[ad_1]
John Kirk-Anderson / Stuff
A complaint was filed against a judge, after the judge cleared a person with whom he had a relationship to attend a funeral.
A judge who allowed someone with whom he had a connection to attend a funeral was “inappropriate” but did not meet the grounds for the firing, the Attorney General says.
A complaint about the judge was revealed in Judicial Conduct Commissioner Alan Ritchie’s annual report for the year through July 31, 2020.
Ritchie said she received 162 complaints about individual judges, and the number of actual complaints was 136, compared to 158 in the year through July 2019.
In the report, Ritchie said he believed an investigation into the conduct described in one of the complaints was warranted. He added that the conduct, which revolved around “customary expectations of judicial impartiality,” may have justified consideration of the removal of the judge and recommended to Attorney General David Parker that he appoint a judicial conduct panel.
READ MORE:
* Coronavirus: Taranaki courts will remain below alert level 2
* The detail: how the coronavirus could change our courts
* Judges conduct court hearings for detainees primarily by video link
It was the first time from the year to July 2010 that the commissioner made such a recommendation.
The report does not say who the judge is or what district they work in.
A Parker spokesperson confirmed that Stuff the complaint concerned the judge’s participation in a decision on the conditions of the bail to allow them to attend a funeral.
The judge had a connection to the person, the spokesperson said.
“He was satisfied that the measures already taken by the chief judge of the district court were sufficient.”
He said the judge’s actions were “inappropriate,” but he did not believe the dismissal of the judge or the appointment of a judicial conduct panel was necessary.
A spokeswoman for the Chief District Court Judge Heemi Taumaunu said that the proceedings under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner process were independent of the judiciary and that it was not appropriate to comment.
However, it confirmed that Judge Taumanu instigated a “series of measures”, after consulting and considering all factors, adding that the judge “accepted responsibility.”
“The measures taken included pastoral and educational responses, and the Judge agreed to cease his judicial functions for a period while it was being carried out.”
