Sir Ed out in the cold.....

First this from today's news....



'Saxmere's case has been rejected by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In its decision released today the Supreme Court said any challenges to those decisions had no grounds to proceed.
"We are not persuaded that there is any good reason in the public interest for hearing the appeal," the Supreme Court justices said.
The case led to the resignation last year of Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson, after he failed, while sitting on the Court of Appeal which was considering the case, to step down or make full disclosure of his business and financial relationship with the Wool Board's lawyer Alan Galbraith.
In a statement this afternoon, the Wool Board called today's decision "the end of a long and tortuous road".
Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited (DisCo) chairman Bruce Munro said the board always believed it had acted lawfully.
Mr Munro said it had been very frustrating that the case had been extended through accusations of apparent bias of Justice Wilson.
"The judgment confirms there was no real bias. The facts of the case were against Saxmere from the outset," he said.'



For those that remember this, Sir Edmond Cooke 'broke' the story last year about Justice Bill Wilson being 'beholden' to counsel representing the Woolboard in the above case, Alan Galbraith. Some information had been passed to Sir Ed more for advice, so a conversation in passing, a confidence, that he broke by writing to The Judicial Conduct Commissioner and announcing it to the press before the matter had been considered. The Commissioner, no doubt aware of the publicity already created by Sir Ed's public preening and paw licking, sent the matter for an unprecedented panel investigation into what Bill Wilson should have revealed, Bill Wilson sought a Judicial Review of The Commissioner's decision and won in that it was 'sent' back to the Commissioner to be reconsidered.

Not long after Judith Collins commented on a severance package for Bill Wilson who had announced (after negotiations with the Crown) his resignation. Judith Collins revealed that Bill Wilson had asked for a higher amount casting him in a bad light and breaking what I would assume would be a normal protocol to not make details of the negotiations public. Around Xmas Sir Ed The Brave was in the running for NZer of the year or some similar recognition and in an interview rather grandly congratulated himself on the 'dispatching' of Bill Wilson forgetting to mention that the Commissioner decision was upended, effectively along with Sir Ed's complaint.

Sir Ed had at the outset applied his opinion of how Bill Wilson was beholding without knowing the facts, and heightened details of a financial arrangement/partnership that to his mind showed reason why Bill Wilson was beholding to Counsel, and got himself in a state of excitement about it, a frenzy even. Ultimately his interpretation (unfortunately and unwisely made public in Ed's excitement) was rejected and common sense prevailed.

And today Sir Ed is shoved further out into the cold by the Supreme Court who fortunately took the opportunity to say 'there was no real bias.' I assume Bill Wilson will get some satisfaction from that but in reality his career, his right to due process was diminished, negated by a white Knight riding his horse backwards and wondering where the horse's head was and why it was going the wrong way.

Hold on, is Sir Ted applauding himself?

Ted Thomas page 2 NZ Herald patting himself on the back for breaking a confidence and for levering a claim against the former Judge Bill Wilson for as 'Ted' puts 'a serious breach of judicial ethics.' The article goes on to say that there have been murmured claims that Sir Edmund 'was meddling. Those claims are wrong.' According to who, either Sir Ed himself or the reporter Phil Taylor is not clear which. Also 'Sir Edmund was right to intervene' according to Ed or Phil Taylor - I think we have to assume its old eddie finding himself not guilty of meddling, denying due process and natural justice to Bill Wilson because as we know Ed broke the story to the press, making it public at the same time as making his 'complaint.'

It goes on. 'The Judicial Conduct Commissioner - agreed, finding grounds for an unprecedented judicial panel investigation and so, essentially did a three-judge High Court panel.' But Ed you forgot to mention that there was a successful judicial review of the decision which you have 'conveniently' left out. That decision to you use your word 'essentially' told the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to reconsider his decision because it wasn't right, if that decision wasn't right then I can't see how you were right either Ed, despite all this patting of yourself on the back.

And lets also remember Ed you revealed the 'precarious' financial position you alleged Bill Wilson was labouring under, despite there having been then, or now, no evidence of the same. And this financial 'precipice' you leaked to support your claim. Bit naughty Ed, and now to leave all of that dirty stuff out doesn't do you much credit, doesn't balance the odds in your favour despite blowing your own trumpet. The private members bill requiring public disclosure of the financial interests of judges you take credit for as well, but from what I've read I don't recall that it was your idea at all. But perhaps there is one you might convince a member of Parliament to table - one requiring retired judges to keep their noses out of the business of current judiciary members expect through the proper channels and certainly not in daily newspapers where a de facto trial takes place against somebody unable to defend themselves except by proper process.