Judge fails to reveal link

A top judge did not fully reveal the extent of a business relationship with a lawyer who was arguing a case before him, it has emerged.

In what is believed to be a New Zealand legal first, the Supreme Court has ruled that when one of its own judges, Justice Bill Wilson, was in the Court of Appeal he should not have sat on a case because it gave the appearance of bias.

Justice Wilson was one of three judges in April 2007 who overturned a High Court judgment and instead found in favour of the client of Justice Wilson's business partner, senior Queen's Counsel Alan Galbraith.

The two men were directors in a company that owned Waikato land that was home to Rich Hill Stud. Justice Wilson resigned as a director of Rich Hill in August this year.

In July, the Supreme Court criticised Justice Wilson for not fully disclosing the extent of his business with Galbraith.

But despite the criticism the court dismissed the appeal, on the information it then had, saying there were no grounds for a fair-minded person to reasonably think that the personal business relationship might have affected the judge's impartiality.

In a rare move yesterday the court recalled that judgment. In its new decision it emerged that even when it became an issue at a Supreme Court hearing in March, Justice Wilson still had not told all.

The Supreme Court said that after its first judgment Justice Wilson made a further statement and then, at the invitation of the court, he added still more material.

The outcome is that the appeal on which Justice Wilson sat before being appointed to the Supreme Court, has to go back to the Court of Appeal to be heard by a new panel of judges.

The Court of Appeal had overturned a High Court judge's ruling that would have given a group of wool growers a share of the Wool Board's multimillion dollar reserves.

The wool growers, headed by Saxmere Company, complained later that having Justice Wilson sit on the appeal had an appearance of bias.

The case could raise issues about whether any action should be taken against Justice Wilson. If a complaint was made to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the commissioner could refer the complaint to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias or recommend that the attorney-general appoint an inquiry panel.

A judge could be removed from office only on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.

Canterbury University associate law professor Ursula Cheer said that, in theory, the misbehaviour ground might be considered against Justice Wilson.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said he would consider the judgment.

Lawyer and former MP Stephen Franks said he did not think the case raised issues about Justice Wilson's integrity.