WELLINGTON - A judicial conduct panel will not investigate conflict of interest allegations against Justice Bill Wilson until the Supreme Court judge has had a chance to challenge the panel's legality.
At a preliminary conference in Wellington today, the panel set an October 1 date for its next hearing to
allow judicial review proceedings over the panel's legality, set down for September 1, to go ahead.
Justice Wilson, who was not present for today's hearing, started the proceedings last month on the grounds that his alleged misconduct was not serious enough to warrant his removal.
The judicial conduct panel was appointed by acting Attorney-General Judith Collins in May after judicial conduct commissioner Sir David Gascoigne recommended further inquiries into conflict of interest complaints against Justice Wilson.
Justice Wilson's lawyer, Colin Carruthers QC, told the panel today it would be undesirable for a substantive hearing to go ahead before the judicial review was heard - a stance agreed upon by lawyer Dale La Hood, acting for special counsel to the panel, Queensland Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff.
The panel - consisting of Court of Appeal Justice Anthony Randerson, chief High Court Justice Helen Winkelmann and chief ombudsman Beverley Wakem - set an October 1 date for the hearing to allow the judicial review to proceed first.
It is the first time a judicial conduct panel has been appointed. Panels can only be appointed when the conduct complained about may warrant consideration of a judge's removal.
Justice Wilson served as one of three Court of Appeal judges who, in 2007, overturned a High Court ruling that would have awarded a group of merino wool growers repayment of $8 million in levies from the former Wool Board.
At the time of the hearing, Justice Wilson allegedly owed $242,804 to the Wool Board's lawyer, Alan Galbraith QC, which was not disclosed to the court. That allegation is denied by Justice Wilson.
The Supreme Court last November ordered the decision set aside on the grounds Justice Wilson's and Mr Galbraith's relationship could raise a perception of bias.
The case was re-heard last week in the Court of Appeal, which reserved its decision.
- NZPA
