Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2012] NZSC 92

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 60/2012
[2012] NZSC 92

BETWEEN  VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND  JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER
First Respondent

AND  SIAN SEERPOOHI ELIAS
Second Respondent

AND  PETER BLANCHARD
Third Respondent

AND  JOHN MCGRATH
Fourth Respondent

AND  WILLIAM YOUNG
Fifth Respondent

AND  ANDREW TIPPING
Sixth Respondent

Court:             Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel:         Applicant in Person
D J Goddard QC and L Theron for First Respondent

Judgment:      1 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant is to pay to the first respondent costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

REASONS

1. Mr Siemer complained to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner about the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court.  The Commissioner concluded the complaints were not within his jurisdiction.  Mr Siemer applied for judicial review of that determination.  The Commissioner applied for summary judgment on the basis that judicial review could not succeed.  Toogood J acceded to that application and entered judgment for the Commissioner on 27 June this year.[1]  Mr Siemer has appealed that decision.  The Registrar of the Court of Appeal fixed security for costs in the sum of $5,880.  Mr Siemer applied for review of that decision.  Wild J conducted the review and upheld the Registrar’s decision.[2]  Mr Siemer now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of Wild J. 

   [1]      Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2012] NZHC 1481.

   [2]      Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner CA442/2012, 5 September 2012.

2. Wild J carefully reviewed Mr Siemer’s arguments as to why he should not be required to pay security.  The Judge applied well-established criteria.  The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public or general importance and there is no appearance of error.  The criteria specified in s 13(2) of the Supreme Court 2003 are not met. 

3. We also note that this is the fifth occasion on which Mr Siemer or his wife has sought leave to appeal from a Court of Appeal judge’s determination that security for costs must be paid.[3]  Mr Siemer has on this occasion presented essentially the same submissions as previously put forward and rejected.  For instance, he raises again the argument that, because the respondent is an officer of state, he (Mr Siemer) should not be required to give security for costs.  Mr Siemer knows this argument has previously been rejected.[4]  It is an abuse of this Court’s process to continue to file applications for leave based on grounds which Mr Siemer must know have limited or no chance of success. 

   [3]For earlier cases, see Siemer v Fardell [2011] NZSC 30, Siemer v Chief Justice of New Zealand SC15/2012 and Siemer v Solicitor-General SC14/2012 (both applications being dealt with in [2012] NZSC 37) and Siemer v Heron [2012] NZSC 91.

   [4]Siemer v Solicitor-General [2012] NZCA 68 at [10]; aff’d [2012] NZSC 37; G v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2010] NZSC 141, (2010) 20 PRNZ 705; Easton v Wellington City Council [2010] NZSC 10, (2010) 20 PRNZ 360.

Mr Siemer, having failed on the application for leave, must pay costs to the Commissioner in the sum of $2,500. 

Solicitors:
Gault Mitchell Law, Wellington, for First Respondent