O'Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2025] NZHC 319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-60

[2025] NZHC 319

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER

Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Appearances:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	27 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1]                 This decision relates to the second of two sets of proceedings the applicant filed in the Wellington High Court on 28 January 2025.1 This proceeding has also been referred to me as duty Judge for consideration under HCR 5.35A.

[2]                 For several years Mr O’Neill has been a prolific litigant at all levels of the judicial system. A brief history of his activities is set out in the decision of La Hood J in O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner.2

[3]                 A number of Courts have struck out pleadings filed by Mr O’Neill on the basis they are an abuse of the process of the Court. Frequent targets of Mr O’Neill are the

1      The other proceeding was O’Neill v MacPherson [2025] NZHC 306 which, on 26 February 2025 I struck out under High Court Rule (HCR) 5.35B.

2      O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner [2024] NZHC 1523 at [6]–[11].

O’NEILL v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2025] NZHC 319 [27 February 2025]

Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Judges, the Privacy Commissioner or the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

[4]                 In striking out one of Mr O’Neill’s proceedings on 30 May 2022, Cooke J stated:3 “…Mr O’Neill’s proceedings can generally be described as a persistent and repetitive attack upon the judicial system, usually in abusive terms.”

[5]                 La Hood J described the pleading in O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner4 as having been drafted “…in what appears to be Mr O’Neill’s standard intemperate and vitriolic style.” He also noted in that case5 “The claim as presently pleaded contains improper allegations of criminal or corrupt conduct and does not coherently set out the basis for the claim.”

[6]                 The various observations of the Judges set out above, are apt in relation to these proceedings. The statement of claim is extremely brief. The operative part describing the nature of the claim reads:

Request for judicial ruling re the validity and legal correctness of various decisions and actions of the respondents which [affect] my access to justice.

Beyond that no particulars of the “various decisions and actions of the respondents” are pleaded.

[7]                 Under the heading “Relief/remedy sought” the first two items are expressed as questions:

A)     Did justice ensue via a process correct?

B)     Was justice denied by a process incorrect?

3      O’Neill v Ritchie [2022] NZHC 1225 at [6].

4      O’Neill v Privacy Commissioner above n 2 [2024] NZHC 1523 at [13].

5 At [15].

[8]The third pleading in respect of relief was:

C)     Acknowledgement that the respondents act in their own interest I.E. pervert justice for favour in return. Pervert justice in cases in which they are respondent.

[9]The fourth item of relief sought is:

D)     Acknowledgment that the respondents have full knowledge of judicial corruption including the mounting of six (6) coup de tats [sic] by the three superior courts of New Zealand, against a willing Government, to hide their own corruption using the existence of a pandemic for such purposes.

[10]The final relief sought is:

E)     Justice. Natural justice.

[11]              The content of rr 5.35A and 5.35B HCR will be well known to Mr O’Neill. They are set out succinctly by La Hood J in [1] — [5] of his judgment of 18 June 2024.6

[12]              I accept that the power conferred by r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases.

[13]              In the present case these proceedings are yet another example of the many cases that Mr O’Neill has had stuck out over the years.

[14]              The statement of claim contains improper allegations of corruption and the perversion of justice without providing details or coherently setting out the basis of the claims. It is not possible to discern a valid cause of action. It would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond, and right-thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant’s statement of claim to be regarded as a proper document.7

Outcome

[15]These proceedings are struck out pursuant to r 5.35B(2) of the HCR.

6      Above n 2 at [1]–[6].

7      See Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6].

[16]I advise Mr O’Neill of his right to appeal in accordance with r 5.35B(3).

Churchman J