Judges Cross Swords

Judges Cross Swords

LawFuel - The Law Jobs and News Wire

Sir Ted Thomas says Justice WIlson's lacked complete candour

The Justice Wilson hearing in the High Court at Wellington today saw former Court of Appeal judge Sir Edmund Thomas vigorously reject accusations from Justice Wilson's lawyer Colin Carruthers QC that he was guilty of any "fantasy" in his views on the beleaguered judge's financial position with regard to his involvement with Rich Hill Stud Ltd, the business in which he is a co-shareholder with Alan Galbraith QC.

Sir Edmund was presenting submissions to the High Court, who are hearing an application for judicial review of a decision made by Judicial Conduct Commissioner Sir David Gascoigne, saying it doesn't meet the legal requirement under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 to explain the reasons such action is necessary and justified.

Justice Wilson, a Supreme Court judge, is challenging the commissioner's referral decision.

The Court need to consider issues relating to the threshold that needs to be reached in order for Justice Wilson's case to be referred to a judicial conducgt panel. Sir Edmund's submissions focused on the judge's financial position with regard to his and Mr Galbraith's horse business, Rich Hill Stud Limited. Sir Edmund rejected allegations made by Mr Carruthers regarding the relative financial positions of the two men in the business and said that the ultimate issue was the "indirect indebtedness" of the parties that was relevant. This went to the question of whether there had been complete candour in what the Judge disclosed to the Chief Justice.

"Has the conduct crossed the line from that that is acceptable and that that is not," he said.

His submissions dealt with an issue before the court as to "moral turpitude" and whether it is necessary to consider the issue in the current circumstances. Sir Edmund's view was that the court needed to consider not just the issue of moral turpitude but whether the conduct involved questions of recklessness, neglect, cumulative neglect, willful obtuseness, error of judgment and the like.

He also referred to the recently revealed emails between himself and Dr Jim Farmer QC and stressed that his chief concern had always been for the preservation of the integrity of the judiciary and to indicate that his intervention in the matter was in that light and not to be party to anything "remotely resembling a cover up".

He submitted that Justice Wilson's disclosure and the submissions made on his behalf revealed facts that were only technically correct but fell far short of complete disclosure of his commercial arrangements with the RHS's bank and Mr Galbraith.

ENDS