Misconduct claims against judge 'conjecture, hearsay... dishonourable'

Ted Thomas (left) and Bill Wilson. Photos / Supplied

Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson's lawyer made a stinging attack yesterday on retired judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas, accusing him of being dishonourable, engaging in fantasy and breaching a confidence.

Colin Carruthers, QC, was in the High Court at Wellington and Sir Edmund was sitting five metres behind him.

Sir Edmund is an interested party in Mr Wilson's bid to halt the judicial conduct proceedings against him progressing to the Judicial Complaints Panel, which can recommend a judge's removal.

Justice Wilson was not in court.

Sir Edmund is one of three people who complained to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, about Justice Wilson.

The alleged misconduct centres on the extent of disclosures by Justice Wilson about his business relationship with Alan Galbraith, QC, before he appeared before the judge in a 2007 case.

The judge made an informal disclosure to the counsel opposing Mr Galbraith in March 2007 about their joint ownership of Rich Hill, a company that owned land rented to Rich Hill Stud, a separate horse breeding company that is part-owned by Mr Galbraith but not by Mr Wilson.

The Supreme Court has found that Mr Wilson should have made a formal disclosure with more detail.

Mr Carruthers said yesterday that the claim that Mr Wilson had been in debt to Mr Galbraith was wrong, and Sir Edmund had also got many other facts about the financial relationship wrong.

Sir Edmund had also claimed that there was a "moral obligation" on Mr Wilson to make greater shareholder contributions to get them in balance with Mr Galbraith's even though there was no legal obligation.

Mr Carruthers said "there is no doubt that what Sir Edmund said is speculative and conjecture, hearsay, wrong in fact and entitled to no weight whatsoever".

The Herald reported in April this year that Sir Edmund's involvement in the case had been prompted initially by a conversation he had with Jim Farmer, QC, a good friend of Mr Galbraith's.

Mr Carruthers said that Mr Farmer had been giving Mr Galbraith legal advice and had approached Sir Edmund for advice.

"No matter how much wriggling Sir Edmund now engages in, that confidence was not conditioned or conditional and he was not entitled to breach it.

"Sir Edmund's breach of confidence and privilege is dishonourable."

The judge "did not owe Mr Galbraith a cent and he never has", he said.

The pair had an agreement to contribute more or less equally to the partnership but occasionally there were imbalances "that were of no moment to them".

At the heart of Mr Wilson's case is that Sir David had not identified the misconduct in his report recommending the case go to the complaints panel.

Mr Carruthers said Mr Wilson was being denied natural justice.