Justice Bill Wilson...

Supreme court justice Bill Wilson challenging the legality of the inquiry into his conduct over non-disclosure of debts over a quarter of a million dollars to a lawyer on a case he sat on.

For someone trying to disprove alleged poor judgement in his job it seems ironically poor judgement in itself to challenge the inquiry into it. Anyone with integrity should welcome such an inquiry - since they know they're in the right. This aside, the entire perception of integrity of the judiciary is more important than any individual's.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10648835

sack his ass

he has brought the court into disrepute, reason enough to sack him

this is an appalling case of someone preferring their own private, selfish interests over the public interest and the public good

he obviously doesn't care if NZ's highest court becomes a laughing stock - nationally and internationally

in which case he doesn't deserve to be there

he needs to go - now

Where is your sense of justice and due process jh? surely everyone deserves the right to fight something all the way through the court system?

I agree. That's why he should be inviting it eagerly and not trying to prevent it. As I said at the top, the mere attempt to stop it happening affects the perception of integrity.

I appreciate your humour

for the record, I don't believe judges should have the right to uttilise the court process in this way

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10663907

Later, Dr Farmer says he would be loyal to friends above concerns about the integrity of the system.

"While I have no brief for Bill, I do regard Sian as a close friend and I will always put friendship and loyalty above concerns about the 'system' which has its own processes for looking after itself."

He writes in the same email: "I am not very happy ... that you have told Sian that Colin [Carruthers, QC], Alan and I all think that Bill should resign even though that is the fact."

Saw that earlier. Astonishing huh!

I notice the Herald put the entire set of emails online... 10mb of them. HeraldLeaks or what?

if you didn't already and you haven't read them and think you may want to you better d/l 'em soon 'cos the heat's on the herald to take 'em down after facing down a full panel of high court judges over the matter

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/SKMBT_C35310080518520.pdf

that's the link there

Judge's challenge to panel succeeds

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10676820

So he's resigned on one year's salary and emtitlements. Solicitor-client costs of $410,000 alao to be met by taxpayer.

$475,000 I mean. Salary $410,000 plus benefits. Taxable.

The thing that stinks about this is they'd rarely let someone off a court case simply because the cost of doing so outweighed the potential benefits of a positive outcome.

This has effectively left him with the ability to claim forever that he acted properly at every step despite the best legal minds saying otherwise. It also says: quit before facing up to the accusations and you can walk away with close to a million dollars - and we'll pay all your costs too. (his year's salary plus entitlements would be many hundreds of thousands more than the $475k quoted).

It's ironic considering the sort of job he had - holding people to account for their actions - that he'd be the first person on the I know nothing train. Worse yet, the way this being painted by the bosses is a win for the confidence of the judiciary. WTF?

I disagree.

Plenty of unlawful acts don't result in a conviction because the cost outweighs the result.

His reputation is ruined so he hasnt walked away scot free.

If things werent proven then he is entitled to his costs and it is very common for people in high positions to get a handshake in return for falling on their sword or staying mum. The costs were disclosed as far as I am aware.

He was employed to stick to the letter of the law which he very cleverly did as do many many hundreds of other people who get reduced culpability or even off scot free because of some very minor point of law or mistake in process.

Of course it is being talked up for PR but assuming they couldnt prove anything easily (or there was a risk) having him out of the judiciary IS a win. Dealing with it quickly and without risk of further embarrassment is expedient and pragmatic. Lawyers can tie up cases for years, imagine how a long a judge can go for.

This is how the law operates...

How is his reputation ruined? He can rightly say he left of his own accord because they made his life hell. And then join the speaking circuit talking about law-related shizzle or possibly even being re-employed by them in another capacity.

This could be seen as nothing more than the legal community doing what is best for them - not what creates the most trustworthy climate as normal NZers have a fair claim to expect in every instance they are affected by or involved with the judiciary.

So you think they should have invented some laws to punish him by? The existing ones didnt seem to work.

Public confidence in the impartiality of judges is vital. In a country the size of New Zealand, it is hard for lawyers to avoid business relationships that raise potential conflicts of interest. When some of the best accept positions on the Bench they surrender a good deal of the income they could earn in private practice. It is asking a lot that they should surrender investment opportunities too.

Yet the pitfalls for them that this case has exposed should cause the judiciary to consider whether they should adopt something such as the blind trust arrangement that political leaders use during their period of sensitive public service.

At the same time, the public should not be too quick to condemn. Good judges are a scarce commodity. A sideline investment probably pales beside their professionalism, their respect for their position and the judgment of their peers.

"Perceived" conflicts of interest are hard to avoid. This case sets a precedent demanding extreme care.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10682521

But astonishing easy for basically everyone in the legal community other than him to work out that the perception of a conflict of relationship existed ad that's all that mattered - not whether one actually existed (which it did).

No, it's about appropriately disclosing it - which others do and is no skin of anyone's nose when it happens - the system is set up to make it so.

But judges who understand their place and obligations in this regard are the vast majority (even all lawyers know it if they are competent). Being a judge comes with certain responsibilities which are easily understood in this regard. The only issue here is him/his lawyer debating the wording/scope by which the JCC was instigated. It was abandoned because of the cost of working through the whole process - not because it was doomed to fail. Far from it according to former judges who have commented on it in the media as well as experts. Outside of his own lawyer you'd struggle to find someone siding with him on the disclosure point.

For sure... that's why the long-held, universally understood system of dealing with them exists. If A judge doesn't 'get' the jist of it then, frankly, it should be questioned whether they are fit for the role.

If you didn't already these Deborah Coddington pieces in Sun Herald worth reading Rob.

MPs add new timebomb to list
of issues to ignore.

www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10682598

Justice Bill Wilson shocked
the legal fraternity this week
by resigning from the
Supreme Court. Until now, he
has refused to respond
publicly to allegations of bias. Today he speaks
exclusively to Deborah
Coddington.

www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10682673

The indirect indebtedness rulimg of Saxmere Two makes for interesting interpretations by the looks of. Who will be caught out by that one wonders.