"SICK TO HER STOMACH"
30 August 2010
According to the evidence of retired Court of Appeal Justice Sir Edmund Thomas, Supreme Court Chief Justice Sian Elias (pictured) was
 "sick to her stomach" when she found out on 20 July 2009 that deceit by her fellow Supreme Court Justice and business partner might become public. She was far less concerned about the alleged judicial misconduct.
This is one of a number of startling revelations in the judicial review case filed by Supreme Justice Bill Wilson in the Auckland High Court - where Wilson is attempting to quash the Judicial Conduct Commissioner's investigation into his presiding in the 2007 appeal
Saxmere v Wool Board, where Wilson failed to disclose he was business partner with, and financially indebted to, Wool Board's counsel.
The government propaganda line remains that Dame Sian Elias was guilty only of poor judgment in believing Wilson's whoppers. But the evidence leaking from the Court proves she was deliberately perpetuating a perversion of justice - and that Wilson kept the Dame in line by threatening to expose her own multitude of conflicts if she failed to provide cover.
Thirteen months after CJ Elias first became aware of the judicial scandal, smarmy officials running PR for the judiciary still promote the view the Chief Justice was a victim, diverting the publics' mind off the fact she kept a lid on the brewing scandal despite former Bar Association President James Farmer QC, and prominent lawyers Alan Gabraith QC and Colin Carruthers QC long ago corroborating what Judge Thomas had told her about Wilson.
All these prominent lawyers having no ax to grind with Wilson clearly thought his indiscretions serious enough to warrant banishment from the bench. Yet New Zealanders are led to believe the highest judge's confidence in the truth of her friend and business partner's initial lie was so unshakable that she had no further discussion with Wilson regarding his judicial transgressions in the year after all these lawyers corroborated it.
The recklessness of the Chief Justice's judgment skills - honest and sound judgment being the most critical element in any honourable court system - must be publicly aired and Her Dameship made to minimally explain to the New Zealand people her persistence in tacitly condoning judicial misconduct which has unduly cost one of New Zealand's premier wool exporters millions of dollars.
Elias CJ's many supporters argue her integrity was distinguished when she disqualified herself from hearing Saxmere's application regarding Wilson's alleged judicial conflict based on her own business and personal relationship with Wilson. The plain truth is Elias CJ knew before recusing herself that Wilson was guilty of failure to disclose his conflict in the case on appeal. Saxmere would not have been required to go through their expensive appeal to the Supreme Court if the Dame had met her overriding legal obligation to protect the integrity of the Court by promptly informing Saxmere it was legally entitled to a rehearing.
In a side story,
kwisfirst understands that while the Attorney General announced late last year the government would reimburse Saxmere for its legal expenses in the appeals relating to Wilson's conduct, Solicitor General David Collins is refusing to approve more than 20% of Saxmere's legal expenses, apparently on the ground - he can. Collins previously attempted to quash legal challenge to Wilson's transgressions and personally appeared in the Supreme Court to make legal submissions in support of Wilson.
When
kiwisfirst exclusively reported earlier this year that Wilson was blackmailing New Zealand's chief judge, the legal fraternity and media universally ridiculed the reporting as fanciful. Now the evidence of retired Judge Thomas proves the reporting was merely a peek through the keyhole into a covert judiciary where the major players talk openly about ignoring the law to protect their mates.
As damning as the evidence is, there are significant gaps where the Judicial Conduct Commissioner David Gascoigne, Thomas and Farmer agreed to expunge sentences which reveal the Chief Justice's complicity in Wilson's judicial transgressions and her own conflicts on the bench. One email has Farmer telling Thomas immediately after one such redaction,
"I do regard Sian as a close friend and I will always put friendship and loyalty above concerns about the 'system'." For his part Commissioner Gascoigne, a practicing senior partner in large New Zealand law firm Minter Ellison, was mindful of the warning Farmer issued to the retired Thomas in another email which read
"If you are thinking of doing (a complaint with new Commissioner Gascoigne) yourself, then you will ultimately be an even bigger loser than Bill. I would hate to see you do this to yourself."
The practice of putting "friendship" before justice is deep-seated and extensive. Even the lone hero in the scandal Thomas - in addition to covering up for the Chief Justice - stated his
"first objective must be to ensure that (Wilson's partner Alan Galbraith) comes out of this squeaky clean." This was despite the retired judge being infinitely aware that Galbraith failed his legal obligation to divulge to Saxmere Wilson's financial indebtedness to him when Wilson would not.
More troubling is the disquieting evasion by the full Supreme Court bench on one of the few laws which reins in judges.
Saxmere's Supreme Court appeal was premised on Wilson J's violation of Section 4(2A) of the Judicature Act 1908 which states
"A Judge must not undertake any other paid employment or hold any other office (whether paid or not) unless the Chief High Court Judge is satisfied that the employment or other office is compatible with judicial office." The evidence that Judge Wilson had breached this law was blatant; his photo appeared with opposing Counsel Galbraith promoting their multi-million dollar company on its website. But partly because Chief Justice Elias and her husband have their fingers in more businesses than Richard Branson, the Supreme Court ruled with a combination of arrogance and subterfuge, stating
"We find it unnecessary to decide whether that subsection has any application to a Judge of the Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court who, although technically also a Judge of the High Court, does not in practice sit on the High Court Bench and in respect of whom the Head of Bench is not the Chief High Court Judge but, rather, the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Justice. It would be odd, to say the least, to require an appeal judge to obtain a consent of the kind envisaged by the subsection from the Head of a lower Bench."
Ominously for the robed and blindfolded lady holding a sword in one hand and the scales of justice in the other, no politician, lawyer or judge in New Zealand has put their hand up for the 4 million law-abiding citizens who now have evidence the Supreme Court of New Zealand judges refuse to hold their mates accountable to the law and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is guilty of misconduct in office. In New Zealand, it is clear this symbol of justice has removed the blindfold and is openly flaunting the winks and nods she discriminately dispenses.
DARK INSTINCTS
28 July 2010
New Zealand gets the judges it deserves when it is apparent no one is watching. Unlike virtually every other country in the free world, New Zealand minimally lacks an independent bar. Yet the situation is far worse than this, as evidenced by the case of Barrister Chris Comeskey (pictured), an outspoken critic of the poor judicial talent pool in NZ.
Two weeks ago criminal defence lawyer Comeskey was suspended for 9 months, as well as
 removed as a legal aid approved lawyer, for overcharging Legal Services $1,200 and misleading the Court of Appeal in an appeal he lost. He also must pay costs of over $66,000, in addition to the expense of his own lawyer.
The NZ Law Society took the prosecution at a cost of over $110,000 to its members.
The message is not lost on the grazing flock of New Zealand lawyers. Even the most honest lawyer can not be certain his law practice would pass such a strict litmus test - or survive such a professional onslaught. The disproportionate resources employed by the legal fraternity to attack Comeskey clearly defied logic. The consensus is the prosecution was not undertaken because of the fee overcharge or misleading submissions. Comeskey was targeted for his criticism of the judiciary. No one questioned the sincerity of his expressed opinions. It was the mere audacity of such candor which made Comeskey a target.
The case is perhaps a microcosm of how the Law Society in New Zealand has become the enforcement arm for insulating judges rather than keeping them honest. For example, the Judge who made the complaint about Comeskey misleading the Court of Appeal (John Wild J), called the Barrister a "wanker" in Court, then refused to release the tape which would prove the judicial transgression.
The price on society cannot be overstated. It is the free expression of information which ensures the survival of democracy, and ultimately justice. Judges are not above mistakes, misconduct and just criticism. A law society which oppresses the instilling discipline of such information is guilty of a disservice to society overall. This is particularly the case where the office grants virtually unlimited power and there is no bonafide oversight or accountability.
THE NEW ZEALAND JUDGE SURVEY RESULTS ARE OUT
17 June 2010
The first comprehensive survey on New Zealand judges is now public and the ground-breaking significance of this cannot be overstated.
New Zealand judges are not elected. They are effectively appointed without scrutiny, in secret, by two officials. Once appointed, they have the job for life and, for all practical purposes, are not held personally accountable for their actions. No judge has been removed from office in New Zealand history (although a few have resigned through the years under clouds of scandal).
Extremely little is publicly known about these judges who provide such a critical function to society. The risk of this public ignorance has been heightened recently by judicial conflict revelations.
New Zealand lawyers are indoctrinated not to express informed opinions of judges. A number of Crown lawyers responded to say they did not consider it appropriate to, or were prevented from, participating despite the survey being expressly anonymous. Lawyers were invited to post back the surveys in plain envelopes.
No less than the New Zealand Law Society President made a
public plea for lawyers not to participate.
These are the lawyers who have been educated to protect our democracy and freedoms. Can you imagine the Law Society and Crown campaigning to keep information on the official conduct of Members of Parliament from being made public?
A total of 730 lawyers and court-minders nationwide were sent this first ever survey of New Zealand judges and asked to evaluate only those judges they were familiar with. The response rate was disappointing, at less than 7%.
Only the 62 Judges in the High Court and above were included in the survey. The results were certainly enlightening, and often surprising.
Retiring Court of Appeal Judge David Baragwanath was the highest overall scorer at 9.1, with embattled Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson pulling a dismal 3.1 in last place.
Lawyers were asked to score each judge on a scale of 1 to 10 in four categories; knowledge of the law, intelligence, personal character and fairness - as well as provide relevant comments. A survey with all '10's was not considered serious and discarded.
Though women comprise 21% of the judges surveyed, they captured half of the top ten spots and 3 of the top 5 in the rankings. The average rating for female judges was 7.75, compared to 7.50 for the men.
Male judges still scored, on average, higher in knowledge of the law and intelligence, but the women blew the men away on perceived fairness and integrity. If Judith Potter J - a definite outlier in the survey - was removed, female judges on average were considered an astounding 28% fairer in their judicial approach than their male counterparts.
The results from the survey also raised the disturbing possibility that the overall judicial pool is short on talent and that, with the possible exception of Sian Elias, the New Zealand Supreme Court is not the bastion for this scarce legal talent. There appears palpable fear by some lawyers responding that the Supreme Court is not as reliable as the Privy Council was.
Judicial independence was also regularly raised as a concern. So many of the current judges are related or engaged in business ventures together. There is little diversity on the court, with judges coming from many of the same law firms and clubs, and minorities virtually unrepresented. Several lawyers admitted to suffering through cases where the judges had potential conflicts of interest, afraid to raise it for fear of offending the judge and prompting retaliation. Comments were common that many judges act with overt bias on Crown cases.
These results strongly suggest that New Zealand consider re-evaluating the mechanism by which judges are appointed, promoted and monitored.
A copy of the survey results has been sent to the Attorney General and New Zealand Law Society and is provided
RIGHT HERE.
IS THE FIX IN?
3 June 2010
Judges in the growing Woolgate scandal are lawyering up to insulate themselves from accountability. This follows the
 announcement this week by acting Attorney General Judith Collins that Judges Helen Winkelmann and Anthony Randerson have been appointed along with chief Ombudsman Beverly Wakem to a Judicial Conduct Panel to formally investigate judicial misconduct by current Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson in the Saxmere v Disco Disestablishment Ltd (Wool Board) appeal in 2007. READ SCOOP ON LEGAL MOVES AND PANEL MEMBERS
PLAYERS in the WOOLGATE SUPREME COURT SCANDAL
28 May 2010
In what has become increasingly known as "Woolgate", it is now evident that Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson was financially indebted to counsel for the old Wool Board when he ruled in the Wool Board's favour against superfine woolgrower Saxmere when on the Court of Appeal in 2007 and failed to disclose this to opposing counsel - let alone disqualify himself. When discovered, the Judge then lied about his indebtedness and downplayed his extensive business relationship with counsel (Alan Galbraith QC).
After taking more than 2 years to conduct a preliminary investigation, the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner made a recommendation to the Attorney General earlier this month to conduct a panel investigation into the alleged judicial misconduct.
As the scandal publicly unfolds at a snail's pace, few New Zealanders are aware of the wide range of characters involved in the scandal and attempted cover-up. For the first time, kiwisfirst provides a detailed look into the roles 14 people have played in this sad episode in New Zealand's history - an episode made sadder by the broader lack of judicial accountability it has exposed. LINK TO PLAYER PROFILES
BENT JUDGE WITH "FEET OF CLAY" LOSING FIGHT
12 April 2010
It is revealed that Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson's deception was an open secret in the halls of power since July 2009. This from a complaint lodged with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner by Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas last December.
Sir Ted is a 76 year-old retired Court of Appeal Judge and Distinguished Fellow of the
 Auckland University Law School who occasionally filled in on the Supreme Court since retirement. His 16 page complaint blows the lid on a massive cover-up by Wilson's fellow judges, the Attorney General and the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It reveals the dismay among Wilson's friends who had sought to convince their friend with "feet of clay" to resign.
The financially strapped Wilson is refusing to resign until the government minimally agrees to give him a lucrative golden handshake.
The drama began when Judge Wilson was on the Court of Appeal panel in 2007 which overturned a ruling, in favour of the Wool Board in
Saxmere v Wool Board. It was discovered later the judge was financially indebted to the Wool Board's counsel to the tune of $242,000 and was also in the middle of purchasing a $2.1 million property with him. The judge's financial indebtedness was further complicated by counsel's unsuccessful attempts to get the judge to pay down the debt immediately prior to Wilson hearing his appeal.
The scathing complaint proves the Supreme Court judges were fully aware that Saxmere was legally entitled to a rehearing at least two months before they required Saxmere's counsel to suffer a recall application hearing on 24 November 2009.
On 3 July 2009 the Supreme Court ruled Wilson J had acted appropriately and there was no possibility of even unconscious bias, even though page 89 of the Supreme Court transcript showed the Court was aware Wilson and counsel Alan Galbraith QC were mutually obligated on a mortgage. Wilson was to tell Galbraith later that Judge Peter Blanchard effectively covered for him by taking a narrow interpretation that the indebtedness was not "on demand".
Three weeks later, on 27 July 2009, Chief Justice Sian Elias was made aware of the extent of Wilson's financial indebtedness to Galbraith and his failure to minimally disclose this indebtedness to Saxmere. The Chief Justice was bound by legal ethics to notify Saxmere over the unsafe judgment as a result of this new information. Instead, she disqualified herself from hearing Saxmere's (successful) recall application three months later.
By the first of August 2009 Attorney General Chris Finlayson and Solicitor General David Collins were also provided the detail of Judge Wilson's ethical transgressions. Both had earlier filed a brief as intervener in the public interest to the Supreme Court defending Wilson's appalling conduct. Despite the corroborated evidence, both men continued to use their position as the top two law officers in New Zealand to protect Judge Wilson.
Mr Finlayson was Wilson's junior associate at law firm Bell Gully. Evidence now before the Court is that the Attorney General told a fellow MP he would not take any action against his friend Wilson.
After first conceding that mistakes were made and offering to reimburse Saxmere's legal expenses, S-G Collins has recently agreed to pay only 20% of the tab. Early in the melee Collins orchestrated Saxmere Solicitor Sue Grey's firing from her job at Department of Conservation because she refused to go silent regarding Wilson's misconduct in an appeal.
But the biggest offender in the cover-up is likely to be the Judicial Conduct Commissioner David Gascoigne. Two and a half years ago, then-Canterbury Legal Ethics Professor Duncan Webb filed a formal complaint with the JCC detailing Wilson's misconduct in the case. Unbeknownst to the New Zealand public, Sir Thomas filed his much more comprehensive complaint on 21 December 2009. As public concern over the case grew, Sir Gascoigne made a big public charade of bringing retired Chief Justice Murray Gleeson over in January as an "independent" assessor of the complaint and assured the media he would come to a decision shortly. It didn't happen. Judge Gleeson proved too honourable to pull his punches (
see related story in left column). He was sent packing back to Australia and his report became confidential. In a lame attempt to bury the evidence, Gascoigne then called upon government sleuth Paul Neazor.
If it was not for the media catching wind of Sir Ted's complaint to JCC Gascoigne, he might have gotten away with it.
Kiwisfirst is the only news organisation in New Zealand providing the public with the full complaint - to judge the judge's conduct for themselves.
Of the 550+ formal complaints against judges lodged with the JCC since the oversight body was created in 2004, not one has been referred to the Attorney General for a formal investigation.
UNITED NATIONS FINDS NZ LACKS COMMITMENT TO BILL OF RIGHTS
4 April 2010
 The UN Human Rights Commission issued a report after New Zealand's fifth periodic review last week in New York City. The report praised progress since the last review, while cajoling New Zealand to give effect to all Covenant rights and to provide victims access to the domestic legal system. FULL STORY
PARLIAMENT BOWS TO PRESSURE FROM JUDGES
29 March 2010
The inauspiciously-named
"Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaint) Act 2010" was quietly passed by Parliament last week. The purpose and effect is to make it easier for the JCC to dismiss complaints against NZ judges, as well as establish a new position of "deputy commissioner" to assist with the ever-increasing backlog of judicial misconduct complaints. FULL STORY
LAWYER OF CONVENIENCE
15 March 2010
Exiting Legal Complaints Review Officer Duncan Webb has not missed a beat donning his
 legal robes after forfeiting his law licence to take up the role of LCRO two years ago. Despite not yet being reinstated, Mr Webb has been practicing law as a partner of Christchurch law firm Lane Neave. His legal briefs include his former department, as well as the Law Society over which he was the oversight body until this month. STORY CONTINUES
THE
LAW OF
RULE
10 March 2010
If 'Rule of Law' is defined as the absence of arbitrary power, then The Rules Committee of New Zealand represents the converse of the rule of law.
 The Rules Committee is the gate-keeper for judicial process in New Zealand. Members are appointed by, and accountable only to, the Chief Justice. They determine everything from criteria for filing and striking out court claims, to which laws passed by Parliament will be adopted by the judiciary and which laws will not. The Committee also lobbies for law changes which favour "the fearless performance of judicial function" and unaccountability. Despite few New Zealanders being aware of its existence, the Rules Committee yields unparalleled arbitrary power over the conduct of New Zealand society. STORY CONTINUES
ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKS TO APPEAR BEFORE SUPREME COURT
25 February 2010
The New Zealand Attorney General has applied for leave to the Supreme Court to overturn a Court of Appeal Judgment which ordered the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to reconsider a refugee application by a Sri Lankan couple. In a follow-up memorandum,
Attorney General Chris Finlayson advised he personally wishes to appear as counsel if a hearing is granted.
Finlayson refused to comment why this extraordinary move to personally appear before the Court was deemed necessary. FULL STORY
SPINNING THE WEBB
** Breaking News... LCRO DUNCAN WEBB Resigns! **
18 February 2010
The
Lawyers and Conyancers Act 2006 replaced the Lay Observer in favour of a new Crown position of "Legal Complaints Review Officer". Parliament decreed the position was not to be held by a lawyer. This was to ensure the public an unbiased review of their complaints against lawyers to the
New Zealand Law Society. Still, the NZLS saw one of its own committee members (
Duncan Webb, pictured) appointed, shrewdly having him relinquish his practicing certificate in order to technically comply with the statutory requirement for the $170,000 - 236,000 a year position.
Two separate judicial reviews (one yet to be filed) by lawyers against Mr Webb now reveal evidence his political appointment has had predictable and scandalous results. It has, this week, resulted in Mr Webb resigning from the post! Story Continues
LOCAL COUNCIL CORRUPTION AND SECRECY RAMPANT
2 February 2010
From Auckland to Southland incredible stories of malfeasance and backroom deals by Council officials have reached an alarming scale. Public money gone missing, council officials awarding contracts to their mates and privately selling off public assets, bureaucrats refusing to provide elected representatives records on the most rudimentary expenditures and a shroud of impervious secrecy over council business, all increasingly typify the status quo. FULL STORY
SUPREME COURT OPENING ECLIPSES STEAMING SCANDAL
19 January 2010
As the opening ceremonies of the $80 million Supreme Court building concluded yesterday, its very foundation was being rocked at the law offices of Minter Ellison around the corner. Former Chief Justice of Australia Murray Gleeson and Judicial Conduct Commissioner David Gascoigne met with superfine woolgrower Saxmere principal Peter Radford and his formidable counsel Sue Grey as the first step in deciding whether Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson will become the first Judge in New Zealand History to face removal from office for misconduct. FULL STORY
NEW JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER OVERWHELMED
16 January 2010
After less than six months on the job,
Judicial Conduct Commissioner David Gascoigne (pictured) must be having some regrets about taking the position. He has reported the number of complaints is up 39% over the previous year, while some complaints have been in the
 system for two years. One of these complaints concerns Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson, a case which has resulted in Sir David calling in former Australian Chief Justice Murray Gleeson for a meeting with the parties at his Wellington law office (Minter Ellison) immediately after the opening ceremonies for the new Supreme Court building this Monday (18 January). The meeting is an extraordinary deviation from the statutory provision of recommending the Attorney General appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel to conduct an inquiry into the Judge's alleged misconduct. It seems designed to either avoid the Panel inquiry altogether or to tread cautiously into a virgin process (this would be the first of the almost 500 complaints received since enactment considered worthy of a Panel inquiry).
In this case, this is wise. The Commissioner would know that
Attorney General Chris Finlayson and Judge Wilson are close mates and close former law partners at Bell Gully. The Attorney General has been a staunch defender of Judge Wilson in the scandal, providing a brief to the Supreme Court as intervener on Judge Wilson's behalf and stating to at least one fellow MP that he would not abandon his friend. If the Commissioner can overcome this, there is the issue to consider that the
Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act calls for the Attorney General to consult with the Chief Justice Sian Elias as to who to appoint to any inquiry panel. The Chief Justice is a close friend and business partner of Wilson J as well.
While the Wilson drama plays out and puts a drain on the Commissioner's time, the complaints coming into his office are piling up. Section 14 of the Act requires the Commissioner to deal promptly with complaints "as soon as practicable after receiving it." With the mess left to him by his predecessor, and the numbers of complaints against judges escalating, two years may be the best Mr Gascoigne can muster.
STIASSNY'S JUDGES
29 December 2009
Gag injunctions which insulate powerful people from their own misdeeds are making a mockery of Court justice in New Zealand. Michael Stiasny's undue influence over judges up to the Chief Justice expose the real dangers. See the alarming evidence several judges saw and inexplicably suppressed. STORY AND EVIDENCE
JUDGE "GOOGLE SEARCHES" FOR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GUILTY FINDING
21 December 2009
In one of the more blatant admissions of judicial misconduct,
Auckland
 District Court Judge Roderick Joyce (right) found a woman guilty of defamation worth $110,000 after admittedly engaging in an independent fact-finding mission during deliberation. High Court Judge Rodney Hansen this month upheld Joyce's decision, claiming Joyce's trolling on the internet for evidence after the hearing was not improper. Human Rights barrister Evgeny Orlov wasted no time filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal. LINK TO STORY
TRANSPARENCY NZ HAS ANTI-CORRUPTION ADVOCATE ARRESTED
11 December 2009
In a stinging irony, Chairman
Gerald McGhie of
Transparency International's
 "autonomous" New Zealand chapter ordered Police to arrest public watchdog
Penny Bright (left) for trespassing at its Annual General Meeting on Wednesday. This was despite the government-funded not-for-profit lauding her in its newsletters as an "anti-corruption campaigner". Inauspiciously, attendees were also given pamphlets with the bold heading "CORRUPTION RUINS LIVES - FIGHT BACK". FULL STORY LINK
RULE OF LAW CONFERENCE EXPOSES FAILURES IN NZ COURTS
9 November 2009
Australian High Court Judge Dyson Heydon spoke recently to a group of about 180 New Zealand academics, lawyers and Judges about maintaining the rule of law and the greatest threats to it. The day long conference, which included speeches by Attorney General Chris Finlayson and Solicitor General David Collins, was sponsored by the
NZ Legal Research Foundation and held at the Auckland Hyatt.
The 66 year old Judge Heydon was born in Canada and spent his youth in New Zealand, before becoming a distinguished Judge in Australia late in life after a successful academic career. What he had to say created palpable concern among many who attended, although it was far from the intent of Judge Heydon to make his New Zealand audience uncomfortable. Notable in attendance were Supreme Court Chief Justice Sian Elias and her fellow Supreme Court Judge Peter Blanchard (who acted as conference Chairman).
Judge Heydon opened by stating "order" was not the same as "law and order". He went on to caution
"totalitarian regimes are characterised by retrospective laws, extensive executive discretion, secrecy, obscurity, rumours of laws rather than actual laws, and instability. Above all, citizens subject to totalitarian rule find it impossible or very difficult to get before competent, determined and independent judges." STORY CONTINUES
HIGH COURT SUPPRESSES PUBLIC COURT RULING
[**censored by the new zealand government**] IN 2007 'TERRORIST' RAIDS
24 September 2009
*Solicitor General threatens prosecution for publishing this public Court ruling* Judge demands that the Court ruling be kept from the public
17 September 2009 Link to FULL STORY
JUDGE LANCE'S OFFENDING WAS HIDDEN BY PROMINENT NEW ZEALAND JUDGES FOR YEARS
8 September 2009
Judge Michael Lance was criminally charged with willful damage last month in the North
 Shore District Court. But
kiwisfirst has uncovered a pattern of previous offending by the Judge over many years. Learn how current
Independent Police Complaints AuthorityJustice Lowell Goddard
(pictured with Lance) and current
NZ Supeme CourtJustice John McGrath concealed appalling evidence of extortion and likely criminal conduct by Judge Lance fiteen years ago. FULL STORY
PONYGATE!
The Meteoric Rise and Fall of Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson
5 August 2009
 Kiwisfirst confirmed this week that Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson violated longstanding law when he continued to run his private horse breeding company after his appointment to the Court of Appeal. Moreover, he used his judicial title to promote his company. Section 4(2A) of the
Judicature Act prevents a judge from undertaking any employment or hold any other office, whether paid or not, unless the Chief High Court Judge is satisfied that the employment or other office is compatible with judicial office. READ STORY
IAN HAYNES RESIGNS AS JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
21 July 2009
The
New Zealand Judicial Conduct Commissioner Ian Haynes abruptly resigned last week after 4 years at
 the post. Mr Haynes was appointed the country's first Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a three year term in 2005, but stayed on after his term expired. His resignation comes as a shock to New Zealand's legal community. Parliament is working to find a replacement. Attorney General Chris Finlayson has put the name of
David Rendal Kingston Gascoigne of Wellington before the House for a 5-year term. The vote is tomorrow.
Mr Gascoigne (right) is a NZ lawyer, as well as a director and consultant to a host of New Zealand's largest businesses. If
 approved, the recommendation will require the perfunctory approval of the Governor General. The job reportedly pays $90,000 annually.
Although the
Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act 2004 requires the Commissioner continue until his successor is appointed, Mr Haynes left the country on 10 July 2009 and resigned two days later. His office stated today he is no longer available to deal with complaints against New Zealand Judges for alleged misconduct. The discrepancy between Haynes' resignation and the requirement of the position could not be reconciled by his secretary other than to say Mr Haynes had expressed his intent to resign some time ago. Story Continues
SUPERCITY HEIGHTENS CONCERNS OF CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL ABUSES
1
7 July 2009 Local community oganisations raise concerns over responsiveness and expense of Super City amalgamation. $50,000 footpath is but one example. READ STORY
Oops, HE DID IT AGAIN
28 June 2009 (updated)
 Now that the David Bain murder retrial has ended in the fashion those most informed with the case suspected, recriminations for the public waste of $4 million and valuable court resources have begun. As with the 'Tuhoe terrorist' prosecution debacle in October 2007 and the Gwaze murder trial in May 2008,
New Zealand Solicitor General David Collins is at the centre of the storm.
Defence lawyers did not pull any punches after the Bain 'not guilty' verdict earlier this month. They alleged official pressure trumped logic in the decision to go ahead with the expensive retrial.
The Privy Council quashed the previous conviction in May 2007. Then confident S-G David Collins wasted no time in ordering the retrial a month later (of the 14 year old murders of Bain's immediate family). That haste was to reflect a much broader professional and personal recklessness which has dogged his short tenure as New Zealand's Solicitor General.
After George Gwaze was acquitted last year of murdering his niece - in another prosecution by Collins' office - Collins criticized the Judge's handling of the trial. The criticism so incensed two jurors that they came out to say the Crown could not even establish the cause of death at the trial.
Both these cases followed the massive Tuhoe terrorist raids and the resultant arrests without bail. In that case, Collins was forced to reverse his decision to pursue terrorism charges after large public protests exposed his misguided prosecution. Putting some spin on his U-turn at the time, Mr Collins stated the charges were dropped because the
Terrorist Suppression Act was poorly written. This begged the question why he had not properly read the relevant legislation before approving the rounding up of 17 New Zealand citizens a month earlier. Despite the resultant embarrassment to New Zealand, Collins' poor judgment was largely hidden.
Mr Collins himself has been the subject of two police criminal investigations in the past year. A perjury charge - relating to a false affidavit he submitted to the New Zealand Court of Appeal on 11 May 2007 - could have landed him as much as two years in prison, but the Police investigation dismissed the evidence last February on the basis they could not determine the "reasons" Collins submitted the substantively untrue affidavit to the Court.
In March, after extensive meetings with government lawyers, TVNZ
Sunday Programme decided against running a segment concerning three cases of alleged misconduct by David Collins as New Zealand Solicitor General. #
| 
Tuesday's Supreme Court appeal
Siemer v Solicitor General in the new $100 million building showcased brilliant performances by lawyers on both sides. It also offered up some stupendous 'judgespeak'. 
Two years ago, the Chief Justice of the Northern Marianas Islands (pop.85,400) embarked on a study of judicial ethics in the pacific region. Fourteen nations were surveyed by
His Most Right Honourable Chief Justice Miguel Demapan (pictured). New Zealand was the only country which requested confidentiality before it would supply its judicial code of conduct. Supreme Court Judge "Sir" Peter Blanchard apparently fronted for the Right Honourable Sian Elias in demanding strict confidentiality from our tinier regional neighbour. The abject secrecy attached to the few rules governing our judges begs the obvious question. 
Even for the dicey New Zealand legal community, the current chicanery surrounding the recall of Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson's decision in
Saxmere v the Wool Board for failure to disclose a conflict of interest is getting, as Alice would say,
"curiouser and curiouser". Attorney General Chris Finlayson's role is the latest in recent revelations. 
Since the loss of the Privy Council as the last appeal Court to New Zealand citizens, a dangerous escalation of "discretionary security costs" orders has threatened to put Court access financially out of reach to most New Zealanders. Now the case against Judges using discretionary cost orders to prevent litigants of limited financial means from having their claims heard in Court has gone to the New Zealand Supreme Court. 
Gendall in the High Court at Napier. Duff owed $3,656,223.30 to 24 creditors while claiming to have only $5000 in assets. A further $400,000 is owing to Mr Duff's sisters.
John Creser reports on Police double standards
IN HIS HONOUR's OWN WORDS
1 March 2008 As little as 20 years ago the law was a respected profession in New Zealand. 
threatened the neighbour and another man on separate occasions. The court heard the vandalism incident happened just after Barberio received the prosecution brief relating to the earlier assault.
Court decided separately yesterday to consider an appeal which may exempt judges engaged in misconduct from Bill of Rights damage claims.
Judge Michael Lance was on the ropes for criminal vandalism. Today, Judge Kevin Phillips declared he is a "not guilty" man. The most detailed trial coverage in New Zealand is 
over as an independent examiner to interview the witnesses and give a legal assessment on Judge Wilson's conflict of interest. Gleeson apparently gave his assessment "with the directness that is the prerogative of age". Wilson J, however, is refusing to fall on his sword and the JCC's latest move appears designed to put a lid on the inquiry altogether.
extensive and chilling. Though his crimes make Taito Phillip-Field and Donna Awatere-Huata look like philanthropists, the details of Collin's conduct are not being reported by the NZ media for fear of retribution by this State officer not shy about using the weight of his office to file lawsuits against the press.
Kiwisfirst reports on three unrelated complaints detailing his offending which are currently before the
Legal Complaints Review Officer. 
the government does not ensure judges abide by legislation or keep official records - nor has the Ministry given any consideration to requiring judges provide a register of their financial interests - because to do so
"would amount to an unwarranted interference by the executive in the judicial branch of government and could undermine public confidence in the independence of the judiciary." 
New Zealand law schools seem more about indoctrination. Case in point: TVNZ reported yesterday that NZ Solicitor General David Collins has decided not to prosecute blogger Cameron Slater for contempt over multiple breaches of court suppression orders. TVNZ reported on their website that Canterbury Associate Law Professor Ursula Cheer said Collins' decision makes sense because the subject of the suppression order has just been charged and it is difficult to say whether the naming by Mr Slater will impact on the trial - something Ms Cheer says would be grounds for contempt. What the..?!
unique when it comes to officials in power, the evidence in
Solicitor General David Collins' case displays a pattern of criminal behavior over many years. Two thoughts will likely cross your mind as you read it: first, the detail is so specific and scandalous, Mr Collins would certainly sue for defamation if it were not true; and second, if true, why is the mainstream media not reporting his chronic offending to the New Zealand public?