The Thomas/Farmer e-mails
August 6th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald has put online 50 pages of e-mails related to the Justice Wilson complaints, between former Judge Ted Thomas and QC Jim Farmer.
They are a fascinating read, and quite extraordinary – especially as the friendship gets strained on the issue of Justice Wilson. The Herald summarises:
As time passed and Sir Edmund pressed Dr Farmer to come forward, the emails between the two good friends became strained.
When Dr Farmer suggested that Sir Edmund might have leaked information to a controversial blogger, the retired judge replied that the comment made him “unbelievably angry”.
“I note that you are distressed. You sound like Weatherston,” Sir Edmund wrote, referring to Clayton Weatherston, the man found guilty of killing Sophie Elliott.
“We are all distressed. Those who have expressly used the word ‘sick’ to describe how they felt about this whole sorry business include you, me, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. To make matters worse, it is a distress that could have been avoided if Alan had followed your original advice and tabled the true facts with the Chief Justice at the outset.”
The blogsite they refer to is the one by Vince Siemer.
Related posts:
- More pressure on Justice Wilson
- Justice Wilson’s Judicial Conduct Panel
- Aaron Farmer
- More problems for Justice Wilson
August 6th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Here is an excerpt from the same article.
” Dr Farmer wrote: “That is why I say that not only is Sian [Elias, the Chief Justice] herself in a difficult position but that Bill will, if he is forced to resign, be likely to implicate Sian in the whole thing and in effect assert that he has had some sort of clearance from her.”
Later, Dr Farmer says he would be loyal to friends above concerns about the integrity of the system.
“While I have no brief for Bill, I do regard Sian as a close friend and I will always put friendship and loyalty above concerns about the ‘system’ which has its own processes for looking after itself.”…….
…………..All I can say is has our Justice system at the highest level sunk to such low depths.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 11:26 am
There MUST be a CRIMINAL inquiry into whether the judge and the lawyers have attempted to pervert the course of justice.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 11:30 am
NO there MUSN’T.
What would be nice is if the Judicial Conduct Panel could be allowed to do its job, though …
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
And these people sit in judgement of others spouting daily their superiority.
Vote:Sorry, but it time they were replaced with someone from another Juristiction that would keep them up to the mark.
Just more of the progressive crap that the rest of us pay for.
August 6th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
What AG said.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Some gems.
Ted: “Either you have been bullshitting me or Alan has been bullshitting you. As you know, and as I know and accept, you have not been bullshitting me.”
After Jim called Ted “Tim”:
“Who the hell is Tim?”
The exchange that lead to some heat:
Ted: “[...] Vince Siemer, a right wing American crackpot who is regularly committing contempt of court [...]. Fortunately no one would believe I had anything to do with such a shithead; so no one will think I have leaked information to him.”
Jim: “Have you? There is a saying that if someone gets into bed with a dog, he will catch fleas.”
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
As for the “coverup”, the letters don’t support it. Alan, being aware that Bill made a booboo in not disclosing the money that he owed, asked Jim for advice. Jim spoke to Ted and that is what these letters are about.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
What AG said.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Another vote here for AG.
Fascinated as I am to read the correspondence, releasing it in this manner is just one more incentive to discourage open discussion among those in prominent positions. It is one thing to accept that your communications may be open to the formal process of discovery; it is another to have to limit open discussion because it may be published in any forum at any time.
Eventually people in sensitive roles will just stop saying anything of any consequence. No one wins when everyone in public positions is competing to be as bland as possible. Just follow the Supreme Court Hearings in the US to see how this process becomes absurd.
I am heartened to see that the communication between such eminent jurists is so direct and, at times, colloquial.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I am sorry, but this whole affair simply illustrates how we have got ourselves into a mess. The relationship between Judges and QCs (et al) is incestuous and emphasises the folly of abandoning the Privy Council
So $200,000 a day Jimmy Farmer is worried about little rich girl Sian….. Dear, dear, oh dear…..
They should all resign and we should out-source the High, Appeal and Supreme Courts – to any where but NZ.
Failing that, non association orders should be issued against all Judges forthwith.
Grumble, grumble….
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
AG: “What would be nice is if the Judicial Conduct Panel could be allowed to do its job, though …”
A quaint proposition given the obvious conclusion from the emails is that the old boys club has contaminated the very highest levels of the bench. On that basis, it seems as though the JCP will just do little more than say this was improper, lessons should be learnt but removal is not warranted.
On the other hand, a Police enquiry may well find that the decision to disclose a percentage imbalance rather than a numerical value was a deliberate (and intentional) agreement between Galbraith and Wilson; that the disclosure of a percentage rather than a numerical value led the Court in Saxmere 1 to erroneously conclude the business was a passive land holding and issue a decision that was factually incorrect. Even a relatively naive Police officer would conclude this was a prima facie attempt to pervert the course of justice. If charges were laid and a conviction entered, removal would be a much tidier process.
To try to remove the judge first and, if successful charge him criminally afterwards, seems arse about kite. That’s what happened with Judge Hesketh.
On its face, this is criminal behaviour and if it didn’t involve such luminaries, the Police would be all over it.
[DPF: I disagree that this is anything at all to do with criminal behaviour. I also wish the JCP are allowed to do their job, before people declare what they will or will not do]
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
NZ is far too small to have a Supreme Court. The Privy Council may, or may not have been the answer, but as is illustrated by the E-mails our top judges are likely to allow their judgements to be influenced by personal relationships.
Vote:The Law is the most protected of trades or professions; lawyers set the entry levels (in the Uni’s), determine the pass rates, determine who is allowed to practice, and run the Courts. A pure monopoly.
August 6th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
In my lay opinion, Wilson was clearly wrong not to disclose the conflict of interest. Farmer is outrageous in saying that he would place loyalty to his friends over the integrity of the system. His implication, however, that the Chief Justice is compromised doesn’t appear to be born out by the other correspondance and looks like Farmer is just imputing his own lack of integrity to her. I certainly wouldn’t condemn her on the basis of his vague speculations.
This doesn’t mean that the whole system is broken, or that ending appeals to the Privy Council was wrong (and there are many reasons why keeping them was untenable actually, despite the fantasies some have about its wonderfulness). It does mean that there needs to be swift and decisive action to identify and expunge the rot.
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Alas this matter is yet another that shows the problem of the lack of degrees of separation in the small village that is NZ. We dont have the pool size to maintain a satisfactory level of independence even though we try.
The bottom line is integrity and the ethical standard of ‘what I must do”
Coupled with as these players have just discovered Will it pass the 6 o’clock news/ front page of the paper test.
The lessosn to be learnt out of the Wilson case are clear. Never ever forget your fundemental ethics and principles or they will come back and bite you on the bum as they have done.
The CJ and indeed the whole Judical system are now in a very difficult position and the JCP are now compromised. We have read the emails Pandoras box has been opened.
We will make our own judgments but the situation is that the Judicary have much work to do to restore the citizens confidence
Vote:August 6th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
What AG said.
Also: Sir Edmund Thomas comes across to me as a meddling old busybody.
Vote:August 7th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
DPF: “I disagree that this is anything at all to do with criminal behaviour.”
We’ll see. You would be surprised at how strictly the Courts have interpreted the section of the Crimes Act that provides for offences against the administration of justice (particularly when the offender is your typical criminal lowlife). For good reason, the Courts don’t allow much leeway for people to mislead them before it becomes criminal. The problem is that everyone gets a bit overawed when the crook is not your garden variety lowlife, but a Supreme Court Judge and his best mates are the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. If this happened in the USA they would all be before a Grand Jury within days. And that is a good thing.
Vote: