Supreme Court judge applies for judicial review

LATEST: Embattled Supreme Court judge Bill Wilson will apply for a judicial review of the Judicial Conduct commissioner's findings against him after a preliminary investigation of three complaints about the judge's conduct.

Wilson's move came about an hour after acting Attorney-General Judith Collins announced the government would appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel to inquire more fully into the complaints.

It is likely to block any further consideration of the complaints by the panel until after the judge's judicial review application is heard in the High Court.

Should the Solicitor-General not agree to this, Wilson's lawyers will seek an interim injunction to prevent any further action by the panel in the meantime.

Wilson's lawyer, Colin Carruthers QC, says the High Court will be asked to quash the decision, by Commissioner Sir David Gascoigne, to recommend that the Judicial Conduct Panel should be set up.

It's understood the grounds for review will be error of law - specifically, that Gascoigne's findings against Wilson did not meet the required legal test for removing him as a judge. This would mean the Attorney-General had no jurisdiction to appoint a panel.

When announcing the panel this morning, Collins said it would consist of Justices Tony Randerson and Helen Winkelmann, and Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem.

The all-important terms of reference and scope of the inquiry have not yet been made public.

Gascoigne began his investigation after receiving three complaints about Wilson's conduct. They focus on whether the judge was financially beholden to his friend and business partner, Alan Galbraith QC, when Galbraith appeared before him in the Court of Appeal in 2007. If that were the case, the complainants said Wilson might have been biased, or appeared to have been biased, in favour of Galbraith's client.

Another big issue is whether Wilson sufficiently disclosed the true nature of his business relationship with Galbraith.

The pair were equal shareholders in a bloodstock company called Rich Hill. But while there was a six per cent imbalance between the two in their shareholders' accounts, both Wilson and Galbraith deny the judge was beholden to the QC; nor were there any debts or personal guarantees involved. Galbraith had not been pressing Wilson for any payment and the company was in a stable financial condition, the commissioner was told.

The Court of Appeal case centred on a company called Saxmere which was challenging funding decisions made by the former Wool Board. The board was disestablished and morphed into a company called Disco, which was represented by Galbraith in the Court of Appeal.

Saxmere's director Peter Radford - who lost in the Court of Appeal - was one of the three complainants to the commissioner.

- © Fairfax NZ News