'Dangerous' judiciary law needs to be repealed, warns QC

Queen's Counsel Jim Farmer says the law under which a panel was appointed to investigate the conduct of a Supreme Court judge is "dangerous" and should be repealed.

"There will be no winners from this misconceived statutory process by which allegations against a judge are ventilated in public," Dr Farmer says in a letter to Auckland Law Society's LawNews.

"This dangerous statute should be repealed. It will, I predict, become a weapon of oppression by disgruntled litigants and publicity-seekers against the judiciary."

A Judicial Conduct Panel was appointed last month to inquire into Justice Bill Wilson's conduct regarding disclosures to his Supreme Court colleagues about his indirect indebtedness to Alan Galbraith, who appeared before him in the Court of Appeal case Saxmere v the Wool Board.

Justice Wilson indicated he would challenge the appointment by applying for a judicial review but the High Court yesterday had yet to receive it.

In the previous edition of LawNews, the society's president, Anna Fitzgibbon, said the inquiry should be allowed to continue in the interest of the public and the profession, notwithstanding the judge's legal challenge.

But Dr Farmer dismissed as "plain crazy" the idea that a public investigation of a judge's non-criminal conduct would enhance public confidence in the judicial system.

He said Justice Wilson had the same right as any other citizen to challenge the legality of the process.

Mr Farmer said the question was the damage done to the judiciary by reporting of the panel hearing.

"The answer to that question, in my view, is that, assuming a favourable outcome to Justice Wilson (as I do), the process is nevertheless bound to damage public confidence in the judiciary by virtue of sensationalism that will accompany the public hearing."

In his complaint, one of three that led to the panel inquiry, retired appellate judge Sir Edmund [Ted] Thomas said Dr Farmer "was extremely critical of Justice Wilson's failure to disclose the indebtedness ..."

The complaint named Dr Farmer as one of three QCs who, according to Sir Edmund, had thought the judge should resign.

Another LawNews letterwriter, Tony Jensen, a partner in a Taupo law firm, said a judicial review would be an embarrassment.

"The public perception will be that this is yet another person in the legal system using the system to attempt to avoid responsibility for their actions."

"The fact he did not recognise the relationship with counsel as a 'problem' is bad enough, but the fact that he is now trying to stop official scrutiny of that 'oversight' perhaps borders on arrogance."