Source: Radio New Zealand
District Court Judge Ema Aitken at the Judicial Conduct Panel on Monday. Finn Blackwell / RNZ
A lawyer has told a Judicial Conduct Panel removing a judge is done to protect the judiciary, as the inquiry into acusations a District Court Judge disrupted a New Zealand First event begins.
Judge Ema Aitken was appearing before a Judicial Conduct Panel in Auckland on Monday, accused of disrupting a function at Auckland’s exclusive Northern Club in 2024.
She was accused of shouting that NZ First leader Winston Peters was lying.
Judge Aitken said she didn’t shout, didn’t recognise Peters’ voice when she responded to remarks she overheard and didn’t know it was a political event.
Presenting the allegations of misconduct to the panel, Special Counsel Tim Stephens KC said the panel was responsible for reporting on the Judge’s conduct, finding the facts, and ultimately recommending if the Judge should be removed.
Special counsel Tim Stephens KC (left) and Jonathan Orpin-Dowell (right). Finn Blackwell / RNZ
He noted it would not be up to the panel to remove the Judge.
“Whether to remove the Judge is a decision for the acting Attorney General and not the panel,” Stephens said.
“But the attorney is only able to remove the judge if the panel concludes that consideration of removal is justified in the panel’s opinion.”
Stephens said the removal of a judge was not a disciplinary matter.
“It’s not a punitive or disciplinary measure,” he said.
“Rather, its function is protective, it protects public confidence in the judicial system, it protects the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.”
It came down to a matter of fitness for office, Stephens said.
The Judicial Conduct Panel, (right to left) Hon Jillian Mallon, Hon Brendan Brown KC and Sir Jerry Mateparae. Finn Blackwell / RNZ
He spoke about the legislative history and grounds that formed the basis for considering removal of a judge, including existing legislation from Australia.
“My overall submission in terms of the law is that the panel may form the opinion that consideration of removal is justified,” Stephens said.
“If that’s met, the panel may form that opinion, if the attorney, acting lawfully and in accordance with the purposes of the Act, could conclude that removal was an available outcome.”
Late on Monday, the panel heard argument from Judge Aitken’s lawyer David Jones KC, who took issue with what he described as undisclosed evidence, which took the panel through to the end of the day’s hearing.
“The conduct to date has shown that as far as the end result is concerned, and if that’s a brief of evidence, so be it, there could be other material that qualifies that evidence,” he said.
“And that is something that needs to be disclosed in the interests of a fair hearing and natural justice for someone who is fighting for their judicial career.”
The panel and counsel were expected to visit the Northern Club as part of a site visit on Tuesday.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
