Discrimination claim against judge rejected

An Auckland lawyer has accused a High Court judge who reported him to the Law Society of racial discrimination.

Evgeny Orlov's claims against the unnamed judge are contained in a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal throwing out his case.

The tribunal said it had no authority to hear a complaint involving a judgement or court proceeding.

Other parts of Mr Orlov's complaint were struck out as they "did not disclose anything like a tenable claim of unlawful discrimination".

The tribunal said that Mr Orlov claimed he had been the "victim of unlawful discrimination of various kinds, including discrimination on the grounds of his ethical beliefs, ethnic or national origins and/or his political opinions.

"All of his allegations relate to the conduct of a Judge of the High Court of New Zealand."

The tribunal's decision mentioned that the unnamed judge had ordered Mr Orlov personally to pay costs in a particular case.

Mr Orlov outlined his complaints in an affidavit to the tribunal along with minutes and decisions by the judge.

He said there were six different cases when the judge unlawfully discriminated against him.

In one case involving a habeas corpus matter, he alleged that the judge refused to hear his "repeated pleas and arguments and told the plaintiff (Mr Orlov) to 'sit down and shut up' whilst providing the most extensive courtesies to other counsel, hence treating the plaintiff in a discriminatory and disproportionate manner."

The tribunal noted that in the next paragraph, Mr Orlov asserted that the judge perceived his client to be Russian and Mr Orlov to be a Russian lawyer.

There were "many more allegations of that kind," the tribunal observed.

Overall, Mr Orlov concluded that the judge had "continuously on every occasion the plaintiff has appeared before him (or on the record) discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of the plaintiff's ethnic identity, imputed cultural identity, ethical beliefs and/or imputed political opinions" contrary to the Bill of Rights and Human Rights acts.

The tribunal said there were two claims that "might conceivably" relate to things outside of court proceedings.

In the first, Mr Orlov said that the judge had sent a letter to the Law Society asking it to investigate Mr Orlov's conduct in a particular case "in essence ordering or requesting them to ensure that the plaintiff would not be paid by the client".

In another case he claimed that the judge had spoken to another judge about him and had "maliciously denigrated the plaintiff in front of his judicial colleagues thus creating an atmosphere whereby it is difficult for the plaintiff to appear (in the High Court)".

The tribunal said it was not suggesting that either situation would establish a "good claim" under the Human Rights Act.

"Far from it; there would undoubtedly be significant issues about whether the conduct could be described as discrimination... "

It dismissed the bulk of Mr Orlov's claims as being outside its jurisdiction and struck out the other two topics as being "too vague".

- NZPA