Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner - [2012] NZHC 1481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-0646 [2012] NZHC 1481

BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER First Defendant

ANDSIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS Second Defendant

ANDPETER BLANCHARD Third Defendant

ANDJOHN MCGRATH Fourth Defendant

ANDWILLIAM YOUNG Fifth Defendant

ANDANDREW TIPPING Sixth Defendant

Hearing: 20 June 2012

Appearances: Plaintiff in Person
DJ Goddard QC and NK Caldwell for First Defendant
No appearance for Second to Sixth Defendants (abiding the decision of the Court)

Judgment: 27 June 2012

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 June 2012 at 5:00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SIEMER V JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-0646 [27 June 2012]

Introduction

[1] In this proceeding, the plaintiff applies for judicial review of three decisions of the first defendant, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) appointed under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 (“the Act”). The Commissioner has filed an amended statement of defence and has applied, by an amended notice of application dated 3 April 2012, for an order for summary judgment against the plaintiff or, in the alternative, an order striking out the statement of claim. The Commissioner seeks costs.

[2] The Chief Justice and four other Judges of the Supreme Court are named as the second to sixth defendants respectively. The Judges abide the decision of the Court.

[3] The proceeding arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court1 dated

8 November 2011 (“the principal judgment) dismissing an appeal by Mr Siemer against a judgment of the Court of Appeal, and from the refusal of the Supreme Court on two subsequent occasions to recall its principal judgment. At issue in the review proceeding in this Court is the manner in which the Judicial Conduct Commissioner dealt with complaints made to him under the Act, by Mr Siemer, about the conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court in giving the three judgments and issuing a media release related to the principal judgment.

Background to the complaints

[4] The background to the complaints may be stated briefly. The approved ground for Mr Siemer’s appeal to the Supreme Court was:2

... whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.

1 Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 133 (“the principal judgment”).
2 Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 29.

[5] In the principal judgment, the Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the argument for Mr Siemer on the approved ground of appeal, determining that s 66 of the Judicature Act 1908 conferred an appeal as of right.

[6] In written and oral submissions to the Supreme Court, however, the respondents had raised another procedural issue which was relevant to the ultimate disposition of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The issue was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 1481
Decision Date: 27 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner, the High Court of New Zealand was asked to review the decisions of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in dismissing complaints made by the plaintiff, Vincent Ross Siemer, about the conduct of several Supreme Court judges. Siemer alleged that the judges had engaged in judicial misconduct by dismissing his appeal and issuing a misleading media release, and that their decision to dismiss a subsequent recall application without reasons amounted to a breach of legal obligations to provide public judgments with reasons. The Commissioner dismissed all complaints, holding that they fell outside his jurisdiction as he was not empowered to challenge the legality or correctness of judicial decisions.

The Court found that the Commissioner's decisions were correct. The Commissioner was required to dismiss the complaints as they involved questioning the correctness of the Supreme Court's judgments, which was outside the Commissioner's jurisdiction under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. While the Commissioner may have misstated the legal position in some respects, the Court found that there was no reviewable error in his decisions. The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Commissioner, dismissing Siemer's application for judicial review. The Commissioner was also granted leave to apply for costs on a partial basis.

Orders