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.




2 August 2012
The absence of an independent bar or arm's length appellate courts in New Zealand allow the Supreme Court to increasingly make it up as it goes.  SEE THE LATEST CASE WHICH HAS SURFACED



31 July 2012
The New Zealand Supreme Court has added a further element of unpredictability with the appointment of Susan Glazebrook by Attorney General Chris Finlayson.  Glazebrook was one of the more emotional and erratic Court of Appeal judges but was also seen generally to be one of the more respectful of human rights.

High Court Justice Christine French was appointed to the Court of Appeal to fill the slot.



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



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



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





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

McGRATH, John Joseph



Professional Data         2010 Judge Survey Score (1-10)  Ranking (out of 60)

Postion & Titles: QC,      Formerly Solicitor General
Judge of: Supreme Court, since 2005  Court of Appeal from
Specializations and Professional Interests:  Justice McGrath is a keen accumulator of gossip, probably as a result of his political roles.
Professional Comments:

     John McGrath J appointed himself to the Court of Appeal bench from his political appointment of NZ Solicitor General, with the quiet approval the Attorney General at the time. 
     McGrath J is smart, legally skilled and conservative on law and order issues.  Justice McGrath has no reluctance to choose 'order' over 'law' where he sees a conflict between the two.  He has more troublingly shown a willingness to contravene law to maintain order and protect fellow judges who commit offences (specifics below).  Politically manipulative and stauch protector of the status quo.  As a Jurist, McGrath J has not shown much regard for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  McGrath J considers rights must often take a back seat in a civil and orderly society, and has consistently demonstrated this in his rulings.  In specific cases:  
     In Brooker v Police [2007] NZSC 30, McGrath J dissented from the majority to opine his view that Mr Brooker's conviction for disorderly conduct should be upheld as a result of Mr Brooker's quiet and peaceful protest against a Gore Police Constable on a residential street. 
      In SC26/2007 [2007] NZSC 53, McGrath joined with Tipping J to rule it was legally acceptable to send a man to prison on hearsay evidence, and the presiding judge to prevent cross-examination of the hearsay witness, so long as the prosecution for imprisonment originated as an interlocutory application or a civil action.   The same day Mc Grath and Tipping's ruling was made public, Potter J of the Auckland High Court relied upon this Supreme Court ruling to sentence Auckland man Vince Siemer to prison for six weeks.  Within a year, the current Solicitor General initiated several actions against various parties - including the ill-fated  Tuhoe Terrorist debacle - by relying in part on this Supreme Court precedent.
    In  SC 62/2008 [2008] NZSC 98, Justices McGrath, Tipping and Blanchard ruled that Rule 12 of the High Court Amendment Rules 2004 - which abolished the long-standing requirement that parties to litigation provide identification of their discovery documents - was not a risk to justice or a matter of public or general importance.  Their ruling sanctioned the practice of list affidavits having no more than a list of numbers, effectively legalising discovery evasion in civil cases.
    In SC 38/2009 [2009] NZSC 58, Justice McGrath joined Tipping and Blanchard again to deny trial by jury to an accused facing 7 years on a fraud charge.  The Justices rejected the statutory guarantees to jury under both the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Crimes Act 1961 by asserting their right to discretion in contravening statute under s 361D of the Crimes Act, as well as a diversion by stating "the proposed grounds of appeal are quite hopeless. First of all, it is an impossible argument that a fair trial requires a trial by jury."   Counsel did not rely on this subjective argument but raised it merely in the context of why trial by jury had such historical significance.  
   The accused was subsequently found guilty by District Court Judge Epati and sentenced to 5 years. The ruling was overturned on appeal, with Judge Epati taking an indefinite leave of absence under a cloud of corruption and suspicion. Another judge-alone trial is set for late 2011.
   In SC120/2009 Attorney General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, Justice McGrath joined with Young and Gault JJ in the majority judgment which ruled the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and International Conventions are not enforceable, and no similar statutory remedies are lawful, against acts done by judicial officers. Elias CJ and Anderson J dissented.
     None of this is surprising.  Justice McGrath, when Solicitor General, proved masterful in concealing judicial corruption and criminal conduct in New Zealand.  One of the most notorious cases is of former District Court Judge Michael Lance QC, who jumped jurisdictions to preside over the prosecution of his son Simon's legal partner for perverting the course of justice in the 1990's.  In the judge alone trial, Judge Lance acquitted the accused despite audio phone recordings of the lawyer attempting to blackmail the lead investigator in a drug distribution case.  When the police found out about the judge's untoward and undisclosed relationship, McGrath refused Police requests to prosecute the judge, claiming it was not in the public interest.  McGrath then sealed the prosecution file.  Judge Lance went on to wreak havoc in a number of cases and, in 2010, was himself acquitted of criminal wilful damage (in a judge alone trial) after repeated complaints of the Judge "keying" cars which parked in front of his Brown's Bay condominium.

    In August 2012, Justice John McGrath wrote submissions on behalf of the entire New Zealand judiciary, lobbying Parliament to not pass the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill which would require judges to maintain a register of their financial interests - to guard against conflicts of interest.  Justice McGrath argued the Bill was unnecessary, stating no evidence exists of judicial corruption and, therefore, " prevention of corruption provides no justification for the establishment of a register of judges' pecuniary interests in New Zealand."


Background / Education: Graduated LLM from Victoria University of Wellington in 1968. He was as a partner in Buddle Findlay, in Wellington, until he moved to the separate bar in 1984. He became Queen's Counsel in 1987 and he was Solicitor-General between 1989 and 2000. Justice McGrath was appointed to the Court of Appeal in July 2000 and to the Supreme Court in May 2005.
Degrees: LLM Victoria, 1968
Admitted to the Bar: 1968
Company Involvements:



Personal Data


Wellington, New Zealand

Sex: Male
Married: 1969
Christine Ann Swallow
Children:  2 ( Lucy Caroline b.1972, Thomas James b.1974)
Interesting Relationships and Coincidences:






21 March 2009
How out of touch are New Zealand Judges?  Consider the contrasting cases of the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre tragedy resulting in the deaths of 7 people against three recent cases of whistle-blowing by conscientious New Zealand citizens.
Yesterday, an Auckland District Court Judge ordered the OPC to pay $480,000 after one of its teachers and six of its students were killed a year ago during an outing in Managtapopo Gorge.  They were caught in a flash flood after OPC officials ignored forecasts of thunderstorms that day.  The warning had broadcast by the Metservice four times that day.  This fine amounted to reparations of $60,000 to each of the deceased's families and $5,000 to each of the four survivors.
In contrast, Auckland Private Investigator Grace Haden was assessed $128,000 in award and costs by the same Auckland District Court for 'defamation' late last year after evidentially exposing Waitakere official and Labour party member Neil Wells was operating a fictional trust charity for personal gain and siphoning public funds away from Waitakere City Council in a classic conflict of interest.  Ms Haden is a former Police Prosecutor and member of the Certified Fraud Examiners Association.  She knows how to compile a tight brief.  In this case she went one step further by registering - in her name - Well's fictional trust name with the Companies Office, thereby proving Wells was operating an illegal trust.  Consequently, Judge John Joyce simply ignored the irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing by his fellow barrister Neil Wells.  Instead, the Judge wrote a lengthy judgment where he admitted trolling for evidence in support of Mr Wells on the internet after the trial.  For readers who do not understand the significance of this, all juries are instructed that engaging in such 'independent fact finding' would be cause for a mistrial.  Judge Joyce's decision is now under appeal, although Auckland High Court Judge Raynor Asher has recently ruled that much of the evidence of Mr Wells' unlawful activity will be barred from the appeal.
Equally frightening is the $62,000 awarded against Horowhenua District Councilor Anne Hunt by Wellington High Court Judge John Wild in May 2006, after she wrote a book about a doctor who was charged and acquitted for sexually molesting a patient.  Unbeknownst to Ms Hunt, the doctor had obtained a blanket suppression order from the Court which prevented the mere mentioning of the parties or that a financial settlement had been reached.  Current Solicitor General David Collins was the lawyer for both the patient and Ms Hunt, which is how she came about being approached by Collins to write the book. 
As lawyer for the patient, David Collins was fully aware of the suppression order.  He knowingly breached it by soliciting Ms Hunt to write a book on the subject.  After the doctor sued Ms Hunt, David Collins (by then New Zealand Solicitor General) tried to cover up his contempt of the Court order by filing a brief to the Court where he claimed not to have asked Ms Hunt to write the book or legally vet her manuscript, both as Ms Hunt had claimed.  When Ms Hunt produced the finished draft of the book with extensive handwritten notations by Mr Collins on it, Collins' deception was laid bare.  The Judge responded by hammering her with the contempt finding and ordered her books destroyed.  Little-known outside the tight sphere of Judges was the fact that Collins had intervened to quash public exposure of misconduct by several New Zealand Judges in his short tenure.  Only when Wellington lawyer Steven Price took the matter to the Court of Appeal - and took Collins out of the picture - did the Court of Appeal reverse the finding by euphemistically stating Justice Wild was "inadvertently drawn into error".
Over the Christmas holidays, another powerful court benefactor with shady business dealings obtained the highest defamation award in New Zealand history against kiwisfirst editor Vince Siemer.  Michael Stiassny was awarded $920,000 against Mr Siemer - twice as much as the death of 7 people garnered in the OPC case.  This verdict came after Mr Siemer was barred from defending himself and after his statement of defence was expunged on intervention by two Auckland High Court judges.   Nonetheless, the evidence of truth seemed clear.  The publications which Stiassny claimed were defamatory were firmly supported by documents in both his own hand and that of his former lawyer Robert Fardell QC.  As is increasingly customary in such cases, Judge Mark Cooper simply ignored this damming and incontrovertible evidence.  He called Stiassny into a private court session, where Mr Stiassny took the witness stand only to answer his lawyer's questions.  The Judge refused to allow cross-examination and asked no questions of Mr Stiassny himself.  Even though the hard evidence proved Stiassny could not possibly be telling the truth, Cooper J was fully aware that at least three of Staissny's former lawyers now share the cloistered judicial halls with him at the Auckland High Court.  This includes Justice Patricia Courtney, who was actively involved in the cover-up of Mr Stiassny's business and accounting deceptions prior to her judicial appointment in 2006.
Why do New Zealand Judges, as a group, protect white collar criminals while imposing huge penalties on whistle-blowers?  The answer can be found in the Judges own backgrounds.  Secrecy and closet skeletons have been the hallmark for the Solicitor General's appointment of Judges over the last eleven years.  And though a lack of diversity on the bench is a serious problem which warranted formal identification and calls for remedial action by the past two Solicitors General, each of these men (Current Supreme Court Judge John McGrath and Court of Appeal Judge Terrence Arnold) appointed themselves to the Court of Appeal.  The reality is that Judges are not picked on merit but, rather, on their personal associations (how else does one explain how three of Stiassny's former lawyers now sit on the same Court or how John McGrath could now sit on the highest Court in the Country).  The real fear of these parochial judges, all of whom attend the same parties and beach houses, is that if the Court condones whistle-blowing, the inevitable result is that many of their own will be shown to "have no clothes".  When no less than the President of the Court of Appeal, Willy Young, was exposed for misusing his position in the Serious Fraud Office to protect his cousin from criminal prosecution, this is an extremely legitimate fear.  But it is a fear that all of society is paying dearly for. #  RETURN 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.