Man fails in bid against Supreme Court judges

A man who's repeatedly challenged the court over what he's perceived to be abuses of power has had his latest challenge blocked. NZH/Nick Reed

A man who has repeatedly challenged the court over what he's perceived to be abuses of power has had his latest challenge blocked.

The High Court atWellington ruled on Tuesday that Malcolm Edward Rabson's actions were an "abuse of process" and should be struck out.

Rabson, who has been in court over various disputes in the past few years, had requested a judicial review of a decision made by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner not to uphold his complaints against a number of Supreme Court judges.

He has also been in a long-standing dispute with his former partner over Lotto winnings to the value of $1.3m that the courts ruled she was entitled to - a decision both the High Court and Court of Appeal have upheld.

In this latest bid before the courts, unrelated to the fight over the Lotto prize, Rabson had filed five separate complaints.

These complaints, as detailed in the decision document, included allegations of judicial misconduct including conflicts of interest, dishonesty, ineptitude, perversion of the course of justice and profound corruption, in a court handling of a complaint he'd laid against a government-funded body.

However, in April this year, the commissioner dismissed these complaints as they were "outside his jurisdiction".

The commissioner also drew reference to an act relevant to the issue which "explicitly" stated it was not his role to question the legality or corrections made by a judge in relation to any legal proceeding.

After dismissing the complaints the commissioner made a number of observations, wherein which he stated Rabson could take his complaints to the police.

The commissioner also appeared critical of his attempts to take up the time of various people in governance, saying it was likely to be a further drain on precious resources - including that of the taxpayer.

Rabson has sought to challenge this decision, claiming the dismissal was an "error of law" on the part of the commissioner; that his comments about the drain on taxpayer's money was inappropriate; and that the commissioner had failed to consider the merits of his complaint.

However, the High Court deemed there was no "reasonable cause of action" following these complaints, and accepted that the commissioner's submission that Rabson's repeated complaints revealed a "pattern that is vexatious" and were an "abuse of process" that should be struck out.

"The decision is one that is not made lightly," the document read.

The court also ruled the commissioner was justified in seeking costs from Rabson, and should therefore file a memorandum detailing what these should be.