KEY POINTS:
A district Court judge said he was clearing up grammar when he changed a transcript of his summing up to a jury - creating a "significant difference" - before sending it to the Court of Appeal.
Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson has spoken to Judge Semi Epati after the Court of Appeal raised concerns about a transcript from the Manukau District Court judge.
Judge Epati sent the court an amended version of the directions he gave to the jury in the trial of a man convicted of sexual violation.
It is understood the man's lawyer noticed the differences between the summing up in court and the transcript supplied for the appeal.
Judge Johnson said he was confident the changes were not intended but they "produced a significant difference in one direction". "It appeared that the amendments arose from a desire to remove chiefly grammatical discrepancies between his prepared notes and the oral record".
Judge Johnson described the incident as an "error of process" and said he had reaffirmed to all judges that the unamended transcript goes to the Court of Appeal.
"I have had discussions with Judge Epati about the proper processes for the delivery of transcripts and I am satisfied they are now well understood." Judge Epati had no comment yesterday.
Judge Johnson said he responded to questions of judicial conduct - not the judge involved. It had never been suggested that Judge Epati resign.
The New Zealand Bar Association raised concerns about Judge Epati's actions with the Chief District Court Judge, a move which was "relatively uncommon", said former president Stuart Grieve, QC.
Mr Grieve and current president Jim Farmer, QC, approached Judge Johnson after hearing allegations of the altered transcript.
"We were concerned to see that the allegation was investigated appropriately and so we advised the Chief District Court Judge of our concerns and arranged to see him."
Mr Grieve said Judge Johnson outlined his investigations and told the lawyers his view was that the judge's actions were innocent.
"Having discussed it with him in detail we accepted that judgment on the matter, and the decision was that nothing further would be done about it, and we accepted that."
Mr Grieve said mistakes in a written transcript were likely to be discovered because lawyers made hand-written notes in court.
"[The lawyer] lodges an appeal and then gets a written transcript of the summing up and compares that with the hand-written notes and realises it was different.
"It's not surprising that the mistakes made in preparing the written transcript were discovered."
Mr Grieve said Judge Johnson had been right to direct judges that no changes should be made to transcripts.
"Making changes carries with it the risk that important changes might be made, even inadvertently."
Auckland University criminal law specialist Scott Optican said a judge with questions or concerns about their transcript should raise them in open court, and not make changes behind closed doors.
