Justice Wilson resigns
October 21st, 2010 at 10:25 pm by David FarrarActing Attorney-General Judith Collins announced:
Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins announced that Justice Wilson today resigned as a judge of the Supreme Court.
This is a good outcome. Personally I’m slightly disappointed that I won’t get to observe and report on a judicial conduct panel, as what is effectively an impeachment trial of a supreme court justice would be a once in a lifetime event.
But the judiciary is spared the spectacle of what would have been a very messy public (effectively) trial, and a very costly one.
The terms on which the Judge has resigned are:
- His existing entitlements, which include untaken sabbatical leave and retiring leave. The exact amount has not yet been calculated.
- One year’s salary, of $410,000, which will be taxable.
- The Crown will pay Justice Wilson’s solicitor-client costs which to date have been calculated at $475,000.
The costs of Justice Wilson must be paid by the Government, by statute – s27(1) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 states:
The Judge’s reasonable costs of representation in respect of the inquiry must be met by the office of the Commissioner.
So that is the law as passed by the last Labour Government.
The one year’s salary will grate with a few people, but the reality is that it saves the taxpayer a lot of money. You see if Justice Wilson did not resign, he would remain getting his salary on full pay – plus all his further legal expenses would also be a debt to the taxpayer. The real loser in this deal is probably Colin Carruthers QC, who has ably represented Justice Wilson!
The High Court said that the JCC had to reconsider whether to recommend a JCP for Justice Wilson. Then after that the Government would have to appoint one all over again. Then there would be scheduling of it, and preliminary arguments, and then effectively the trial itself. Plus the possibility Justice Wilson may seek more judicial reviews.
And finally the JCP would have to come to a decision make a recommendation to Parliament, and Parliament decide whether to remove him.
I think it is impossible that this could occur within six months. It could indeed stretch out to a year.
So during those 6 – 12 months Justice Wilson would be receiving his full salary anyway.
On top of that we would be paying for his legal costs. If he has spent $475,000 so far – before it even gets to trial, I would be surprised if his costs would not come to at least that much again.
Also add on that the JCC was assisted by a former Australian Chief Justice – his costs would be considerable.
The Counsel assisting the JCP was to be a former Australian state solicitor-general – his costs would be in the hundreds of thousands.
And then add on the costs of Crown Law and the Ministry of Justice.
This is a ballpark guestimate, but I would say that if no deal was done to have Justice Wilson resign, then he would have still ended up with close to a year’s salary and the legal costs to the taxpayer would be quite easily a further million dollars or more on top of that.
So I have no problems at all with the agreement negotiated.
And while my sympathy for Justice Wilson is limited as he largely has his own intransigence to blame, it is worth noting he is barred for life from ever appearing in court again as a lawyer. He was formerly a top civil litigator, so his ability to earn money in future is seriously diminished.
It is a sad end to what was a highly regarded career as a lawyer and potentially as a Judge. His lack of full disclosure as a Court of Appeal Judge was IMO not a hanging offence. But his grudging co-operation with his own colleagues on the Supreme Court was what did him in. He embarrassed them, and he he substituted his own opinion as to what he thinks they need to know, for letting them decide that for themselves.
Related posts:
- Justice Wilson’s Judicial Conduct Panel
- Supreme Court Justice faces Judicial Conduct Panel
- More problems for Justice Wilson
- Justice Wilson
October 21st, 2010 at 10:48 pm
There should now be a Police investigation into whether Wilson has wilfully perverted the course of justice as the High Court has already held there is a ‘sufficiently plausible possibility’ that Wilson has ‘deliberately decided to withhold information from his own Court when he knew that the information might be relevant to the Court’s decision, and when others were advising and encouraging him to disclose it’. If that ‘plausible possibility’ turns out to be correct, then Wilson should be investigated for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
The money side to this grates with me. But then if people of limited means get appointed to these positions then the money becomes all important. It is a good outcome for everyone. I found all those small mean and spiteful emails quite disappointing. I thought people appointed to high judicial office had some “class”. But that has been notably lacking throughout this episode, right down to the money.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Ahhh, cry me a river about not working as a lawyer again.
He has probably raked in 10′s of millions over his career anyway. No doubt he will continue work as a highly paid ‘consultant’ .
It is very unjust though. You get a teacher / nurse / cop who make a similar transgression for their types of jobs, and they probably get nothing.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Could not disagree more strongly with your costs-centered analysis. Wilson was not some government department CEO. Could you imagine this sort of deal being struck with a US Supreme Court justice? A year’s salary by way of a golden parachute, to get rid of an inconvenient problem? The government should have stuck to its guns and, in the absence of a resignation (without any non-statutory sweeteners), taken the process to its conclusion.
Truly a third-rate, constitutionally bankrupt solution, confirming yet again the all-too-often ah hoc, expedient, principle-free nature of our governance, regardless of party.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 11:29 pm
ummmm – For a ‘perverting justice’ charge to succeed the prosecution would probably need to show that there was some actual ‘benefit’ to the judge or an associate. In this instance there was only the potential for any decision of the judge to be ‘coloured’ by the horse owning partnership with the QC (where the judge effectivly owed the QC money). No one ever suggested that his judgments were actually ‘coloured’ by the relationship.
The only reason the matter was raised at all, was that a litigant, after losing an appeal, wanted a second bite at the cherry, and the route chosen with spectacular success was to raise the matter of that partnership. The case has been set down for re-hearing and no doubt the appellant will try a different tack.
Vote:October 21st, 2010 at 11:38 pm
I broke the speed limit today. Rather than fine me a couple of hundred dollars, I suggest the Government pay me $400,000 and give me a year long holiday. In return I promise not to tie the legal system up in years of appeals based on points of law. How about it Collins?
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 am
Not buying it. There never was an inquiry.
Only Justice Wilson’s costs at the inquiry must be met. We weren’t in the gun for his legal costs for the Commissioner’s investigation, or for the judicial review. Which isn’t to say that this didn’t save us money, but your interpretation that “The costs of Justice Wilson must be paid by the Government, by statute…” is simply false.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 am
Actually, that was the law as passed by Parliament. Are you suggesting that National voted against the law? Or against that clause in the committee of the whole? Or spoke in opposition to it at any time whatsoever? No? Then why mention it at all?
[DPF: Actually my memory is that National did oppose the law]
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 12:58 am
Yeah, actually, now that you mention it, I remember that too. It was an omnibus bill doing a bunch of things. I will note however, that this law was amended earlier this year, and National didn’t propose any change to s 27.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 6:56 am
I agree with Graeme that the government should be reimbursing Wilson’s costs in respect of the Inquiry and only the Inquiry. Given his salary, I think it’s reasonable to think that he pay the other costs. I would like to think that the government will be happy to release the details of Wilson’s legal costs so we can judge for ourselves whether those costs were “reasonable”.
Wilson has come out of this looking weak, which is a terrible thing for a judge. He blustered and said there was no case to answer. All of a sudden he resigns. The perception is that there was indeed a case to answer but Wilson was too weak to face the music.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
Judges can do anything without consequences. Are they not human who make mistakes? Name one judge that has been sacked in New Zealand. This country pays these creeps far too much money. It’s a bent bench.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 7:32 am
“His lack of full disclosure as a Court of Appeal Judge was IMO not a hanging offence.”
Not perhaps his initial lack of disclosure. All of his actions to twist & distort, to duck & dive, and to show complete contempt to the public he serve absolutely demands the resignation.
As for the money – a small price to pay to get it over and done with quickly. Yes, there is a bit of a golden handshake aspect to it, but it is not great in the grander scheme of priorities for the country. It has also saved us probably more than that in crown legal expenses.
I’d rather we didn’t have to pay him anything, but the deal is certainly one we should be able to live with
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 7:37 am
Not “vox populi” on this issue, are you, David? You seem waaaay too much establishment here, and the great unwashed can see through it. This man broke the law, was of the law, and he’s allowed to resign with a parting gift. As stated by others, this won’t happen to any of us when we break the rules. Excuse the pun, the the bar must be higher for people who uphold the law. If he needs to go down in embarrassment after a fine career, he has brought it upon himself. If he doesn’t like it, he can spend a few weeks on an overseas holiday with Chris Carter and they can cry and hug each other to sleep.
[DPF: What law did he break? Be specific]
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 7:39 am
> it is worth noting he is barred for life from ever appearing in court again as a lawyer
How he is barred for life? That’s not my understanding. Today’s Herald mentions that Judges agree not to work again in Court after they’ve resigned. Don’t judges also “agree” to declare conflicts of interest?
Even if Wilson doesn’t appear in court again, what’s to stop him from giving and charging complainants for legal advice?
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 am
Now it’s been revealed that Wilson tried to avoid facing the music weeks ago but wanted an even better golden handout than he’s getting.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10682253
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 am
“Justice Wilson’s revised offer of resignation yesterday at a cost of more than $1 million to the taxpayer.”
How do these overpaid creeps sleep at night? These greedy pricks are the scum of the earth.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 am
Another example of the Legal Brotherhood looking after their own.
It is a least cost way of getting out of a sticky problem and maintaining the credibility of the judicial service, and exposing the murky way these people work.
Some of the highest paid most incompetent people in the country. All screens and mirrors sucking on the cows hind tit.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 8:12 am
peterwn: For a ‘perverting justice’ charge to succeed the prosecution would probably need to show that there was some actual ‘benefit’ to the judge or an associate.
Actually no, there is no requirement for a benefit to be gained as an element of the charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice. Knowing that he held relevant information and deliberately withheld it resulting in the Supreme Court giving an erroneous judgment would, if proven, have been more than enough for conviction. The High Court says that was a ‘plausible possibility’.
And at any rate the benefit to the judge in withholding the information was that in Saxmere No 1 the Court did not make a finding that the judge should have removed himself. Had he disclosed, it would have. That is a benefit, even though a benefit is not needed to prove a charge under s117(e) of the Crimes Act. I guess (hope) you aren’t a criminal lawyer.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 9:13 am
ummmm
Help me with the analysis here. Which of the SC decisions was erroneous? If his insistence to remain was based on some desire to remove the financial pressure by producing or assisting the production of a specific decision on the substantial merits of the case then I agree with you. I don’t think that anyone has suggested this, however.
If you say that the perversion relates to the decision that he was not obliged to recuse himself then I am less persuaded. There is no doubt in my mind that he should never have sat on the case and that Galbraith was also at fault in not making or insisting on full disclosure to the other side. I am not convince that the crime of perversion arises however.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 am
Nookin: the first one on 3 July 2009 that decided Justice Wilson was not disqualified and then was recalled on 27 November 2009. But ummm is very wrong to say that there should be a police investigation. This was a grave error of judgment by the judge, but in no way does it suggest that the Court of Appeal decision that Justice Wilson was involved in was actually wrong, nor that there was any criminal intent to pervert the course of justice.
This is a matter were justice may have been done, but to all appearances could be considered tainted. I very much doubt it was. The legal fraternity is very small and many of us know judges personally.
After all, those same judges used to practise alongside us, or in partnership with us, and now have to put that personal friendship aside. That is why we don’t generally allow a lawyer to appear in front of a brother who is a judge, but have no problem with a lawyer who is best mates with the judge to appear.
This is about appearances, not necessarily acutalities, and ummm is wrong to call for a police investigation without actually pointing to evidence of wrongdoing rather than misjudgment.
DPF is right, this is a situation where, had Justice Wilson stayed on, the taxpayer would have had to cover his costs. And nobody actually appears to have given thought to the fact that he may have been exonerated. Found to be foolish but no more. I fully support this as a clean and less expensive way to end the saga.
Now can we please have the Privy Council back?
I was at a speech by Chief Justice Elias once, I forget where, when she mentioned Justice Wilson (probably obliquely) and his appointment direct to the Court of Appeal. She mentioned that her preference was for judges to sit on the High Court for a time before going to the Court of Appeal, as is traditional. I know it is off topic, but I would agree with her.
EDIT: and ummm’s final sentence in the comment at 8.12am is, in my view, completely uncalled for.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 am
Okay, here goes:
The perversion was that the SC gave a judgment that needed to be recalled. The real question is was it a wilful attempt by the judge that brought the perversion about. Wilful equates to knowing and the HC has held that there was a plausible possibility that the judge “deliberately witheld information knowing it to be relevant to the SC at a time when others were encouraging him to disclose.”
As for evidence, I didn’t make the finding that deliberate withholding was a plausible possibility, the High Court did after they examined the interviews given to the JCC by the judge and Galbraith and Farmer. The High Court examination took place in camera in the Judges office without anyone knowing what was discussed. I think we can assume the High Court was speaking with its usual restraint when it referred to the plausible poissibility.
At any rate, any competent lawyer acting for the judge would have to have advised the judge that if that ‘plausible possibility’ crystallised into a firm finding of fact then the judge would be at very least in serious peril of criminal charges being laid.
Given the volume of people saying move on, nothing to see here. I think we can fairly assume the old boys network is still alive and kicking.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 9:52 am
I don’t hear anyone saying move on. I do see them saying that Wilson has gone and rightly so. I am far from convinced that there has been criminal action but I have only skimmed the surface and that is why I asked you to elaborate. I have no difficulty with counsel and judges knowing each other. However, there is a line. Wilson crossed it. I have objected to a judge sitting where his wife acted for a plaintiff firm (and I was acting for the firm). FES is right. it is a matter of perception and in a small country we cannot take chances. That is why, I suspect, few prople have a lot of confidence of a police review of the Thomas case.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 9:57 am
Plausible possibility is not enough for a criminal charge. Withholding information of the nature that Justice Wilson appears to have not told the Supreme Court (although much of it appeared to be in the public domain at the time) can be construed as much as foolishness as anything else, certainly in the absence of proof.
I certainly cannot see how the fact that a Supreme Court judgment needed to be recalled upon further information becoming available can be said to be a perversion of the course of justice. My understanding is that judgment related to whether Justice Wilson was disqualified from hearing the case whilst in the Court of Appeal, not whether the Court of Appeal got the judgment right or not. It may well be that the judgment was right, but that because there was the appearance of the possibility of bias the judge should have recused himself so justice could be seen to be done. That does not show that there was an actual perversion of or any attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Moreover, the High Court finding is speculation. It may be well founded or much agreed with speculation, but it remains speculation.
Of course a plausible possibility could have become an actuality if evidence could be advanced to prove it. However, that self-same competent lawyer (and Curruthers QC is VERY competent) would also have to have advised the judge that taking the case through a hearing, although looking bad, may have resulted in a finding in his favour. Remember, a High Court judge sits without impeachment except for misbehaviour or incapacity. A foolish decision on whether he should sit is not misbehaviour. I would argue that the failure to communicate the full position to the Supreme Court is not misbehaviour, although it is extremely foolish. For that, the judge was right to resign. But I can see no evidence, from what is in the media, of any criminal behaviour.
And, again, look at your last comment, ummm. You just can’t seem to resist attacks on those who disagree with you. Nobody is saying there is nothing to see here, we are just disagreeing with you on whether this is a criminal matter or not.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 10:36 am
Witholding information, that once subsequently revealed, causes a judgment to be recalled is NOT a good look. I am unsure whether Justice Wilson corrected the misinformation or whether it came from a different source.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Pathetic behaviour from someone who was fast tracked to the Supreme Court. He had limited judicial experience and obviously overlooked any training he had in ethics. Mr Justice Thomas is to be congratulated in effectively running Wilson out of town.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
DPF: What law did he break? Be specific
Probably no laws were broken. Loaning $250,000 to the judge hearing your case is probably not illegal in NZ. Gaining a judgement in your favour from someone who owes you a lot of money is probably also okay in NZ. There is probably nothing wrong with what occured.
[DPF: You do not understand the role of lawyers. It was not Galbraith's case - it was his client's. His job is to advocate on behalf of them. He gets paid regardless of the outcome. If the client was owed money from the Judge it would be a massively different issue]
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
A squalid mess in which Wilson’s was not the only integrity in question yet in all the circumstances the best course of action available was taken. Lets hope a new Chief Justice is appointed soon. In my view while breeding racehorses may be okay they shouldn’t be involved in the racing of them.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Bill Wilson has been wrongly vilified.
Vote:Rich Hill Stud Ltd is a closely held company. It is not a private company as that term exited our law when the 1993 Companies Act came in.
Almost all closely held companies have shareholders’ current accounts. Apparently Galbraith’s current account balance was higher than Wilson’s. That is, the company owed more money to Galbraith than the company owed to Wilson.
One would need the business acumen of an Aussie actors’ union member to say that Wilson owed Galbraith money.
Declaration of interest; I bred two slow Bertolini horses.
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I’m calling BS DPF…
You don’t penny pinch when it comes to the corruption (or not) of a Supreme Court Justice…
[DPF: He was not on trial for corruption.]
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Commenters’ and DPF’s focus on whether Wilson committed a “crime” is a red herring. We are talking about a Supreme Court judge here, standards are somewhat higher. What was at issue was a question of ethics.
This outcome reeks of a small island solution, not the resolution of a mature country.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
It was a question of ethics and it costs him his job and reputation. What would a mature country have done?
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
A mature country wouldn’t have reached a financial accommodation with a Supreme Court judge, as if he were some allegedly misbehaving CEO of a quango. It would have followed legal due process, not bailed out on said process based on a pathetic “this is all too expensive” argument.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Does that mean that the outcome of the litigation was guaranteed and that the Crown was not at any risk? Who made that judgement?
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Nothing was guaranteed, nor did it need to be for there to have been value in the Crown not agreeing to pay Wilson out. When dealing with questions of judicial behaviour, there is a statutory process to be followed.
If the judge wanted to resign, fine, but the government should not have agreed to a special payment in respect of that resignation. Judges are not just highly-paid public servants, they occupy a special constitutional position and should be dealt with in a constitutionally-appropriate manner. I’m all for settling commercial litigation based on economic realties and chances of success in court, but to apply the same commercial attitude to this issue is in my view completely wrong.
Could you imagine this sort of deal being struck with a law lord, or a US Supreme Court justice? Like hell.
I’d like to note I have no opinion on the merits or otherwise of the matters surrounding Justice Wilson, my concern is solely with the circumstances of his resignation.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
1. The statutory provisions had not previously been invoked. I believe that litigation risk was a factor. I do not believe that the Crown could afford to lose in terms of the integrity of the bench.
Vote:2. It seems that there is some statutory obligation to meet the costs of any judicial officer undergoing the process.
3. He has resigned with 12 months salary plus emoluments to be calculated. It is reasonable to suppose that he may have some income over the next 12 months but hardly in the ballpark of a Supreme Court Judge.
4. It is very difficult to compare New Zealand with the judicial systems of the United Kingdom and US. I’m not altogether sure that there is a great deal of maturity about the appointment of Supreme Court judges in the US, either. For the most part they are politically motivated.
5. We have an extremely small talent pool and degrees of association this close should have been foreseen when the Privy Council was abolished. It was either not foreseen or ignored.
6. Regardless of whether the error of judgement justified dismissal or otherwise, it leaves a stain on the integrity of the system and prolonged litigation designed to place the degree of culpability on a continuum ending in dismissal would have achieved little. Instead, there is a settlement which has achieved certainty and has probably saved money. So far there has been a preliminary finding only and the reimbursable legal fees would appear to be in the order of $475,000 without taking into account Crown costs. What would the final figure have been?
7. I believe that this is a good result. The only drawback of an amicable resolution such as this is that there is no binding ruling which gives an authoritative interpretation of the legislation. I can live with out that. There would be few judges in the country who will take anything other than a very cautious approach to conflicts of interest given the outcome in this case.
October 22nd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
dad4justice (6,821) Says:
October 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
Judges can do anything without consequences. Are they not human who make mistakes? Name one judge that has been sacked in New Zealand. This country pays these creeps far too much money:
Actually, Hugh Rennie SM followed by a term of imprisonment for perjury.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
FE Smith: :”Moreover, the High Court finding is speculation.”
Sorry FES, but you have obviously lost some of your ability to think independently of the inward looking lawyers who wanted Wilson to tough this out and remain on the bench. Can you honestly say that you would not, amongst other things, have felt obliged (if you were his lawyer) to have advised the judge that there was the possibility that he could be charged under s117(e) of the Crimes Act if the ‘plausible possibility’ crystallised.
It is a pretty weak argument when a lawyer writes of the High Court as ‘speculating’. What they usually do is understate the position with considerable restraint, and I suggest that where they say ‘plausible possibility’ there is a ‘very plausible possibility’ especially given they have actually heard the secret transcripts of the interviews from the judge and his advisers. And you should know that evidence that supports a plausible possibility is very close to the prima facie evidence needed to lay a charge. The New Zealand Bar has come to accept very low standards and that is to its eternal discredit.
The Courts have set a very low threshold for conduct that amounts to ‘an attempt to pervert’ and for very good reason: it strikes at the heart of the administration of justice. That such conduct is committed by a judge should not raise the threshold for investigation by the Police.
High Court speculating….. you should be able to do better than that FE Smith.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
FE Smith “I certainly cannot see how the fact that a Supreme Court judgment needed to be recalled upon further information becoming available can be said to be a perversion of the course of justice.”
Actually the correct position is that the withholding of information by the judge caused the Supreme Court to deliver a judgment that needed to be recalled.
As to what can be said to be a ‘perversion’, the learned authors of Adams on Criminal Law note:
“To “pervert” the course of justice requires only that the course of justice be adversely influenced”
So, where a deliberate withholding of knowingly relevant information caused the Supreme Court to deliver a judgment that had to be recalled, I would say that there has been an ‘adverse influence’ on the course of justice.
Adams goes on:
“The “Perversion” of the course of justice also embraces conduct intended to bring about what the accused believes to be the correct or just result by the use of improper means: R v Kellett [1976] QB 372 (CA); R v Taffs [1991] 1 NZLR 69; (1990) 6 CRNZ 274 (CA); and R v Senat (1968) 52 Cr App R 282 (CA). In such cases the end does not justify the means: R v Meyrick.”
So, even if the judge thought his withholding would result in the just outcome, he can still be guilty. Here it actually resulted in an unjust outcome.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Ummmm: you are still mistaken, and I notice that you still cannot help yourself but attack the motivation of people commenting on this site. Plausible possibility is speculation, and the High Court does from time to time indulge in that pasttime. I say that because I have seen it happen. You elevate the term from plausibile to very plausible, which is neither the term they used nor good reasoning. Stick with what what said. Plausible possibility means that the High Court judges thought it plausible (i.e. reasonable) that there was a possibility (what it says) that there was improper conduct. Not that there was improper conduct nor even that it was probable that there was improper conduct. It is a possibility. And of course it is, because the conduct of Justice Wilson does not look good at all and there may or may not have been something untoward behind it. But to extrapolate from that an intention to pervert the course of justice is ridiculous.
You are also wrong in your assertion because you are assuming that the judge intended to use an improper means to bring about a particular result, whatever that may be. However, there is no allegation about however much the judge had to do with the original Court of Appeal judgment (and it may have have been little), just whether the judge should have sat on the Court of Appeal case, and then whether he withheld information that he should have disclosed. Neither instance provides evidence for a charge of perverting the course of justice, no matter how low the threshhold for the charge (and I know it is low, you should hear what I have to say in Chambers when a client is charged with it for giving the cops a false name, rather than a charge of giving false information).
This situation has arisen because the judge was foolish, not criminal. It is a very bad look, but there is no evidence to show criminality. To be honest, I couldn’t see the judge being removed by Parliament either, but this has so damaged his reputation, and the Court’s, that his resignation was the only thing he could do.
To recap- your allegations of a criminal intent are a red herring and are wrong on the evidence before us.
Anyway, lets have some disclosure- are you a lawyer? And if so, are you connected with the case?
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Wilson was appointed from a QC straight to the Court of Appeal and then within 10 months, Cullen appointed him straight into the Supreme Court. Is that usual? If not, why was he so favoured? He’s not bad intellectually, but weren’t there equally intelligent and more experienced candidates?
Did Wilson write the Supreme Court opinion in the TVNZ v Simunovich case after having worked as legal advisor for the NZ Ministry of Fisheries when that case arose? Should Justices of the Supreme Court write opinions when they have such previous involvement? If not, why didn’t he recuse himself then, as well?
Did Elias CJ turn a blind eye to this issue despite James Farmer QC, Alan Gabraith QC and Colin Carruthers QC corroborating what Judge Thomas had told her about Wilson?
It would be nice to know what the answers are.
“
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 10:29 pm
No I am not a lawyer or connected with the case.
Now forgive me for being a little sceptical of your plea in mitigation/spurious defence, but the man you would have me believe was so foolish that he misled the Supreme Court and took three statements to put them right is probably as intelligent as you and I put together and then some. As you will know most of the people who do end up charged with attempting to pervert … actually are just very foolish people, but they still get convicted.
However in the case of a man with Wilson J’s titanic legal mind I feel the correct inference is that this was an act of attempted cunning rather than innocent foolishness especially when the lawyers around him (probably the best two QC’s in the country) were telling him to disclose. I suspect if you took off your defence lawyer’s hat off for a moment you too would have a lingering suspicion that this intellectual giant actually just though he was smarter than every one else. Further, a man of his calibre does foolish things, if he is going to do them at all, on the golf course or at the Northern Club, not when the Supreme Court asks him to explain his business affairs and after having had the benefit of advice from Galbraith and Farmer telling him to disclose.
Still, in favour of your ‘foolishness’ defence, the judge and his advisers didn’t look too smart trying to argue that the judge could claim legal adviser privilege that in fact belonged to Alan Galbraith who had waived it.
As to what I think might warrants criminal investigation, it is certainly not what happened while Wilson was a Court of Appeal judge, it was what happened when he was a judge of the Supreme Court and they ‘invited’ him to provide further information about his business relationship (but I don’t really think you really needed me to point that out). Once he gave them information, as an officer of the court he was under a duty not to mislead the Court (again, something I am sure you know). The most serious act/omission amongst all that was the decision that was made to represent the imbalance in the Rich Hill current account between he and Galbraith with a percentage rather than a dollar value.
If that act/omission had an ‘adverse influence’ on the Saxmere No 1 judgment it ‘perverted’ the course of justice on the authorities.
Now I am not trying to be provocatively offensive to you but it really is quite amazing how the legal profession can’t or don’t want to see the wood for the trees. No lay person would think they could withhold information from the Court in that way and get away with it, and they would be right…. and then, right on cue, their lawyer would come along and say ‘my client’s not a criminal, m’lud, just a fool’.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
“the man you would have me believe was so foolish that he misled the Supreme Court and took three statements to put them right is probably as intelligent as you and I put together”
You don’t know how smart I am and I have no idea how smart you are.
“As you will know most of the people who do end up charged with attempting to pervert … actually are just very foolish people, but they still get convicted.”
Not at all. Most of the people charged and convicted with this offence are in fact actively attempting to pervert the course of justice, on purpose and for nefarious gain (usually to avoid being convicted of a separate offence, or to assist someone else to avoid being convicted of a separate offence.
“I suspect if you took off your defence lawyer’s hat off for a moment you too would have a lingering suspicion that this intellectual giant actually just though he was smarter than every one else.”
No, I think he thought that the idea that anybody would think he was biased simply because he was involved in a business with counsel involved in the case was just to incredible to be worthy of consideration. That is the reality of practice in such a small jurisdiction- we all know judges and many of us are friends with at least one or two. Some of us are related to them, or married to them. It happens and we simply take it for granted and assume that we will all be fair. That is how we can appoint lawyers to sit in the towns in which they used to practice, even when they will have former employees appearing in front of them on a regular basis.
“Further, a man of his calibre does foolish things, if he is going to do them at all, on the golf course or at the Northern Club, not when the Supreme Court asks him to explain his business affairs and after having had the benefit of advice from Galbraith and Farmer telling him to disclose.”
History is full of great and not so great men and women doing foolish things in serious settings. It is a fact of life. We all make mistakes. Moreover, I have no doubt that Justice Wilson took advice on what he needed to disclose. We have no idea what that advice was, it may have been bad and he may have followed it, or it may have been good advice that he ignored. We just don’t know. But to impute criminal intent into a matter of this nature is completely wrong. Especially when it is completely possible that the decision in the rehearing may be exactly the same, just with a different bench.
“As to what I think might warrants criminal investigation, it is certainly not what happened while Wilson was a Court of Appeal judge, it was what happened when he was a judge of the Supreme Court and they ‘invited’ him to provide further information about his business relationship (but I don’t really think you really needed me to point that out). Once he gave them information, as an officer of the court he was under a duty not to mislead the Court (again, something I am sure you know). The most serious act/omission amongst all that was the decision that was made to represent the imbalance in the Rich Hill current account between he and Galbraith with a percentage rather than a dollar value.
And there is your problem. You are saying that you are not concerned about what happened in the Court of Appeal, but instead in any misrepresentation that he may have made to the Supreme Court on whether he was disqualified or not and the reasons for his opinion. But then in the next sentence you say that ‘If that act/omission had an ‘adverse influence’ on the Saxmere No 1 judgment it ‘perverted’ the course of justice on the authorities.”, which is a contradiction of what you said earlier.
Which decision contained the problem? The Court of Appeal decision or the Supreme Court one? Noting, of course, that the Supreme Court decision did not (as far as I recall) discuss the merits of the Court of Appeal decision, but simply whether Justice Wilson should have sat on the case.
“it really is quite amazing how the legal profession can’t or don’t want to see the wood for the trees. No lay person would think they could withhold information from the Court in that way and get away with it, and they would be right…. and then, right on cue, their lawyer would come along and say ‘my client’s not a criminal, m’lud, just a fool’.”
People withhold information from the Court all the time and get away with it, often for the purpose of winning their case. Police do it, defendants do it, witnesses do it. Of course lay people think they will get away with it. Police officers often know they will get away with it. Such is the way of humanity and there is little we can do about it.
But sometimes people withhold information, or give their take on it, simply because they don’t see its relevance or they think that their view is the only possible way of looking at it. That can be seen as foolishness and should not be the subject of criminal sanction.
While it will cost a lot of money to rehear the case, this is a situation where the judge should have known better, but I do not believe that there is any evidence that there was a criminal intent in his actions. That is my view. The episode has cost him his career and now means that he will always be known as the Supreme Court judge who resigned. He will be the subject of comment in law school ethics lectures and his actions will be studied for many years to come. His reputation is now battered and he cannot return to the Bar. That alone, together with the loss of income from his remaining years on the Bench, is a significant penalty in itself.
I do think he behaved foolishly, but he has done the honourable thing and resigned. For that I praise him. Now it is time to put this behind us and move on from what is an unfortunate episode. One that in no way should reflect on the legal profession as a group, but simply on the person’s involved directly. Their will be a rehearing in the Court of Appeal and the process of justice will be continued again.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
“Now it is time to put this behind us and move on from what is an unfortunate episode.”
I’d still like my questions above to be answered FE. I’m not a lawyer therefore Wilson is neither a brother nor a colleague. As a citizen however I’m entitled to know my judiciary is above reproach from the very highest to the lowest levels since that is something I treasure in this particular country. It’s one of the reasons I’ve stayed here all my life.
Right now, neither he nor Elias CJ is in my view, above a full investigation and I’m looking forward to any journalist whatsoever doing their job, with respect to those questions. If that means uncovering some unpleasant and disturbing facts, so be it.
Vote:October 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Sorry, reid, didn’t notice them in there.
Wilson was appointed from a QC straight to the Court of Appeal and then within 10 months, Cullen appointed him straight into the Supreme Court. Is that usual?
No, in fact highly unusual.
If not, why was he so favoured?
Seen as a bit of a golden boy. Perhaps Michael Cullen being the AG at the time shows a want of consideration of legal traditions
He’s not bad intellectually, but weren’t there equally intelligent and more experienced candidates?
Probably Farmer QC, but he got charged with drink driving around the time he was going to go up (so the scuttlebutt goes).
Did Wilson write the Supreme Court opinion in the TVNZ v Simunovich case after having worked as legal advisor for the NZ Ministry of Fisheries when that case arose?
Don’t know. Was he on the SC when the case was heard?
Should Justices of the Supreme Court write opinions when they have such previous involvement?
No.
If not, why didn’t he recuse himself then, as well?
Good point.
Did Elias CJ turn a blind eye to this issue despite James Farmer QC, Alan Gabraith QC and Colin Carruthers QC corroborating what Judge Thomas had told her about Wilson?
Probably more relied on Justice Wilson doing the honourable thing and fully disclosing. He may have thought he had, and she may have relied on that. He hadn’t as far as I and most other people are concerned. Actually, the need to recuse himself is pretty much as clear as the nose on my face. This was judicial stupidity and he should have known better. I suppose he thought that of course he would be impartial (and he probably was), but it is the appearance not the actuality that counts here.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 12:12 am
“it is the appearance not the actuality that counts here”
Which is really my fundamental point FE for if a Justice of the Supreme Court can’t be trusted to exercise elementary principles of Jurisprudence then who the heck can and isn’t the public entitled to expect that so why did he even try to defend it in the first place to the tune of almost $0.5m which we, not he, have now to pay for?
He’s a disgrace.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 am
reid,
Tipping and Wilson JJ gave the reasons for the SC in the Simunovich case.
Vote:October 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am
“He’s a disgrace.”
it certainly does not reflect well on him.
Vote: