Judge Aitken lashed but survives

The Judicial Conduct Panel’s report is scathing of Judge Aitken, but concludes her behaviour doesn’t meet the threshold for removal as she is such a junior judge, and due to retire soon anyway.

Some of their findings were:

• the Judge’s actions were a serious breach of comity
• the Judge had a poor understanding of the constraints upon a serving judge, and hence a significant lack of appreciation of the seriousness of her actions
• find as a fact that the Judge spoke loudly and called out or shouted into the Wintergarden thereby causing a disturbance during Mr Peters’ speech
• the Judge did not appear to have any comprehension about how her conduct might be perceived
• the Panel rejects the proposition that the Judge’s conduct was in her personal or private capacity
• the Judge did not respect the role of the parliamentary process on this matter and risked undermining public confidence in her impartiality on the proper role of tikanga in the law in a matter that could come before the court.
• We have no doubt that the Judge’s conduct would have likely affected the perceptions of other members of the executive and at least some of the general public as to the Judge’s ability to silo her own political views when dealing with matters of political sensitivity
• the Judge understated the nature of her conduct, in particular portraying the incident as “trivial” and telling her head of bench that a “brief comment” had been blown out of all proportion
• The Judge failed to comprehend that her revulsion at a view expressed on a political issue and her own self-conviction on the point do not provide a justification for her speaking out in a context where the principle of comity applies.
• It gave the Panel no confidence in the Judge’s understanding of the restrictions that apply to a Judge speaking on political matters
• Certainly aspects of the Judge’s subsequent conduct and some of the justifications advanced for it in this inquiry have given the Panel pause

So pretty damning stuff. But in the end they say it does not meet the threshold for removal because:

Ultimately however we have concluded that, although the conduct in its entirety came reasonably close to the line, the case falls short of the high bar warranting removal. Having regard to the jurisdiction in which the Judge sits, her previously unblemished record, and her better understanding of her judicial obligations as explained in these reasons, we do not consider that there is a realistic possibility that an order for removal of the Judge would be made.

They also noted her warrant expires in February.

The post Judge Aitken lashed but survives first appeared on Kiwiblog.