Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 4/2017
[2017] NZSC 66

BETWEEN	MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON Applicant
AND	JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER Respondent

Court:	Arnold, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person L Theron and C P A Cross for Respondent
Judgment:	9 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rabson asks the Court to recall its judgment declining him leave to appeal directly against a decision of Dobson J.[1] He submits that Arnold and O’Regan JJ had conflicts of interest which precluded them from dealing with his application and that leave should have been granted because the appeal was a strong one.
[1]Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2017] NZSC 39.
The recall application is misconceived. Mr Rabson has issued proceedings against the members of this Court and has made numerous complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner about the way they have dealt with applications which he has made. The members of the Court against whom these actions have been taken have no alternative but to address his applications. Moreover, as the Court said in its earlier decision, Mr Rabson’s submissions about the alleged strength of his appeal are not directed to the “exceptional circumstances” test which must be met before leave can be granted for a leapfrog appeal.
The application for recall is dismissed. The Registrar is directed not to accept any further applications for recall in relation to this matter from Mr Rabson.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Malcolm Edward Rabson brought an application against the Judicial Conduct Commissioner seeking recall of the Court's judgment that declined him leave to appeal directly against a decision of Dobson J. The Court, comprising Arnold, O'Regan, and Ellen France JJ, considered the application on 9 May 2017. The applicant represented himself in the proceedings while L Theron and C P A Cross appeared for the respondent. Rabson contended that Arnold and O'Regan JJ had conflicts of interest that should have precluded them from handling his application and argued that leave should have been granted because his appeal was strong.

The court considered whether Rabson's application for recall had merit and whether the justices had conflicts of interest that would necessitate their recusal. The court found that Rabson's application was misconceived, as the justices had no choice but to address his applications given his numerous complaints against them. Furthermore, the court noted that Rabson's submissions regarding the strength of his appeal did not address the "exceptional circumstances" test required for a leapfrog appeal. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed not to accept any further applications for recall in relation to this matter from Rabson. Meredith Connell, Wellington, appeared as solicitor for the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established