www.kiwisfirst.com

JUDGE (n.) A law student who marks his own papers - H.L. Mencken

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
- Abraham Lincoln

The Judge files contain background factual data on judges, as well as analysis which is more subjective in nature. Where analysis and opinion are provided, they are the considered and sole opinion of the editor. Information and news tips on judges can be sent to Spartan News Limited through various means listed on the 'Contact Us' page. Information may be submitted anonymously but it would be very helpful if reference or source background can be supplied along with information.

KIWIS FIRST

**************************

JUDGE LANCE CRIMINAL TRIAL

15 March 2010
Former Deputy Judge of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Michael Lance QC will face trial in the North Shore District Court on 24 March 2010 for willful vandalism. As first reported on kiwisfirst a year ago, Lance was witnessed "keying" the car of businessman Richard Cummins in front of the Judge's Browns Bay apartment by café patrons across the street. Despite the trial being set for months, the half dozen witnesses were only subpoenaed this weekend.

Further investigation of Judge Lance after his arrest uncovered a disturbing history of criminal conduct. This included similar incidents of vandalism where the Judge was questioned but never charged, as well as the Judge throwing a trial in Rotorua of a lawyer charged with fraud and blackmail years earlier. That lawyer, caught on tape trying to blackmail the detective prosecuting his drug-dealing client, turned out to be the business partner of the Judge's son Simon. Without disclosing the relationship, Lance had himself appointed trial judge and travelled down from Auckland to preside. In a brazen display of power, Lance J found the lawyer not guilty and then publicly castigated the police for prosecuting the lawyer. The lawyer cannot be named because Judge Lance additionally gave him name suppression.

Judge Lance's perversion of the course of justice in the criminal trial of his son's law partner occurred when Supreme Court Judge John McGrath was Solicitor General and Police Complaints Authority Judge Lowell Goddard was Deputy Solicitor General. Police hierarchy reported and detailed the corruption to the Solicitor General and deputy, but McGrath and Goddard concealed the evidence of Lance's criminal offending from the bench and dismissively stated at the time that prosecution of Judge Lance was "not in the public interest". At least one high ranking Police inspector quit out of disillusionment. The important news story was never reported by the NZ media.

Subsequent Official Information Act requests for this evidence held by the Crown Law office have been stonewalled by claims the evidence is protected by legal privilege. Appallingly, both Justice McGrath and Justice Goddard gave ringing endorsements to Judge Lance's subsequent promotion to Judge of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Judge Lance wasted no time claiming victory over the Police officials who had complained about his criminal conduct to no avail years earlier.

Years after McGrath and Goddard's cover-up of Judge Lance's criminal misconduct on the bench, Judge Lance successfully sued a radio talkbalk host Mark Bennett for defamation after the host called the Judge "idiotic".

Judge Michael Lance is currently retired. He is aggressively defending the charge but does not want a jury trial. The trial should prove interesting even if the New Zealand media are afraid to report it. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

SOLICITOR GENERAL CLAIMS HE IS VICTIM OF CONSPIRACY

15 September 2009
New Zealand Solicitor General David Collins is currently defending at least three unrelated complaints to the New Zealand Law Society for alleged legal misconduct. One is by kiwisfirst editor Vince Siemer, in relation to representations by Mr Collins to the Auckland High Court in January 2008. In brief, that complaint alleges Collins knowingly made false claims to initiate a contempt action that the www.kiwisfirst.com website was in breach of an interim injunction, despite his office conceding that the content was "fully compliant" with the injunction terms. The complaint also alleges that he deliberately misled Parliament by misrepresenting to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee in August 2007 that the matter was before the Courts - and thereby off limits from a Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Collins has responded by letter dated 3 September 2009 to Secretary of National Standards Committee Mary Ollivier that he considers he is the victim of a conspiracy by Mr Siemer and the other complainants. Presumably, on this basis, he refused to address the substance of the complaint and supporting evidence in the form of a 6 September 2007 email indicating his office agreed months before that the website was not in breach the injunction. Ironically Mr Collins used his response to threaten the Law Society with prosecution for contempt of Parliament if he considered the Law Society was "to collaterally challenge" the Select Committee's decision founded on what Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith had subsequently determined "may not have been correct". Dr Smith's conclusion was reached before he became aware of the documentary evidence that David Collins was personally involved in the deception of the Committee.

Collins elected to take a global position in his reply. He appended a copy of the resultant High Court Judgment ordering Siemer to six months prison for failing to "unconditionally close down" this website as defence that his actions in seeking Mr Siemer's imprison were appropriate. back to front page

COURT ORDER SILENCES CORONER AND CONCEALS FARDELL SUICIDE FROM PUBLIC

27 August 2007
Late in July 2007 it was revealed that Auckland High Court Justice Paul Heath ruled last December - more than a year after Robert Fardell QC (right) fell to his death from the 15 metre high Takapuna Head cliffs into the rocky surf at high tide - that the Auckland Coroner's findings and the evidence into the bizarre circumstances of Fardell's death would be largely suppressed. This Court ruling by Heath J followed prominent barrister Harry Waalken QC obtaining a restraining order in July 2006 preventing the Coroner from releasing his written report while the family sought a judicial review designed to censure and obscure the Coroner's findings. Unfortunately for Waalken, the cat had already been let out of the bag at a special inquest conducted at the Auckland Coroner's Court in June 2006. This was when Auckland Coroner Dr. Murray Jamieson issued an oral report stating Mr. Fardell died from drowning, with the post-mortem examination revealing drowning was precipitated by massive injuries consistent with a fall immediately prior.

With foul play and suicide the likely scenarios facing police officers responding to report of a lifeless body on the rocks, foul play must reasonably be ruled out simply on the response of police that day finding a middle-age man unexpectedly dead. What is known is that the police and ambulance response to the call of a body found 6:30 pm 11 December 2005 as the tide receded was unusually brief for an untimely and, presumably, uncertain cause of death. Although Mr. Fardell was 52 years old and in good health at the time he died, neither cordoning of the scene nor forensic analysis in-situ was apparently conducted. The ambulance crew left shortly after inspecting the top of the cliff above where the body was found. Moreover, as Fardell was an extremely heavy-set man who additionally had to breach a fence to reach the edge of the cliff, it is highly unlikely that his fall could have been an accident or murder in this area active with people enjoying the early summer weekend.

Nonetheless, Barrister Waalken vehemently pressed the Coroner that suicide was not a finding the Coroner could legally make - or even mention. While the Coroner seemed ultimately prepared to delicately acquiesce to Waalken's demands, Waalken's subsequent legal motions that the Coroner permanently seal the evidence and his finding were rejected outright by the Coroner as incompatible with the fundamental precept of transparent proceedings and justice. It is this ruling by the Coroner that has now been overturned by Auckland High Court Justice Heath.

There has been some speculation, unproven, that Mr. Fardell had a life insurance policy, the death benefit from which may have been lost if the Coroner's findings indicated suicide. However, it is more likely for reasons that will become apparent deeper in this story that, given the tremendous media exposure to the death, concerns were heightened within the judiciary that allowing the circumstances of the death to be made public would only increase the public's curiosity as to what drove Fardell to such self-destruction. It was anticipated that attention into the deceased's sordid personal and professional life would then raise legitimate and troubling questions as to how such a person could reach the pinnacle of the legal profession and be next in line for a judicial appointment while those in authority had turned a blind eye to numerous disturbing complaints concerning his professional conduct for several years leading up to his death.

In the days immediately following his death, the New Zealand Herald ran front page stories claiming that Mr. Fardell died of a heart attack while swimming - irresponsible news reporting easily dispelled by facts that were immediately available to any reporter interested in accuracy. Other than the location of the body on rocks hundreds of meters from the nearest beach, Mr. Fardell was not dressed for a swim as he walked away from his house for the last time. The inquest officer assigned to the case said the body was found with shorts and no shoes but that his experience was "articles of clothing quickly get separated from the body in the water". And as any viewer of CSI can tell you, there are definitive forensic tests to quickly determine whether someone has suffered a fatal heart attack.

The inquest officer, Paul Herman of the Takapuna Police, immediately realized that he was in over his head on this investigation. The last person to talk to the deceased was Chris Morris, son of (now retired) High Court judge David Morris. Chris Morris admitted to Herman that he had come to Fardell's home this Sunday afternoon to discuss pending legal matters with the deceased but declined to grant a formal interview or provide further detail. Same with the widow. Also, as the press was widely reporting that ten High Court judges had attended the funeral, the estate hired Barrister Harry Waalken QC, widely regarded as a legal Houdini on medical cases, to advance the family's position on the death - and stymie the investigation. Faced with such powerful stonewalling Mr. Herman did not need to be a genius to identify that careers are made or lost on how someone might handle himself in an investigation where a litany of prominent lawyers and judges were not only expressing a keen interest in his approach to the investigation but were simultaneously speaking out effusively in the press about what a great man of integrity Mr. Fardell was.

Mr. Fardell undoubtedly had many fine qualities, but integrity was not one of them. It didn't help that Mr. Herman quite quickly uncovered this darker side to the man. Herman casually revealed to a private investigator early in his investigation that an Asian gang Fardell had a falling out with were phoning him in an attempt to gain information. Within a month Herman was also informed that Fardell was being sued in the Auckland High Court for deceptive practices by former clients Paragon Oil Systems Limited and Vince and Jane Siemer, and that an application detailing allegations that Fardell three times perjured himself had been filed and served less than two weeks before his death. Adding insult to a potentially career-killing injury for Fardell was the fact that Hugh Williams, a judge whom Fardell considered dim-witted and vain and, hence, was an irresistible butt of his jokes, was, as judge in the case, going out of his way to unduly protect Fardell. Fardell was a proud man whose career and legitimate standing among his peers meant everything to him. This graft from an unlikely ally whom he had been all too quick to dismiss as unprofessional was a tremendous blow to his ego as much as an inescapable symbol of poetic justice.

Yet another former client, New Zealand inventor Hugh Price, was also embroiled in a legal battle against Fardell before he died. Mr. Price had years earlier obtained a ruling from the Lay Observer that overruled the Law Society's dismissal of a formal complaint he had lodged against Mr. Fardell for deceptive practices and seeming incompetence. Despite this ruling of the Lay Observer, the Law Society refused to act on the complaint. Now, in December 2005, Mr. Price was again challenging Fardell in a current case for acting in a conflict of interest capacity.

Topping off all this was Fardell's close personal and business relationship with powerful Auckland insolvency practitioner Michael Stiassny, a relationship he would come to ruefully regret in the weeks before his death   This was due in large part to (what Fardell was obviously convinced to be) an intentional release of information by his former friend that helped expose Fardell's legal scams. This information put Fardell's career at risk in addition to severely undermining his credibility. Whether this was the straw in the mountain of straw that broke the camel's back is difficult to say. However, given the significant betrayal by someone he had put so much trust in, it is not difficult to surmise this weighed heavily on Fardell as he solemnly walked to the precipice this otherwise sunny Sunday.   Ironically, as Stiassny was trustee of the Fardell family trust (Delfar Holdings Limited) at the time of his death Fardell could not escape his clutches even in death.

In this pressure cooker where the powerful legal community's obituary contrasted so sharply with the unfolding facts of the man's real life, Officer Herman did the only thing he considered safe under the circumstances - he went to ground. As the Coroner's representative, Officer Herman was responsible for publicizing the public inquest. Despite the tremendous number of contacts he had received from media and financially interested parties, Officer Herman informed only the widow and Harry Waalken QC of the public inquest that he had hastily convened barely 2 months after the death.

Officer Herman would arrogantly respond later to those who felt slighted by his subterfuge regarding the public inquest that he was under no obligation to inform interested parties of the date or setting. This was simply untrue. The Coroner's Act 1988 specifically required him to notify in advance parties who may have an interest in the inquest. In the winter of 2006 Judge Borrin issued a ruling on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority of New Zealand stating Herman was derelict in his obligations under the Act. The Coroner had earlier been compelled to conduct a special inquest due to Herman's railroading of the public one.

The year 2006 saw significant changes in law for the Coroner's Office. The 1988 Act was repealed in favour of the Coroner's Act 2006, which was passed into law in August 2006, and the establishment of the Coronial Services of New Zealand was formed on 1 July 2007. Perhaps this chaos explains why the Coroner - having a year earlier been ready to issue his written inquest findings before a cease and desist order of the Court prevented him from doing so - released his report on 20 July 2007, seven months after Judge Heath finally gave him the approval to do so - sans the evidence and guts of the report.  Perhaps the Coroner's delay was a demonstration of conscious indignation at the Court imposed coverup.

So it was that what started as a whitewash intended to be quickly disposed of in record time was eventually whitewashed by judicial order more than a year and a half after the fact. And when one reads the Coroner's brief final report, it is obvious that Mr. Waalken earned his substantial fees on this one. In legal speak, lawyers deceive by omission. This is obvious in this case when one reads the Coroner's two page report. This reporter's favorite line from that report is "No evidence was located to suggest that Mr. Fardell harboured any intention to commit suicide. Indeed, his work on forthcoming cases suggested to the contrary". It is as perverse as it is ironic that the Coroner could not write massive injuries from a fall directly contributed to the drowning but was encouraged to get into the highly speculative (let alone non-medical) realm of saying busy people do not have time to commit suicide. Read Coroner's censured report.

In obvious double-talk the new Coronial Services website states on its' front page, "The (new) Act was designed to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system." All too sadly, the net result has proven the opposite true. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

JUDGE HUBBLE HONOURS HUBBARD AS 'OCCUPIER' OF CITY BUILDINGS

11 September 2007
In a ruling handed down by Auckland District Court Justice GV Hubble today, the Judge recognized the Mayor as 'occupier' of 'the whole of the Council Chambers and its buildings' for the intent and purpose of the Trespass Act 1980. This means the Mayor has the absolute right in law, according to Judge Hubble, to order people removed from city buildings whose presence the Mayor decides to be objectional or disruptive - or if he has good reason to believe they might become so - so long as he does not act 'capriciously' in doing so.

Judge Hubble's ruling found community activist Penny Bright guilty of crimimal trespass and discharged her without sentence, saying that she was well meaning and had suffered enough. The case stems from a 23 November 2006 Council Meeting called under urgency to consider a new waterfront stadium in Auckland. Hubbard had denied Ms. Bright speaking rights at the meeting. Ms. Bright demonstrated her displeasure with the Mayor's refusal by displaying a 1 by 1.5 metre banner in the public gallery that read "Mayor Hubbard's DICKtatorship is a CEREAL matter - Don't Buy it". The Mayor demanded she put the banner away but Ms. Bright refused; this refusal prompting the Mayor to temporarily adjourn the meeting while he summoned Police. By the time Police came the banner was gone but, when Ms. Bright refused to leave the meeting, the Mayor had her arrested for trespassing. The stadium proposal pushed by Hubbard eventually failed. The case of criminal trespass against Ms. Bright was pursued by the Crown at the Mayor's urging.

The mild-mannered Hubble appeared reticient in issuing his judgment. His decision ran contrary to three previous District Court rulings that had favoured Ms. Bright in similar circumstances. Still Hubble remarkably praised Ms. Bright and, in response to Ms. Bright submissions ahead of the sentencing, said he agreed with all the points she made. The difference this time, according to the Judge, was the Mayor found the banner justifiably objectionable. The Judge agreed.

With his judgment today Hubble also strayed further than previous District Court judges in ruling the Mayor was the rightful 'occupier' of the City building and, as such, was within his right to demand people being disruptive or guilty of objectionable conduct be cited for criminal trespass if they failed to leave when ordered to do so. Paradoxically the Judge recognized the public's right to access public buildings and attend public meetings. He therefore qualified his judgment by stating the Mayor, as occupier, had this right "provided that occupier is not acting capriciously or on the basis of racial or other prejudice". Mayor Hubbard's actions, which included refusing Ms. Bright speaking rights on a number of previous and subsequent occasions, were apparently not deemed prejudicial by Judge Hubble due to His Honour's failure to mention this evidence in his judgment. The Judge also did not seem to mind that neither the Police constable nor Auckland Council Service's Manager Peter Burden could recall whether they had specifically issued a trespass warning to Ms. Bright before arresting her. The case included prosecution submissions and defense submissions

Given the stigma of a criminal conviction, Ms. Bright said she is determined to appeal Judge Hubble's decision. Back to front page

New Zealand Judge files

Information on New Zealand Judges compiled from public and private sources, including all information submitted by the judges themselves

**CLIFFORD, Denis Kieran CLIFFORD J**

Professional Data
Postion & Titles:	Member of the Policy Advisory Group in the Depart of the PM & Cabinet 1998-2000
Judge of:	High Court , Wellington, 2006
Specializations and Professional Interests:	Public Policy
Professional Comments:
Background / Education:	Justice Clifford graduated LLB (Hons) from Victoria University of Wellington in 1978. He joined the Wellington law firm Buddle Anderson Kent & Co, leaving in 1980 to take up a position as Visiting Fellow at the University of Illinois Law School. Justice Clifford returned to New Zealand to work for Buddle Findlay in 1982, went overseas again in 1984, working with London firm Slaughter and May, and on return to New Zealand in 1986 became a partner of Buddle Findlay, a position he held until 2001. From 1998 to 2000 Clifford was on secondment from his law firm as a member of the Policy Advisory Group in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Clifford joined the independent bar in 2002. He took appointment to the High Court Bench in April 2006 and is based at the Wellington High Court.
Degrees:	LLB (Hons.) Victoria, 1978
Admitted to the Bar:	1978
Company Involvements:	Former director: Altes Coatings Ltd, Capital Agency Services Ltd, Brutus Investments, Findgard Investments Ltd, Whareroa Power Ltd, Squadron No.3 Ltd, Freshmanx Holdings Ltd, Resene Santano Ltd, Whareroa Co-Generation Ltd, Landcare Research International Ltd, Romney (No.11) Ltd, Romney (No.19) Ltd, Squadron No.4 Ltd, Custom Fleet NZ, Ausmaq (NZ) Ltd, Terravita Resources (No.1) Ltd, Gas Industry Company Ltd, Budfin Nominees Ltd

Personal Data
Born:	19 New Zealand	Sex:	Male
Married:	19	Children:
Interesting Relationships and Coincidences:
Miscellaneous:

MADMEN AT CROWN TAKE THRONE

12 October 2009
(continued from front page)
Misuse of power is the very essence of tyranny. Some of the most horrendous acts in human history have been committed by those who the public trusts concealing their acts by insisting public order requires secrecy and disregard for the rule of law. The tipping points to catastrophe in any society are generally when government institutions determine the public no longer have a right to know, one or two key people in power consider it is their destiny to impose their will on society and, the press is censored from reporting. In every democracy it is the power of a free and vigilant press which is the best prevention against autocracy, and the first institution to suffer its effect.

Last month, Dominion Post reporter, and Qantas Media Senior New Reporter of the Year, Phil Kitchin attempted to run a purely factual story about three unrelated complaints against Mr Collins being currently investigated by the New Zealand Law Society. After seeking comment from Mr Collins, the paper was officially sent two communications from Collins' office. Mr Kitchin had seen the evidence that Mr Collins had abused court process, used the power of his office to have a whistle blower fired, and committed perjury in the High Court, but his planned story did not attempt to convey any of this sensitive evidence to the public. Nonetheless, the DomPost editor axed the story.

Collins was appointed Solicitor General in 2006. The hallmark of his early tenure is widespread oppression of public information in relation to the workings of Crown Law and the New Zealand Courts. In 2008 he prosecuted the DomPost parent company Fairfax Media Limited of Australia for contempt of court for accurately reporting specifics of the Police affidavit filed in the ill-fated "terrorist suppression act prosecutions". He has twice sued the editor of kiwisfirst for contempt of Court for publishing suppressed public court information, including a current prosecution for publicly disclosing that High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann threw out six of the nine land warrants in the massive 2007 "terrorist raids". Also in 2008, he demanded Nelson lawyer Sue Grey withdraw from a case which would expose current Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson's conflict of interest in an appeal to the Supreme Court. When she refused, he demanded she be fired as counsel for the Department of Conservation because - according to Collins - "the Crown is indivisible" and Ms Grey exposing misconduct by a high-ranking Judge was deemed a breach of her overriding loyalty to the State as a government employee.

Collins' vigour and no-holds-barred approach to keeping a lid on Court secrets and protecting the status quo initially gained him considerable favour in the small and parochial NZ judicial community. In turn, the Law Society and Judges turned a blind eye to his blatant misrepresentations, abuse of office and unsettling bravado. In the previous Labour government, Collins had free reign. Former Attorney General Michael Cullen had no legal training and relied upon David Collins (officially his legal subordinate) in legal matters. Minister of Justice Annette King, on the other hand, was a dental nurse by profession. Recognising no one in government could challenge his authority, Collins was able to easily consolidate his power. Upon change of government last year, his acquired favour with the judiciary, political alliances and strong work ethic bought him firm leverage with the new Attorney General Chris Finlayson. But at the same time, alarms began to go off.

Lawyers can be adept at diversion to evade a conviction. Yet, as his power grew, Collins increasingly seemed to relish telling outlandish tales beyond what was necessary to cover-up his personal transgressions - and then wielding this tremendous power to silence those who pointed out the obvious inconsistencies. At the same time his impulsiveness gradually became viewed by those around him as professional recklessness.

Lawyers spoken to for this story relate that the amicable, intellectually curious and generous Collins of several years ago has recently exhibited an aura of invincibility and intolerance. They are not alone. In one of the current Law Society complaints, Collins raised the threat of prosecuting committee members with "contempt of Parliament" if their investigation determined that a Parliamentary conclusion was false as a result of material misrepresentations by him. In another, he refused to address the substance of the complaint on the ridiculous premise that his earlier misrepresentations were accepted as truthful by that Complainant. In yet another, he audaciously claimed to the Law Society that he had earlier waived legal privilege to the complainant in good faith to show his actions were lawful and transparent - this as he simultaneously refused requests from the complainant on the basis of said privilege!

Law Society Committee members - who generously volunteer their services to the profession - seem largely frightened by the stonewalling and refutation of self-evident facts they have encountered. Although all the Law Society complaints are in relation to Collins' personal conduct as a lawyer, he has responded to each on Crown Law letterhead and in his official capacity as New Zealand Solicitor General. He even referred to himself in the third person and in the imperial context of being the voice of the Crown. To those who remember recent history, it is eerily reminiscent of former U.S. President Richard Nixon's affirmations to David Frost that "When a President does it, that means that it is not illegal". What New Zealand needs desperately is an intrepid reporter like Bob Woodward to expose how common such beliefs are among New Zealand officials today..

Meanwhile, Collins is losing support of some Judges over his handling of the escalating Justice Wilson scandal. More Judges have recently adopted the opinion that Collins badly overplayed his hand early on. Like the Mafia, the New Zealand Court prefers to take care of its indiscretions secretly and "in the family". By having a well-respected lawyer whose partner (Ian Ewen Street) is a former Member of Parliament fired for merely seeking a fair-trial for her clients, Collins' actions immediately brought unwelcome attention to Judges conflicts of interest generally. With the revelation last week that Justice Wilson's 2007 financial contribution to the multi-million dollar stud farm was 6% less than his equal partner Alan Galbraith QC - combined with the Court's inability to keep the scandal quiet - it now appears certain that the Supreme Court will be forced to recall its earlier finding that Wilson J had no apparent conflict of interest when he overturned a High Court judgment against Mr Galbraith's client that same year. When this occurs, the focus will not solely be on Collins' active cover-up of the Justice's misconduct and his overzealous attempts to officially interject himself in the earlier Supreme Court case. The reversal will underscore the "natural justice dilemma" that the Supreme Court is reversing position when the legal arguments have not changed.

The fear of Judges who have been running their courts like private charities is that the recall will be seen merely as a reaction to public pressure after an attempt by the Court to first sweep the conflict under the rug failed. Any resultant outcry for greater transparency in the Court would then threaten "The Land of the Long White Shroud" - a term lawyers are increasingly using for the New Zealand Courts.

From Collins' perspective, he put all his aspirations in the Wilson basket. He spearheaded the promotion of Bill Wilson from a practicing lawyer when he took office three years ago to the vaunted position of Supreme Court Judge today. This accomplishment was to provide Collins' own stepping stone to the Supreme Court bench one day. While a source of immense pride to Collins, Wilson's rapid advancement caused some consternation among his peers. When Collins attempted to steamroll the revelations of Wilson J's misconduct on the bench, it did not occur to him that such efforts might fail. New Zealand has never had a judge removed from the bench for misconduct. Collins understood clearly that Wilson's indiscretions paled in comparison to past NZ judicial offences which were kept well under the public radar, eventually fading away. Consequently, he could not conceive that his blitzkrieg tactics might invite a flanking maneuver, let alone a successful manouvre.

Though she has fronted pending complaints against David Collins with the Law Society and against Justice Wilson with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Supreme Court, Ms Grey has shunned the public spotlight. This has made her fight the "tree that fell in the forest" as far as public knowledge. For two years the matters have been dealt with in the secret and oppressive way that most Kiwis thought only occurred in places like North Korea. This is unfortunate for two big reasons: the issues her case raises are fundamental ones of constitutional law and, more salaciously, she has been brilliant in methodically exposing that Collins considers himself above virtually every New Zealand law in certain circumstances.

Even if one accepts that it does not irreparably wound a country when its Solicitor General commits criminal offences, it is patently worrisome for that Solicitor General to claim that Crown Law and its employees are not bound by New Zealand statutes ranging from the State Sector Act 1988 to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. Collins even stated "No Crown Law policy or procedure specifically refers to the UN Basic Principles" as justification why his office is not bound by United Nations conventions. It is comments such as this by David Collins that the New Zealand public need to be informed of - but have not been.

Mr Collins' adopted doctrine is spreading through the Crown like a virus. Earlier this year, Ms Grey lost her Department of Conservation dismissal challenge to the Employment Authority after the arbitrator ruled anyone doing work for the Crown must subjugate all other loyalties, that Crown loyalty cuts across all agencies of government and that deviation from this overriding loyalty justifies immediate dismissal. Though initially presented to be impartial, the arbitrator signed on behalf of the Crown (proving he knew how to protect his own job, if nothing else).

Where will this lawlessness and carnage end? Solicitor General David Collins still has the confidence of the Attorney General and the National government. He has shown no signs of contrition or backing down. As far as Justice Bill Wilson, the word is that prominent justices and legal experts such as Sir Geoffrey Palmer are looking at an exit strategy. If it occurs, it will likely entail a rationalisation that continued judgeship which restricts Wilson's private enterprises impedes his ability to secure his personal retirement. This way, it is hoped his departure from the Court will stir public sympathy for the remaining judges who must financially survive on $450,000 per year salary, free lodging and all-expense paid sabbaticals. Back to Front Page

FLOODGATE OPENS ON JUDGE WILLY'S POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

16 January 2008
Judge Tony Willy (left) is in hot water again for chairing a three member commission set up to rule on Trustpower's hydro-generation initiative to divert the Wairau River into five new power plants in the valley without disclosing his personal 4% shareholding in hydro-generation company Ecodyne of Nelson. Willy, a retired District Court Judge living in Blenheim, was appointed by the Marlborough District Council after declaring he had no conflict of interest in deciding the issue. He still insists his substantial personal stake in a potential contractor is not a conflict of interest.

The issue has been well advanced, with Judge Willy's decisions strongly favoring fast-tracking Trustpower's initiative.

Willy, 66, was pressured into early retirement from the District Court after several scandalous cases of judicial misconduct were exposed by the National Business Review in June 2001. These included sentencing a man who had not been notified he had been formally charged and was not present at sentencing, to conduct so egregious in a Tauranga property dispute that a new trial was ordered by the High Court. Numerous lawyers had individually complained about Judge Willy's courtroom conduct.

Save the Wairau River Inc. chairman Hugh Steadman is calling for Willy to step down now that his shareholding in Ecodyne has been revealed. The group privately marvelled at how such a one-sided judgment could have been passed by the Commissioners while largely discounting experts' briefs. Until now it was difficult to assertain the reasons for this. Against this backdrop, revelations of Willy's private financial interests have created significant suspicions.

Company Office records show Willy privately holds 650,000 of the 16,000,0000 outstanding shares in Ecodyne Ltd, and has held these since 1995. Ecodyne was established "to develop environmentally benign forms of power generation" and has an innovative focus on ramjet hydro-generation.

Despite this week's revelations first exposed in the Christchurch Press, Judge Willy has announced his intention to continue with the next phase of the hearings, due to commence on Monday next week. Save the Wairau River Inc. says it has no confidence in the conclusions of Judge Willy's commission as a result but it received legal advice it would have to raise $20,000 to commence legal proceedings and seek a High Court injunction. Despite calling the commission a "judicial farce" it claims the groups' limited financial means are further constrained by the $100,000 it anticipates is required for an eventual appeal to the Environment Court.

According to the group, Judge Willy's finding on TrustPower's initial application was that diversion of sixty percent of the median flow from this braided river - thereby reducing it to a single channel for much of the year - would have a "minor or less than minor" effect on its ecology.

At stake is the survival of one of the very few remaining braided river systems in the world - located as it were in New Zealand's lush wine country. With legal costs mounting, the group is appealing to the New Zealand media to research and publish further detail on this issue. Judge Willy's newfound conflict is chief among the groups' media push. In a 15 January 2008 letter to the media, the group continues:
"(Willy) now claims that the fact that he was the fourth-largest shareholder, with 650,000 shares in Ecodyne Ltd., was of insufficient significance to be worth declaring as a conflict of interest, prior to acceptance of a position to sit in judgment on TrustPower's resource consent application. A Google search on "Ecodyne TrustPower" comes up with at least five hits indicating an indirect commonality of interest between the two companies. At the very least both these companies clearly have or have had an interest in the energy and electricity sectors.

Whether or not Judge Willy stood to make any money out of any possible, past or future relationship between Ecodyne and TrustPower is of course supremely relevant."

And "His interest in Ecodyne is not Judge Willy's only conflict of interest. We are told that, on appointment to his chairmanship of the commission, he assured the MDC official responsible that he had no conflicts of interest. However, after his appointment was secured, he informed a pre-hearing meeting of interested parties that he had a "minor" conflict of interest in that he was married to the owner of a large estate drawing water from the Wairau under the MDC's Southern Valley's irrigation scheme."

Under the Resource Management Act (S.34(7)) the Marlborough District Council has the authority to withdraw the delegation of decision making from the commissioners. This would be an extreme step but one the Council is nonethelss considering in the wake of recent disclosures. RETURN TO FRONT PAGE

JUDGE "GOOGLE SEARCHES" FOR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GUILTY FINDING

21December 2009
Auckland District Court Judge Roderick Joyce QC (pictured) found an Epsom woman guilty of defamation worth $110,000 after admittedly engaging in an independent fact-finding mission during deliberation. High Court Judge Rodney Hansen this month upheld Joyce's decision, claiming Joyce's trolling on the internet for evidence after the hearing was not improper.

In this increasingly technological age, one of the greatest perceived risks to fair trials is that juries will not limit their deliberations to evidence in the courtroom. Judges routinely instruct juries not to engage in activities such as Google searches relevant to the case, warning that a mistrial could result if such instructions are not heeded.

While the Law Commission, and legal community in general, grapple with how to constrain juries from engaging in independent fact finding during trials, Auckland District Court Judge Roderick Joyce has arrogantly admitted to conducting a "google search" during his four month deliberation to support his $57,500 plus costs ($52,000) defamation ruling in Wells v Haden.

In 2006, Wells and his fellow directors in a scam "trust" filed suit against Private Investigator Grace Haden and her company Verisure claiming defamation and rights to the incorporated trust of the same name (Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand) registered by Ms Haden. Wells co-plaintiffs alleged that they together were trustees, but had no trust deed which supported that claim. They soon fell away from the proceedings and are not named because it is presumed they did not know the trust they were on was legal fiction. Wells engaged Brookfields Lawyers, who were successful through pre-trial applications in running up costs against the defendants on the claim the defendants had no defence, and therefore should not be allowed to defend themselves. Wells advanced to a formal proof trial after Judge Mary Beth Sharp debarred Ms Haden's defence for failing to pay the alleged trustees these pre-trial costs awards ahead of trial for Wells. While Ms Haden was denied her statutory truth defence, she took some comfort that her facts were well documented.

Joyce J refused to define the scope of the trial ahead of time. "Trial" proceeded on a statement of claim unsupported by affidavit. In the witness box Wells affirmed his statement of claim was true. This, and an affidavit alleging further publications by Ms Haden and stress of the alleged defamation on his family since commencement of proceedings, was the extent of his evidence.

In a fit of benevolence, Joyce J allowed Ms Haden to cross-examine her accuser. As a former Police prosecutor, she meticulously used documents to impeach Mr Wells' testimony. Wells was forced to concede the trust he operated existed only in his mind for a year or two, and that his failure to properly register did not prevent him from gaining approved supplier of animal services to Waitakere City Council. The Judge would variously refer to this entity as an "organisation" and "unincorporated trust" in his Judgment. Wells simply referred to it as an "oral trust".

As a Labour Party mover and shaker, Wells had been able to write the NZ government legislation which allowed him to funnel money from Council coffers into his "oral" trust. There was also evidence he was seriously conflicted in taking diversion money into an account he personally controlled when acting as a Council officer.

Joyce J was obviously incensed at Ms Haden exposing such a trusted political figure and fellow barrister. His criticism of Ms Haden's conduct was trenchant and unjudicial, a point reluctantly acknowledge by Judge Rodney Hansen on appeal. However, rather than criticize Joyce J, Hansen claimed this less than professional judicial conduct unreasonably underpinned Ms Haden's motivation in appealing. How Hansen knew this is a mystery.

Joyce J had a problem with finding evidence supporting the actual defamation claim, although this was not apparent given his 93-page judgment. The Judge relied extensively on Ms Haden's own affidavit and emails occurring during the proceedings when Wells' lawyers were preventing her defence, threatening bankruptcy and her family was under siege as a result of the claim. While notably not part of the statement of claim, Joyce J did not stop there. In paragraph [314] of his epic judgment Joyce J crossed a clear legal threshold when he admitted to conducting and relying upon his independent Google factual research during deliberation.

In his judgment dismissing her appeal of Joyce's Judgment, Justice Rodney Hansen whitewashed the Joyce's Google search(es) after the hearing. He dismissed the incontrovertible evidence that Joyce J relied upon post-claim affidavits and correspondence to support his judgment. His honour agreed that Joyce J was free to ignore s29-32 of the Defamation Act, specifically accepting Ms Haden's apology was not a mitigating factor because it was expressly given to escape the financial onslaught of the litigation. Hansen J then concluded by stating, "(Joyce's) findings are unassailable as a matter of fact and law."

Last week, Barrister Evgeny Orlov filed an appeal of Hansen J's Judgment to the Court of Appeal. A formal complaint concerning Judge Joyce's trolling of the internet for factual support is the subject of an additional Judicial Conduct Commissioner complaint. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

The Kiwis First forum, the kiwisfirst.co.nz website, pages, content and any Internet mirror thereof are the works of SPARTAN NEWS LIMITED, a New Zealand Registered News Media Company. Copyright Notice & Disclaimer.

©2007 SPARTAN NEWS LIMITED.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln