Brian Rudman: Time for John Campbell to admit he was wrong

COMMENT

What had TV3 news presenter John Campbell been imbibing before he rang the judiciary to insinuate bias? Genetically modified corn liquor?

Early in life I learned the perils of bad-mouthing authority figures. To their faces at least.

It was in standard four and we were lined up with our just-completed arts works so the teacher, Mrs Sunde, could pass judgment.

Stopping before my masterpiece, she grasped for something to say and finally declared it a little mixed up.

"So are you," said I.

There was a gasp all round and I found myself taking the lonely dawdle to the headmaster's office for my first encounter with the strap.

No doubt Campbell's been busy shoving books down his trousers this past week, because he went a lot further than I did. He seemed to have a go at his Mrs Sunde before she'd even delivered her verdict.

In his case, by phoning the judiciary, it seems he tried to interfere with the course of the High Court appeal TV3 had lodged against the Broadcasting Standards Authority's ruling that Campbell's handling of his pre-election Corngate expose was biased, unbalanced and unfair.

Just what he thought he was doing with his phone call is hard to imagine. Did he really believe the judge would suddenly see the world through Campbell's eyes when his "bias" was pointed out to him? Or cry "fair cop" and repair to a hermit's cave in the hills for the rest of his life?

The judge's "crime"? Nearly 20 years ago, he'd been a law partner of a former Hamilton East Labour MP, the late Bill Dillon, and had helped in a campaign as electorate chairman.

Campbell, incidentally, is the guy who in a puff interview just a few weeks before, proudly declared he'd voted Alliance at the last election.

It's odd that the face of 3 News feels he can avow support for a political party without it interfering with his news judgment, but doesn't allow the same leeway be given to a judicial officer trained to act judiciously.

For the record, it seems Justice Ron Young revealed his historic link to Mr Dillon to counsel before the appeal commenced and all parties were happy to have him preside.

I'm not sure what the Campbell alternative is. A remote island where a special breed of judges are trained from childhood?

In a lively, participatory democracy, surely the more people who take part in the political process, the better. Future judges included.

I always smile when I read the learned pronouncements of a certain senior judicial figure and recall the day, many years ago, when we dragged this young law student along to an anti-war demonstration.

I don't recall whether the camera was his, or just a prop on loan. It had no film in it. We couldn't afford it.

But it did have a flash bulb, and his job was to accompany us to National Party meetings and try to distract the candidates with blinding flashes of light.

Good old Daphne Double in Onehunga proved the best victim. She couldn't resist whipping off her glasses after each flash, losing her place in her speech, all in a vain bid to be photographed without them on.

Another respected judge of this city was a long-time senior National Party officeholder. I always found him fair-minded then, and can't imagine him having changed since ascending to the bench.

You only have to drive down Gillies Ave, Epsom, to be reminded that the crossover is hardly a new phenomenon. Thomas Gillies was Auckland's sole Supreme Court judge between 1875 and 1889 after a lengthy and controversial career in politics. He was the first NZ judge to have qualified for admission to the bar by NZ examination.

His career in politics included time as a member of the Otago Provincial Council, superintendent of Auckland province and later MP for Auckland West.

At times he held various ministerial appointments.

Lawyer Hugh Rennie, in his entry on Gillies in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, notes: "He was considered a sound judge, and his judgments, notable for their brevity, precision in reasoning and clear analysis, were rarely overturned on appeal."

Surely the more life experience judges have had, the better. And that includes politics. As experiences go, public service through politics is hardly the worst baggage a judge could be carrying.

Hard as it might be, it's time for Campbell to admit he was wrong.