The Judge Lance Cases

LawFuel - The Law Jobs and News Wire
Vince Siemer's blog records the judge's history

Retired District Court Judge Michael Lance QC’s background has been detailed in Vince Siemer’s ‘KiwisFirst’ blog after the Deputy Solicitor General refused an Official Information Act request for documents relating to the Judge’s involvement in an alleged conspiracy to defeat the course of judgment in 1994.

The blog reported that the Deputy Solicitor General had said the documents requested were not official information and were protected by both ‘legal professional privilege’ and privacy.

Vince Siemer’s blog records what it describes as a “watershed” in New Zealand jurisprudence with the forthcoming case involving a person who is “hellbent” on his course of conduct.

Judge Lance was charged in the Auckland North Shore District Court on a charge of willful damage exceeding $4000 in relation to his alleged ‘keying’ of a car that blocked his driveway. He is defending the charge.

However, Vince Siemer writes about the Judge’s “history” and in particular his involvement in a case involving his hearing of a case involving a Rotorua lawyer allegedly attempting to “blackmail”police into reducing a criminal charge against a drug dealing client. The lawyer was an associate of the Judge’s lawyer son, Simon.

Siemer’s blog reports, “…the Judge did not disclose his family relationship with the accused and the Judge dredged the depths of his briefcase to come up with a conspiracy to overshadow the incontrovertible evidence of extortion in his ruling to acquit.”

The case gave rise to an official enquiry.

“After Judge Lance QC acquitted the lawyer, former Police Superintendent of Internal Affairs Les McCarthy caught wind of the impropriety. He promptly laid a formal complaint to then-Solicitor General John McGrath QC,” the blog reports.

“Deputy Solicitor General Lowell Goddard QC was tasked by the Solicitor General with damage control. Ms Goddard euphemistically agreed that "errors were made", but advised the Solicitor General "in the public interest" would not be pursuing the matter any further. It is uncertain how protecting a judge with an undisclosed conflict of interest who acquitted a proven criminal extortionist, then concealing it all from the public, was in the public interest. It is certain that all who covered up the likely criminal abuse of judicial office by Judge Lance last decade fared quite nicely.”

ENDS