- News from the Attorney-General –
“I referred the matter of Judge Aitken’s alleged conduct during an incident on 22 November 2024 to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner,” Ms Collins says.
“The Commissioner has recommended a Judicial Conduct Panel be set up to inquire into what happened. However, because of my role in making the referral, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith will act as Attorney-General on this matter, to avoid any perception of conflict of interest, bias or pre-determination on my part in the decision yet to be made.
“Mr Goldsmith will therefore now consider the Commissioner’s recommendation.
“No further comment will be made.”
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
“The Commissioner has recommended a Judicial Conduct Panel be set up to inquire into what happened. However, because of my role in making the referral, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith will act as Attorney-General on this matter, to avoid any perception of conflict of interest, bias or pre-determination on my part in the decision yet to be made.
“Mr Goldsmith will therefore now consider the Commissioner’s recommendation.
“No further comment will be made.”
Earlier report (Inquiry begins into judge’s conduct at Northern Club) HERE.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
5 comments:
Judge Aitken and others were /was ostensibly drunk and disorderly however the Supreme Court Judges have been sober and dispicable in their self righteous decisions to discard NZ sovereignty and replace NZ law with "judge alone vernacular", disgracefully suggesting that tikanga is lawful. It is nothing other than religious , spiritual ,racist disinformation aimed to dismantle NZ.
: )
What? New Zealand continues to lower the bar in what can only be described as Judith Collins low key resignation from the Attorney General role.
Now, in light of the JCC having private pressure for only the second time since their “creation” (a role created for solicitors to pretend any judges conduct is regulated in New Zealand with not one judge ever removed from office) the Attorney General Judith Collins has announced her role can be “swapped” like musical chairs so ANY MP (or selection of Judith Collins ) May “act” or “play the part of” the Attorney General?
We suppose this means Paul Goldsmith is now empowered to formally remove Judge Aitkins on the grounds of gross misconduct placing the reputation of justice into disrepute!
And while he assumes this honour of “Attorney General” bestowed upon him by Judith Collins (under what lawful grounds remains unclear) he has the responsibility to regulate ALL judges in New Zealand and notify parliament of all inconsistent practice.
Christopher Luxon how is it, after your “cabinet shake up” Judith Collins with a clear conflict of interest as a KC (awarded silks by NZLS only AFTER securing the role of “Attorney General”) retained that portfolio?
NZ Lawyer with the minister for justice now also be awarded silks as a show of “solidarity” into the “judicial institution” to keep secrets under some “separation of powers for “comity” 🎭 preventing New Zealand Parliament regulating judicial dictators undermining the government (and the laws they democratically make)?
Winston Peters
New Zealand National Party This should be taken as Judith Collins resignation as Attorney General.
United Nations Human Rights
Mark Dreyfus enact the transtasman act and part 6 of the constitution of the commonwealth (NZ still hasn’t written one so remain “bound” under part 6 of yours!)
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office this is unignorable!
What? New Zealand continues to lower the bar in what can only be described as Judith Collins low key resignation from the Attorney General role.
Now, in light of the JCC having private pressure for only the second time since their “creation” (a role created for solicitors to pretend any judges conduct is regulated in New Zealand with not one judge ever removed from office) the Attorney General Judith Collins has announced her role can be “swapped” like musical chairs so ANY MP (or selection of Judith Collins ) May “act” or “play the part of” the Attorney General?
We suppose this means Paul Goldsmith is now empowered to formally remove Judge Aitkins on the grounds of gross misconduct placing the reputation of justice into disrepute!
And while he assumes this honour of “Attorney General” bestowed upon him by Judith Collins (under what lawful grounds remains unclear) he has the responsibility to regulate ALL judges in New Zealand and notify parliament of all inconsistent practice.
Christopher Luxon how is it, after your “cabinet shake up” Judith Collins with a clear conflict of interest as a KC (awarded silks by NZLS only AFTER securing the role of “Attorney General”) retained that portfolio?
NZ Lawyer with the minister for justice now also be awarded silks as a show of “solidarity” into the “judicial institution” to keep secrets under some “separation of powers for “comity” 🎭 preventing New Zealand Parliament regulating judicial dictators undermining the government (and the laws they democratically make)?
Winston Peters
New Zealand National Party This should be taken as Judith Collins resignation as Attorney General.
United Nations Human Rights
Mark Dreyfus enact the transtasman act and part 6 of the constitution of the commonwealth (NZ still hasn’t written one so remain “bound” under part 6 of yours!)
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office this is unignorable!
Judge Aitken has acknowledged her guilt by her apology. Her actions on the day (from all reports) were completely unbecoming, and as a Judge, they're totally reprehensible. If she had an ounce of decency, she would resign and accept retirement without further ado. To put the hapless taxpayer through more expense, in having a conduct panel review, is just a waste of time and resources, adding insult to injury and only further cementing she has no decency and certainly shouldn't be sitting (on a very well padded bench) in the judgement of others. Either way, she needs to be gone. It's now whether or not she has the intellect and decency to accept this fact, or go down trying to defend the indefensible. What a disgrace, and how disgusting if it needs go to a panel review. If it's a case of the latter, I hope there's costs against her, but what's the likelihood of that?
Post a Comment