carruthers should be a witness not counsel. If this was the USA, a Grand Jury would be examining the Judge and the Lawyer for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and they would probably be indicted.
I read with some amusement eh briefing Carruthers QC provided to the media which claimed that the judges conduct on the Court of Appeal was not so bad. That claim is a red herring. The real misconduct was when the judge was on the Supreme Court bench and that is Ted Thomas’ gripe as I understand it.
This needs investigation by the Police. If two people agreed to withhold figures from the Supreme Court giving them percentages instead of dollar values, and that caused the Supreme Court to deliver a judgment that was wrong, then the Court was misled as a result of the withholding (as they were), there are questions about whether the misleading amounts to a criminal offence.
As the Court of Appeal said about Comeskey “”Need we mention the importance of counsel accurately stating the position, and being absolutely candid and forthright with the court?”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10656994&pnum=2
If Comeskey had misled the Court like Wilson and Galbraith did, the Police would be called as quick as look at you.
Old boys network alive and well in New Zealand.
Vote: