MEDIA RELEASE – For immediate use, 27 September 2012

Law Society opposes Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill

The New Zealand Law Society says the proposed Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill should not proceed.

“A register of judges’ pecuniary interests is unnecessary as the existing law relating to Judges’ conflicts of interest is adequate,” said New Zealand Law Society spokesperson Jason McHerron, who spoke to Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Committee today.

“The Law Society does, however, agree that the Courts should establish more transparent procedures for the disclosure of Judges’ potential conflicts of interest and when this should lead to Judges not sitting in particular cases.”

The Bill is intended to enhance public confidence and protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system, but the Law Society says the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, already fulfils this role.

Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers are required to provide statements of their pecuniary interests. However the Law Society says the same principle should not apply to the judiciary.

“The three branches of government have significantly different roles to perform. Judges’ current disclosure obligations are primarily for the benefit of parties to the particular dispute the Judge has to resolve.

“Disclosures by politicians need to be made more generally to the public at large as they are mainly making decisions that affect the whole community.

The Law Society says there will be negative flow on effects if the Bill is enacted.

“The information contained in the kind of register the Bill proposes could be used, or abused, for other purposes, including as the basis for harassment by disgruntled litigants,” Mr McHerron said.

The Law Society submission says if a Judge’s pecuniary interests or financial conduct are publicly criticised or attacked, the convention is that he or she does not publicly respond, unlike a politician who can mount a public defence through the media.

The Law Society says what is needed is a well-understood and publicly available set of procedures that operate where a Judge or litigant considers that recusal may be necessary.

“Currently procedures are not always well understood, and in the past they have been inconsistently applied.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media