The Judicial Complaints Commissioner did not have to be precise about Justice Bill Wilson's behaviour in referring it to a judicial conduct panel for further inquiry, the commissioner's lawyer, David Goddard, QC, submitted yesterday.
"It's an extremely low threshold," Mr Goddard told the High Court at Wellington.
Justice Wilson, a
Supreme Court judge, is challenging the commissioner's referral decision, saying it doesn't meet the legal requirement under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 to explain the reasons such action is necessary and justified.
Justice John Wild, one of three judges hearing the case, said that he was troubled by how low Mr Goddard's threshold was and even going to a panel was a "seriously damaging process" to a judge's career.
"Your submission comes perilously close to suggesting that if the commissioner thinks there is smoke, he sends it to the panel to see if there is fire," Justice Wild said.
Mr Goddard said the report of the commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, had not criticised Justice Wilson and that going into detail could have potentially prejudiced him.
What the commissioner had done was to identify issues that needed to be inquired into further.
Justice Wilson is the first judge to be referred to a panel under the statutory disciplinary procedures established in 2004.
The complaints about him centre on his disclosure about his business relationship with Alan Galbraith, QC, who was appearing before him and two other judges in the Court of Appeal in 2007 in a case involving the Saxmere company.
The pair jointly owned Rich Hill, which rented land to a thoroughbred stud owned by Mr Galbraith.
Saxmere's first attempt to get a rehearing was dismissed by the Supreme Court but it gained consent for a rehearing on a second attempt with new evidence.
What Justice Wilson did and didn't disclose to his court between the two cases has become the more salient issue, in particular the purchase by Rich Hill of a neighbouring property.
Mr Goddard urged three judges to be cautious about any decision to intervene in the process of public perceptions.
Justice Wild, who is sitting with Justices Graham Lang and Forrest Miller, said no one had a keener interest in judges acting properly than other judges, "but even judges are entitled to justice".
Mr Goddard said that if the three judges curtailed the process, it could be "destructive of the public confidence" that the law envisaged.
