A Judicial Conduct Panel will inquire into and report on the alleged conduct of acting District Court Judge Ema Aitken, Acting Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith says.
“Judge Aitken’s alleged conduct at the Northern Club on 22 November 2024 was the subject of a preliminary examination by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
“The Commissioner recommended a Panel be set up to inquire into what happened. I have accepted that recommendation.
This is no surprise. It would be almost improper for the Acting AG to substitute his opinion for that of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.
The Panel will have three members. The composition is:
- 1 or 2 judges or former judges
- 0 or 1 lawyer who is not a judge or former judge (depending on if two or one judges are appointed)
- 1 lay person
The Panel has the powers of a commission of inquiry and can inquire into not just the matter referred to it, but other matters concerning the conduct of the Judge that arise.
The Panel has a binary role. It ends either that the conduct justified removal from office, or that it doesn’t. There is no middle ground. It can’t censure or fine, or partially uphold. It is either removal or non-removal.
If the Panel does not recommend removal, the matter ends. If they recommend removal then the Acting Attorney-General has absolute discretion whether or not to remove the Judge.
As Judge Aitken is an Acting District Court judge, the Acting AG can remove her directly via notice to the Governor-General. A more senior judge would require a vote in Parliament before removal.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
7 comments:
Judge Aitken is basically a lower court Judge who is past the mandatory retirement age, but who has been hired on a temporary basis because of the District Court's backlog of work. The recently appointed DEI judges are having trouble keeping up with the work, so they need some of the older judges to stay on to help them.
All this means is that by the time this panel makes their decision, at millions of dollars of taxpayers expense, Judges Aitkins temporary appointment would have expired anyway, and she will be long past the "mandatory" retirement age. So this whole thing is just virtue signalling at taxpayers expense.
If Goldsmith wants to really resolve these problems he should start hiring judges on the basis of their ability and common sense, who will actually follow Parliament's laws, rather than hiring for their gender, race, sexual orientation and their unfailing commitment to woke politics.
I know he is just standing in on this one but have to ask the question as to why everything this guy touches gets subjected to vacillation and delay? eg. MACA s58 sits in limbo ad infinitum. If we moved that slowly the weeds in our garden would be up around our ears.
"A more senior judge would require a vote in Parliament before removal." One could suggest that we need an omnibus action by the coalition to weed out a few activist so and so's, put them out to pasture and appoint some more worthy of their remunerations that we the taxpayers are forking out, simply to be shafted.
Anyway, the profession will close ranks.
Yes - just go.
I expect better behavior from nz judges, but probably not far left judges.
Judge Aitken behaved more than badly towards not just a member of the public but the deputy Prime Minister in Public.
Should she be sacked, yes!
Should she be deregistered, Yes !
Because as a Judge she has to be neutral.
as must all the other Judiciary.
which is another reason her Judgeship has ended and she goes out badly......
To be fair, Just and reasonable.
Post a Comment