Second Decision Of The Judicial Conduct Commissioner As To Three Complaints Concerning Justice Wilson

1. On 21 October 2010, the Acting Attorney-General, the Hon Judith Collins, announced that Justice Wilson had resigned his position as a Judge of the Supreme Court, with effect from 5 November 2010.

2. When that announcement was made, I had completed a draft of my second decision in respect of three complaints that had been made as to Justice Wilson’s conduct as a Judge, and I was about to make that draft decision available to him and his advisers for submissions. I also intended to seek submissions from the three complainants.

3. That second decision was required as a result of the decision of the High Court setting aside my first decision and directing me to address certain errors of law which the Court had identified in that first decision.

4. I said in a statement on 22 October (the day following the Acting Attorney-General’s announcement) that there was now no useful point to be served by my proceeding with the course of action that is referred to in paragraph 2 above. 5. The Judge’s resignation means that I am now required by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 to take a different course. 6. Section 16(1)(g) of the Act provides

“(1) The Commissioner must dismiss the complaint if he or she is of the opinion that – (g) the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a Judge.”

7. As Justice Wilson’s resignation has now become effective, he is no longer a Judge, and I now dismiss the complaints made by:

(a) Mr P. E. Radford; (b) Sir Edmund Thomas; (c) Mr C. J. O’Neill. 6 November 2010

Sir David Gascoigne, KNZM Judicial Conduct Commissioner

© Scoop Media