Good that there is progress on the Bill Wilson case. When you sit on the Supreme Court there must be no questions of integrity.
But who is investigating the Attorney General who failed to declare his relationship with Wilson. This is from an old Herald story.
Attorney-General Chris Finlayson also counts Wilson as a friend.
Finlayson and Wilson were partners at the same time in law firm Bell Gully until the judge left in 1996 to become a Queen’s Counsel.
In a statement provided to the Herald in December, the Attorney-General said his relationship with the judge was professional.
He has since added that he considers Wilson a friend although he has not been a guest at the judge’s home in the past five years.
Finlayson acted as the public intervener early in court hearings about whether the relationship between the judge and Galbraith could amount to the reasonable perception of possible bias.
As public intervener, a submission is filed, in the public interest.
It is made in the name of the Attorney-General but written by Crown Law and signed by the Solicitor-General, David Collins, QC.
At that early stage Collins wrote that Wilson’s version of disputed facts should be accepted.
He also said that on the facts then available there was no reason why the judge should have withdrawn from the case.
However, the submission was not updated to reflect relevant information Collins and Finlayson were sent in late July or early August – four months before the Supreme Court’s final ruling which determined that there was a reasonable perception of possible bias.
That information, which included that the judge was substantially in debt to the lawyer who had been pressing him for payment, came from respected retired appellate judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas who copied to Collins and Finlayson a letter and notes he sent to the Chief Justice.
Perhaps if you ask the question: who has complained about Finlayson, and to whom? and you’ll have you’re answer.
When people wanted Justice Wilson investigated three of them complained to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. When you wanted Finlayson investigated, you wrote a blog post. Spot the difference?
Bleepin shocking
Come on Trevor. What’s another of Key’s ministers caught in a conflict of interest? Give the man a break. He’s not doing anything the rest of them aren’t.
National’s house, like the nation’s leaky homes built by its hands, rots.
Is it too obvious that none of this would have occurred had the Privy Council not been scrapped in an undemocratic putsch?
New Zealand is a small country. Of course QCs know each other and are friendly with each other. That’s as obvious as saying dogs chase cats.
You would have to say that standards have loosened over the last 20 years. Once it would have been unthinkable that a senior judge had any sort of connection with a senior barrister, they would tidied up their commercial dealings once he was appointed.
While its highly unlikely they would decide the case because they know such and such a lawyer better, try telling that to the people who lose a case- that could go either way
Socialising, lunching or having a drink at “the club” has always seen Judges and Lawyers (certain lawyers) mixing. However business HAS to be a no-no.
I’ll be interested in the outcome of the Justice Wilson investigation. Can’t understand why a judge who owed a QC $240,000 was dumb enough to think there was no conflict of interest. It’s all about perception.
As to Chris Finlayson, a bad call to say he wouldn’t investigate his mate. We have to have faith in the legal system and it’s highest official. At the moment that’s a hard call to make.
@ Gooner -this happened at the Court of Appeal – and if the Privy Council was misled in the way the Supreme Court was then they could well have come to the same conclusion.
Should we be investigating Michael Cullen?
Does it seem suspicious to you that he appointed Mr Wilson to the bench, then promoted him rapidly up the Judicial ladder.
Should we also be investigating your colleagues who gave permanent residency and then Citizenship to the man of many names?
It is attempts like this that smear members of the Government that caused me to stop voting Labour at the last election and render it impossible to vote for you again until your behaviour alters.
Can’t the party learn from the public reaction to the smear campaign that was run by Mike Williams before the last election.
Finlayson has declared his relationship and removed himself from the situation.
I might as well suggest the Chris Carter defence
“Your’e a homophobe. Your’e only picking on him because he is gay” I don’t believe it but it is no more ridiculous than your own attack.
Alwyn.”Finlayson has declared his relationship and removed himself from the situation.”
Is that so? Didn’t read that anywhere. It is the point of this story isn’t it?
Judith today announced or yesterday that Finlayson has recused himself so she is rumoured to have asked for Wilson’s reseignation or a judicial enquiry will be launched. IF he resigned does he get to go gracefully with a nice severance and all his benefits?? Isn’t the allegation against him a little more important than a face saving gesture? IF he acted badly, impacting the impartiality or apparent impartiality of his decision making that is serious miscopnduct, no severance, and no benefits.
@ Alwyn
“It is attempts like this that smear members of the Government that caused me to stop voting Labour at the last election and render it impossible to vote for you again until your behaviour alters.”
After nine years of the most obnoxious smear campaign against Labour ministers that this country has ever seen – and against Helen Clark in particular – and you have the gall to complain about Labour. Sure they did a few things that were not appropriate, but their activities in this area pale into insignificance compared to their National counterparts.
I suggest you use both your eyes in future. You might be surprised at what you discover.
Bill Wilson: investigation, notwithstanding resignation.
Bill Wilson: investigation, notwithstanding resignation
Alwyn the whole point is that Finlayson provided an affidavit without declaring the relationship. He should have asked another Minister to act for him back then not after the fact. Pointing out that conflict is not a smear it is a statement of fact.
That’s some quality “legal analysis” but if your reasoning were to be extended anyone who has ever been in partnership with those who go on to be judges would be unable to appear before them or deal with them etc…. our legal system would grind to a halt. You might recall Judges take an oath and are expected to perform as actors in the adminstration of justice likewise with the attorney-general/solicitor roles alluded too.
This seems to follow on from Steve Chadwicks insight on backbenchers that maybe we could have an inquisitional (civil law) system for our criminal law etc… myself and other legal colleagues laughed so hard some almost wet themselves!
If this type of thing is going to be Labours contribution to legal sphere I would say don’t bother!
Ben – not true – all that is needed is transparency – both for judges and the A-G. And then some judgement.
Trevor, I’ve checked and it was the Supreme Court, not the COA.
“Give the man a break. He’s not doing anything the rest of them aren’t.” –
Oh great! Let’s just let them get away with corruption because everyone else is doing it! 
@Anne – nine glorius years!!!!
“without declaring the relationship.”
It is in the headlines now because Court of Appeal judge Bill Wilson (since promoted to the Supreme Court) failed to promptly reveal that he effectively owed one of the lawyers appearing before him $242,804.
That is from the Herald link and is in accord with my memory of the case. Happy to be corrected Gooner but please quote your sources.
Ben – good to see your colleagues open to changes to our system rather than relying on the tired American pretend maxim “it’s not perfect but it’s the best there is”
“After nine years of the most obnoxious smear campaign against Labour ministers that this country has ever seen – and against Helen Clark in particular – and you have the gall to complain about Labour. Sure they did a few things that were not appropriate, but their activities in this area pale into insignificance compared to their National counterparts. ”
Agree 100% Everytie I hear anti Labour people talk about dirty politics I wet myself nearly as much as Ben and his colleagues do over the idea of an inquisitorial system in criminal law.
Gooner,
Trevor is right here . It was while Justice Wilson sat on the Supreme Court that he heard the Saxmere case (which is the decision in issue). The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on the merits, then heard an appeal based on Justice Wilson’s failure to stand down (which it rejected), then issued a recall judgment after more details of Justice Wilson’s relationship with the lawyer at issue came to light (ie agreed he should have stood down, so upheld the appeal). The same thing could well have happened had we still retained the Privy Council (although it would have cost far, far more money for the parties involved).
Trevor,
You might like to note the source of the information apparently left out of the A-G’s submissions to the court.
“That information … came from respected retired appellate judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas who copied to Collins and Finlayson a letter and notes he sent to the Chief Justice.”
Then go and have a read of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s treatment of Sir Ted’s complaint. He doesn’t hold it in any great regard.
Doh!!!
Previous post should have read “It was while Justice Wilson sat on the COURT OF APPEAL that he heard the Saxmere case …”
Apologies for the premature posting.
Yes Anne and Tracey. There were a very large number of scurrilous and disgusting claims made about Helen Clark and some other Labour MPs during her period as Prime Minister. The difference is that these were by anonymous (mostly) people on right wing blogsites.
There were a large number of smears by Bloggers on left aligned sites against National as well. There were however smears being promulgated by Labour MPs as well.
The difference is that the smear claims were NOT being made by National MPs or leading figures in the National party.
Can you show me anything by the president of the National party that compares with Mike Williams fiasco on the H-fee.
Similarly can you show me any smear by John Key or a senior National MP?
The point I am trying to make is that it does the Labour party no good at all to try and run a smear campaign. The New Zealand public don’t like it and it is self-defeating.
Labour must run a campaign of reasoned argument against the National policies, and propose alternatives, not just run smear stories.
Incidentally I am not a National supporter. I can best be described as a swinging voter. In the last 10 elections I voted for Labour 5 times (1981, 1984, 1987, 1999 and 2002.
L voted for National in 1990, 1993, 1996 and 2008. In 2005 I didn’t vote for anyone.
2
8 L A B 
U R!!!
For smear campaigns and dirty work, the Right use puppets or outsource ..
Precisely Gary Jones. Alwyn must be a political novice if she can’t recognise the modus operandi of the National Party. Where do the puppets and out-sources (read Farrar and Slater for starters) get the information they need to start the campaigns in the first palce.
The principles involved surrounding the case and the aftermath do need transparency for public view.
Procedures have to be largely understood by the public for confidence in our legal system to prevail. Complex finer points and legal opinion can become mumbo jumbo and this is a real issue for many.
Do we trust our Judges – the answer has to be a resounding “Yes!” without any substantial reservation.
Trevor it is useful to raise the issue in a blog and so encourage wider discussion even though opportunity for political point scoring may be captured by some.
Regarding smear campaigns just count them and you get the picture of who has a machine generating smears.
The biggest laugh was when Helen was branded a “Forger” and “Fraud” for publicly autographing a painting at an art do.
The intellectually desperate still echo the cry.
@Tracey
Yes but ours is the best there is, what you seem to overlook is in the common law system every freedom and right preserved came about from some major event/episode and/or attack on peoples liberty that the courts held should not be allowed to occur again.
Further the common law allows far more flexability and discretion in the adminstration of justice tempered by mercy, not the civil law bunch of rule books approach!
I must say its quite an ironic day when I am arguing with someone who I presume is a Labour suppporter about the need to maintain things such as the right to silence, to a jury of ones peers etc…. fundamental liberties!
In terms of the American maxim well the Americans are a bastardisation of the English common law, so not a brillant supporting example!
These numerous checks and balances and systems etc… (to link back to the crux of Trevors point) have been developed and refined over many hundreds of years and WILL NOT be enchanced by the imput of know it all politicians!
Okay, I stand corrected. Thanks Andrew.