Judge's challenge to panel succeeds

The case centres on whether Bill Wilson made adequate disclosures to litigants and to the courts about his business relationship with Alan Galbraith (pictured). Photo / Mark Mitchell

Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson has won a victory in his challenge to the formation of a judicial conduct panel to hear allegations of misconduct against him.

The High Court has ordered that the appointment of the panel be set aside - but it may not prevent the panel from being formed eventually and holding a public hearing into Justice Wilson's conduct.

The case centres on whether the judge made adequate disclosures to litigants and to the courts about his business relationship with Alan Galbraith, QC, who appeared before him in a 2007 Court of Appeal hearing.

At the time of the hearing, Justice Wilson allegedly owed $242,804 to Mr Galbraith, the Wool Board's lawyer, and this was not disclosed to the court. Justice Wilson denies the allegation.

The High Court yesterday directed the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to go back to the complaints against Justice Wilson, to look at all of the conduct complained of, form an opinion, and, if the recommendation is to again form a panel, to identify the matter or matters that in his opinion merit the formation of the panel, and give reasons for his recommendation.

Justices John Wild, Forrest Miller and Graham Lang issued the decision after sitting in the High Court at Wellington to hear Justice Wilson's application for a judicial review of the formation of the panel.

Justice Wilson, represented by Colin Carruthers, QC, did not get everything he wanted, namely the court to order that the process stop altogether.

But it accepted that the report of Sir David Gascoigne, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, erred in law.

It had not been sufficient that Sir David had recommended to Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins that a panel be established "to inquire into any matter or matters concerning the alleged conduct of Justice Wilson".

He had to identify the behaviour that was to be subject of the panel's inquiry.

The High Court also showed Sir David how he could have done it.

"He could have done that very simply by, for example, recommending to the Acting Attorney that a judicial conduct panel be appoint to inquire into the judge's failure to disclose to the Supreme Court the full extent of his business relationship with Mr Galbraith prior to the delivery of Saxmere No 1. The commissioner's failure to do that was an error of law."

Sir David is a lay person, not a lawyer, but during his inquiries into the complaint he had the assistance of a former Chief Justice of Australia, Murray Gleeson.

The decision said that while Sir David's decision was incomplete, "it is a careful, thoughtful and sensitive piece of work".

- additional reporting: NZPA