Truce after Government claim of bias dropped

By RUTH BERRY

The Maori Land Court and the Government appear to have reached a truce over the judge accused of bias after a foreshore hearing.

Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said yesterday the judicial review being taken by the Crown against Judge Caren Wickliffe would be dropped.

This followed the appointment of a new judge to hear the East Coast foreshore and seabed claims and an accompanying invitation from the court's chief judge to the Crown to file a new application seeking an adjournment.

Ms Wilson and Prime Minister Helen Clark publicly accused Judge Wickliffe of bias before the Crown proceeded to file an application to judicially review the case on that basis.

It is extremely rare for judges to be publicly accused of bias by the Crown.

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has previously appeared to suggest the Government was using the bias argument because it was desperate to have the substantive hearing stopped.

While highly unlikely, it was possible the court could have heard the claims and issued a freehold title to some groups before the foreshore legislation was passed.

Mrs Turia also suggested Ms Wilson was motivated by pique rather than principle, a claim Ms Wilson strongly denied.

The judicial review was "based on a legal principle", she said.

As a result of Judge Wickliffe's recusal from the substantive case, the court was always going to have to appoint a new judge.

Ms Wilson said yesterday that Judge Stephanie Milroy had been appointed last week.

Her spokeswoman said the invitation for the Crown to file a new adjournment application with Judge Milroy was behind the decision to drop the judicial review against Judge Wickliffe.

"It believes the legal principle behind the review is now being addressed, i.e. a judge with no legal bias is now hearing the claims."

The Crown "remains of the view that the filing of the [judicial review] proceedings was warranted".

A defensive Ms Wilson said yesterday: "I would like to reiterate that the review of Judge Wickliffe's March decision was taken by the Crown. It was not based on a personal decision of mine nor was it a personal attack on Caren Wickliffe."

No decision had yet been made about whether a new adjournment application would be filed, Ms Wilson said.

The primary argument behind that application was that the case couldn't proceed while the Ngati Apa Court of Appeal foreshore decision was being appealed to the Privy Council.

The appeal was filed last week by the Port of Marlborough, but it has indicated it is unlikely to follow through to the hearing, which it believes will cost $150,000 to $450,000.

It will probably decide at a meeting next Friday.

Opposition MPs expressed incredulity at Ms Wilson's claims there was nothing personal in the dispute.

Act MP Stephen Franks said: "That's absolute tripe. They said she had a conflict of interest. Now she is trying to say it is not a personal attack?"

National MP Judith Collins, a lawyer, agreed. She said it was strange that two weeks ago a serious issue of "principle" was at stake, but now things had changed.

The dispute


* Maori Land Court judge Caren Wickliffe approved an application in March to allow the 17 claims over the East Coast foreshore to be heard by the court, despite Crown opposition.

* Judge Wickliffe disqualified herself from hearing the substantive case because the Crown argued her Ngati Porou and Rongowhakaata ties could create a conflict of interest for her.

* But she rejected a Crown application for her to disqualify herself from making a decision on the application itself.