Maori hit back at Wilson's review call

By RUTH BERRY

The Government has been accused of undermining the judiciary after Attorney-General Margaret Wilson applied to review a judge's foreshore decision because of possible bias.

Judicial reviews are not uncommon, but it is rare for the Attorney- General to accuse a judge of making a biased decision.

In March, Judge Caren Wickliffe rejected Crown objections and approved applications by 17 groups to have their East Coast foreshore and seabed claims heard by the Maori Land Court.

The move angered the Government, which was drafting legislation to prevent such groups realising claims to freehold title to the foreshore and seabed.

It created the remote possibility the court could try to award titles before the legislation was passed.

Because she was of Ngati Porou and Rongowhakaata descent - iwi whose claims were involved - Judge Wickliffe recused or disqualified herself from hearing the case.

Before the judicial conference she had invited comment from those involved on whether she should recuse herself.

The Crown argued Judge Wickliffe should not rule on the applications or preside over the hearing because she was a beneficiary of Te Runanga o Ngati Porou, one of the claimants.

But Judge Wickliffe decided to rule on the applications.

Prime Minister Helen Clark and Ms Wilson, believing the decision to allow the hearings would further complicate their foreshore nightmare, publicly questioned whether Judge Wickliffe had displayed bias.

Judge Wickliffe hit back in a written judgment on her decision, saying the proper course for the Crown or other interested parties to take if they were unhappy with a decision was a review or an appeal.

Ms Wilson subsequently filed for judicial review, claiming the judge had a "direct interest in the outcome of the application", there was a "real danger" of bias and she had erred by not recusing herself.

The review has stalled the hearing of the claims, but Ms Wilson wants Judge Wickliffe's initial decision overturned.

In Parliament yesterday, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia asked whether Ms Wilson had been motivated by "pique rather than by principle and has she seriously considered her motives in bringing this case forward?"

Later she suggested the Government's desire to prevent the claims being heard was the reason behind the review.

"What would be fascinating to note is how many cases Judge Wickliffe presided over in Tairawhiti [East Coast] which were connected to Ngati Porou and how many times perceptions of bias have been raised in these previous instances.

"Or is it more to do with the substance of this case?"

Mrs Turia also accused the Government of "significantly undermining" the role of Maori judges.

"Given the sophisticated and complex networks of whakapapa we possess as tangata whenua, it would seem that there will be very few Maori judges who are able to hear a case."

Justice Minister Phil Goff, answering for Ms Wilson, denied the claims.

"The Attorney-General is motivated by principle," he said.

The principle in this case was "that Judge Wickliffe was both judge and claimant, which meant she was acting as judge in her own cause".

National justice spokesman Richard Worth asked why Ms Wilson had allowed a situation of "unprecedented tension and conflict to arise between the Government and the judiciary?"