Judicial Fisticuffs.

Justice Wilson, a High Court Judge, has sought a review of a decision by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to forward a proceeding against Justice Wilson to the Judicial Complaints Panel. This follows what seems an extraordinary effort by the retired Judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas to involve himself in what Justice Wilson disclosed, or ought to have disclosed to Counsel, at a hearing he was presiding over along with two other Judges. This related to business dealings between Justice Wilson and one of the Counsel, Justice Wilson made an informal disclosure about this. I understand this informal disclosure became an issue on appeal on the matter that was being decided.

Step in Sir Ted. Having had a confidential conversation with a QC friend of the Counsel at the hearing, had the information brought to his attention in a situation where the QC had been seeking advice, presumably legal advice. Sir Ted eventually decided to break that confidence, and complained to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner about his take on the informally disclosed relationship between Justice Wilson and the Counsel.

At about the time of the complaint, Sir Ted either sought an interview or was interviewed by the NZ Herald. In that interview, which was published, and which I recall reading at the time, Sir Ed painted an unflattering picture of Justice Wilson and drew conclusions as to his interpretations of the disclosed relationship. Justice Wilson from memory made no comment, as one might expect when a one-sided public attack had been made against him. Sir Ted, I remember from the article, implied that Justice Wilson was 'beholding' in a precarious financial way to the Counsel, sheeting home what could be read as an almost desperate financial situation which, in Sir Ted's view, was a matter of grave concern to him as a former Judge.

Probably like any reader I was interested, in the albeit one sided, take on Justice Wilson's behaviour. Also that he seemed to being isolated from what I would expect to be normal protocols afforded a current Judge (or anyone really) in having allegations publicly levelled against them, particularly from a former Judge who one would assume understood the tenet of natural justice. From reading of the situation I was left with the impression that the whole affair was done and dusted, an absolute, so I interested to later read of the decision of Justice Wilson to have the decision of his 'case' to be forwarded to the Judicial Complaints Panel to be reviewed by The Judiciary.

The review has been taking place over the last few days, one of the issues is that Justice Wilson has been denied natural justice and it would be hard to argue that he hasn't. He has been subject to media scrutiny without the right of reply and before any actual proceeding had taken place let alone before any finding had been made. Also he has clearly been 'peer' judged by Sir Ted in a situation where it seems clear that Sir Ted did not have all the relevant information and where Sir Ted's view of Justice Wilson's 'conduct' can't have been fully informed. It probably goes further than that, as there could be the subtle implication that the other two Judges with whom Justice Wilson was hearing the matter were also some how 'effected' by Justice Wilson's relationship with the Counsel who by implication is proposed to be regarded as having some 'influence' over the Judiciary who were 'beholding' to him. Taken to it's extreme, Judicial corruption was apparently rife. On the face of it, and because of the public perception in reading the various material up to this point, Sir Ted might have approached the sanctity of upholding the good name of The Judiciary in the wrong way and contributed to the opposite situation.

Small comfort to Justice Wilson, denied natural justice, a right of reply, the opportunity to have the details suppressed before the proceedings have been completed.