Supreme Court Justice Susan Gwynfa GLAZEBROOK,
|Postion & Titles:||Various commercial and governmental committees|
|Judge of:||Supreme Court (2012)||Previously Court of Appeal (2002)High Court (2000)|
|Specializations and Professional Interests:||Academic, New Zealand’s place in the World, Government. Unfortunately, the law has been subordinated to Justice Glazebrook’s many other interests as she has found herself the ‘queen of the ball’.|
|Professional Comments:||Lifelong interest in learning and teaching. Part-time Lecturer, Department of Commercial Law, University of Auckland (1991 to 1994).. Part-time tutor in Accountancy and English (Oxford, 1985) . Research assistant to the late Sir Keith Sinclair and tutor in history, Auckland University (1984)Worked in Rouen, France with the Government-funded organisation responsible for the resettlement of political refugees in France, (1981-1983)Junior Lecturer in History, University of Auckland (1976, 1978, 1979).Generally considered a centrist. The most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court next to Chief Justice Sian Elias. Unfortunately lacks consistency on rights issues and lacks ability on equity law.
In the past Justice Glazebrook has been eager to carry the torch of partisanship if it serves her stature within the cloistered ‘boy’s club’ judiciary.
In 2010, Justice Susan Glazebrook was instrumental in a formulating a policy shift (along with Mark O’Regan, William Young JJ and Judge Roderick Joyce of the Rules Committee) which severely limits parties’ access to transcripts in their own proceedings, even for the expressed purpose of supporting an appeal. The Court of Appeal Registrar has been instructed to respond to such requests with the statement “Consideration of appeal options should be by reference to the Court’s judgment, not what was said at the hearing”. The Court of Appeal now routinely refuses to release transcripts to the parties on the spurious ground it costs the court money – even where the parties have offered to pay for the service.
Justice Glazebrook can often be intemporate and unduly dismissive on the bench. These emotional traits are unpredictable and have been the source of repeated criticism from appearing counsel and her judicial peers through the years. Glazebrook J is not one of the brightest judges on the bench but she has distinguished herself on the bench as an advocate for civil and political legal rights on an appellate court which historically is prone to dismissing appeals without opening the file (confirmed by the Privy Council in the 2003 case Taito v Q). The Judge has lost much of her vigour for these rights as her personal position improved to elite status.
|Background / Education:||Has an MA (1st Class Hons), an LLB (Hons) and a Dip. Bus (Finance) from the University of Auckland and a D.Phil from the University of Oxford in French legal history. Before being appointed to the High Court in June 2000, she was a partner in law firm Simpson Grierson and a member of various commercial boards and government advisory committees. She served as President of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association in 1998. She was appointed to the Court of Appeal in May 2002. Law Society|
|Degrees:||BA in History, Auckland 1975, MA History (1st class Hons) Auckland 1978, LLB (Hons.) Auckland 1980, D.Phil., French Legal History, Oxford (U.K.) 1988, Dip.Bus. Auckland, 1994|
|Admitted to the Bar:||1980|
|Company Involvements:||Various Commercial Boards. Former director and still shareholder Kane Finance Brokers Ltd, Kane Consultancy Ltd. Justice Glazebrook’s husband is still director and shareholder|
Gregory Norman Kane. He had 3 children from his first marriage Daniel Gregory b.1978 Mark Norman Alexander b.1979 Elizabeth Carolyn b.1982
|Children:||2 (James Harry b.1994 Alexander Thomas b.1996)|
|Interesting Relationships and Coincidences:||Would likely have made the Court on merit considering the lack of qualified candidates applying for judgeships but has taken a strong stance of imposing secrecy and partisanship in the Court since her appointment. Cannot be trusted to act honourably where proceedings are not minimally recorded.|
|Miscellaneous:||Prone to take unlawful actions when flustered. When she was on the Court of Appeal, the advice was to record Justice Glazebrook’s proceedings as her ‘official version’ often varied materially to actual events in the courtroom. Fortunately this is not a problem in the Supreme Court where all proceedings are recorded.|