District Court Judge Lawrence Hinton, panel Chair Chief High Court Judge Justice Susan Thomas, and former diplomat Jacqueline Caine presided over today's hearing. Photo / Melissa Nightingale
District Court Judge Lawrence Hinton, panel Chair Chief High Court Judge Justice Susan Thomas, and former diplomat Jacqueline Caine presided over today's hearing. Photo / Melissa Nightingale
The jurisdiction of a panel created to inquire into the alleged "serious personal conduct" of a former judge was questioned today in court.
The unnamed judge and details of their alleged conduct and complaint against them are shrouded in secrecy due to significant suppression orders granted by the panel.
Lawyersrepresenting both sides of the complaint argued for and against it continuing in front of the three-person judicial panel, chaired by Chief High Court Judge Justice Susan Thomas, and including District Court Judge Lawrence Hinton, and former diplomat Jacqueline Caine.
Justice Thomas told the court that the alleged conduct in question related to conduct in a personal capacity, rather than a professional one.
Chief High Court Judge Justice Susan Thomas chairs the panel. Photo / Melissa Nightingale
Despite being successful in their bid for suppression, the former judge had failed in having the matter dealt with in private which resulted in today's public hearing in the Wellington District Court.
The former judge protests the jurisdiction of the panel to proceed with the inquiry on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, mootness and that there is no public use in the panel undertaking the inquiry.
This is just the second time in New Zealand history that a judicial conduct panel has been appointed.
The first was in 2010 which resulted in the resignation of Justice Bill Wilson of the High Court.
The panel was appointed in August last year by Attorney General David Parker to inquire into and report on the conduct of the judge under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 (the Act).
Special counsel advocated that in the interest of transparency, the conduct of inquiry should be heard in open court.
The team representing the former judge argued that the jurisdiction of the panel was clear; the fact their client no longer sat in office as a member of the judiciary deemed the process moot.
Paul Wicks QC argued that if the judge was no longer a judge, there was no need to remove them.
Queens Counsel Paul Wicks appeared for the former Judge. Photo / Melissa Nightingale
However special counsel Dale La Hood argued for the continuation of the process, and said the fact the complaint had reached the stage it has, gave base to the argument that the alleged conduct of the former judge should be scrutinised.
The process, La Hood said, was to maintain standards and public protection as well as maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
La Hood also argued that the process should continue because judges who were no longer members of the judiciary remained in the sector, whether that be as a practicing lawyer, a mediator, or an expert.
In these areas people want integrity, La Hood said, and having a finding from this panel would be important because "the judge could simply carry on as if nothing had happened".
The decision was reserved by the panel which would issue a decision at a later date.
