“That misconduct brings concern and disapproval from the community and, indeed, from other lawyers who operate in accordance with lawful restraints. Your breach of lawful rules is grievous.”
NZME has attended all of Wintour’s hearings before the tribunal and according to the summary of facts, he has changed his story about how he accessed the information.
In one version of events, Wintour claimed that police disclosed his neighbour’s conviction history to him when two officers showed up at his door after a complaint he made about the man, with whom he shared a driveway.
Wintour later claimed a friend at the court had given him the information, though that friend has since died.
The lawyer went on to present the conviction history at a mediation meeting with his and the neighbour’s property manager.
The neighbour could not attend the meeting but his wife was there and told the tribunal during evidence that it was “entirely inappropriate” and “the most traumatic time of my life”.
The tribunal found it was most likely Wintour had obtained the conviction history from a probation officer at the Auckland District Court, and that the man’s file had been accessed from the officer’s login the day before the mediation meeting.
NZME understands Corrections investigated the incident.
The tribunal found last month that Wintour had deliberately lied to the Law Society about where he’d gotten the information, to draw attention from the real source and “maintained that lie continuously for almost seven years”.
“We find he has advanced deliberate falsehoods to cover his wrongdoing,” the tribunal said.
Wintour, who did not want to comment on the tribunal’s most-recent ruling, has maintained he got the information from the police and then from his friend at the court.
“In the context of being very fearful of [the neighbour] and having very real beliefs that my family and I may not be safe, I discussed the situation with a close friend who made inquiries as to [the neighbour’s] history,” he told the tribunal.
“At the time I was very worried about my own physical safety and safety of my family and this was a lapse of judgment.”
‘Lawyers should uphold the law’
In its ruling, which was released today, the tribunal did not mince its words about the seriousness of Wintour’s conduct.
“Misusing his advantage as a lawyer, he unlawfully obtained his neighbour’s criminal record and tried to have his neighbour evicted.”
“He fabricated false versions of how he came by the information, attempting to mislead the Standards Committee and the Tribunal. As part of that strategy, he swore false affidavits.”
The tribunal said Wintour, as a criminal defence lawyer, ought to have understood how sensitive the information he accessed, and then disclosed, was.
The neighbour’s conviction history was more than 25 years old and none of it was for violence or drug use, or anything that would justify Wintour’s claim he was trying to protect his family.
“We find that the misconduct constituted an inexcusable abuse of his position as a lawyer. Lawyers should uphold the law,” the tribunal said.
“This was a calculated, brazen act showing disregard for an important structure designed to protect privacy interests.”
Despite its sharp words about Wintour’s conduct, the tribunal stopped short of striking him from the roll of barristers and solicitors, in part because it was unlikely he would repeat the behaviour.
“Where his own interests are concerned, he has been discovered to be devious. But we do not find he has sunk to a level where we can say he should not be trusted to practise as a lawyer.”
Wintour wrote a letter to the tribunal in late April to apologise for his conduct.
“I knew immediately at the time that what I did was not acceptable in my capacity as a lawyer and a professional. I can only attempt to explain my conduct as an aberration and serious error which was well outside my usual character and behaviour and the way I conduct myself,” he said.
Wintour said he was deeply disappointed in himself for misleading the Law Society.
“All aspects of my conduct in this case have not only let down myself. They have also let down the legal profession as a whole.”
Wintour was suspended for a total of nine months beginning in July and ordered to pay legal costs of $76,000 and a fine of $5000.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
