Judge's choice: Resign or face investigation

Cabinet minister Judith Collins will make the decision to appoint an independent panel with powers of a commission of inquiry to investigate Bill Wilson. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Supreme Court judge Bill Wilson has effectively been given a few days in which to decide to resign before an independent panel is appointed to investigate his conduct.

In a report released yesterday, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, recommended to the Attorney-General that a Judicial Conduct Panel be appointed to investigate the judge's conduct regarding disclosure of his business relationship with a lawyer.

Justice Wilson said he intended "to speak with the Chief Justice early next week and until then would make no statement".

Cabinet minister Judith Collins has not immediately decided to appoint a Judicial Conduct Panel.

She said in a statement, "There are a number of aspects of the report which need to be carefully considered. I will announce my response to the report in due course".

Ms Collins is standing in as Attorney-General for Chris Finlayson who has recused himself. Mr Finlayson and Justice Wilson were partners together at Bell Gully during the 1990s.

The appointment of a panel, which has the same powers as a commission of inquiry, would be unprecedented. If it goes ahead, senior members of the judiciary could be required to testify.

Sir David's 29-page report arises from three complaints questioning Justice Wilson's disclosures about his business relationship with Alan Galbraith, QC. The judge owed the lawyer a six-figure sum at the time he appeared in a case before him.

"It is hard to see how a preliminary examination can take these issues further," Sir David said.

"On further inquiry ... a Judicial Conduct Panel may well form a view which is favourable to the judge, but a different view is possible."

One of the complainants, former Court of Appeal judge Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas, said in an 18-page complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner that what occurred had been a serious breach of judicial ethics.

Auckland University associate law professor Bill Hodge said recommending that a panel investigate was the only viable option.

"The standard [to recommend an investigation] is not a high standard. It is not that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner needs to find a criminal standard or even a civil standard. It is a relatively low prima facie case. It seems to me the ... test has well and truly been met."

The problem had been "a serial drip-feed disclosure, as opposed to fronting up early on. That's where he has got into trouble because reflecting back, it makes the earlier disclosures appear to be deceptive and misleading".

The complaints arise from Justice Wilson's failure to promptly reveal he was substantially in debt to Mr Galbraith at a time when he served as one of three Court of Appeal judges who, in 2007, overturned a High Court ruling which would have awarded wool growers group Saxmere repayment of up to $8 million in levies from the former Wool Board.

Justice Wilson had contributed $242,000 less than Mr Galbraith to their company, Rich Hill Ltd, and the lawyer had guaranteed the judge's personal bank borrowing of $360,000.