Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

In Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the High Court of New Zealand was asked to consider Mr Rabson’s application for judicial review of the JCC’s decision not to consider the merits of his complaint. Mr Rabson alleged that the Supreme Court judges had conspired to convene secretly to exempt themselves from laws passed by the New Zealand legislature, and that this was a violation of their oaths of office to maintain the rule of law. The JCC considered Mr Rabson’s complaint and determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint because it was caught by s 8(2) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. This section precludes the JCC from assessing questions that go to the legality or correctness of a judicial decision.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the claim for judicial review disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and whether it was an abuse of the Court’s process. The court found that the claim for judicial review did not disclose any reasonable cause of action as it was untenable and could not succeed. The court also found that the claim was an abuse of process as Mr Rabson’s persistent attempts to challenge the JCC’s decisions amounted to a collateral attack on judgments of the Supreme Court. The court therefore granted the JCC’s application for orders striking out Mr Rabson’s judicial review and for an order that he not be required to file a statement of defence pending determination of the strike out application. The court also ordered Mr Rabson to pay the JCC’s costs on an indemnity basis.