Neil Sands
A Judicial Conduct Panel has set aside a full two weeks in February for its hearing into whether District Court Judge Ema Aitken’s conduct at the Northern Club warrants her removal from the bench.
The panel, led by retired Court of Appeal Judge Brendan Brown KC, released a minute setting out an agreed timetable for dealing with the allegations against Aitken, which it has previously said will result in a recommendation about the judge’s future being made by Easter next year.
No judge has ever been removed from the bench as a result of a JCC panel investigation.
Aitken is accused of disrupting a New Zealand First function involving the-then Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters at Auckland’s exclusive Northern Club last November, loudly accusing him of lying and trying to barge her way into the event.
Aitken concedes there was an exchange of views with some attendees at the function but rejects claims that her conduct was threatening or aggressive.
The next step in the panel process will be when special counsel Tim Stephens KC files a brief of evidence, due by October 24.
That will be followed by various filings from both sides, culminating in the panel’s substantive hearing in Auckland from February 9-13 and 16-20.
The three-person panel, which also includes former Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae and Justice Jillian Mallon of the Court of Appeal, will then aim to provide a recommendation to Acting Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith by Easter, which falls in early April next year.
Goldsmith is acting Attorney-General in the matter because Attorney-General Judith Collins KC was one of the original complainants to the JCC and stepped aside as minister responsible to avoid any perception of bias.
‘Issues of comity’
Details of the alleged fracas were aired in the High Court in March, when Aitken unsuccessfully challenged the decision to appoint a panel to investigate her conduct.
In that hearing, Stephens, as counsel assisting, outlined the complaints made to the JCC.
“The judge interrupted a NZ First function and loudly accused the Deputy Prime Minister of lying in a speech that he was giving,” he said. “She persisted in shouting and making a scene while attempting to enter the function.
“On being asked to leave, the judge called on her judicial office, apparently to bolster her position that the Deputy Prime Minister was lying, and she implied that other judges would agree with her position.”
In submissions to the court, counsel assisting said the complainant believed Aitken’s remark about a roomful of judges agreeing with her “was made in a threatening and aggressive manner”.
The submission said the complainant indicated there was NZ First signage outside the function, which would make it a clearly marked political event.
Stephens said that, if proved, Aitken’s conduct raised issues of her independence and of comity between the judiciary and executive which would warrant consideration of her removal from the bench.
0 Comments