Yet, a close examination of the systems intended to hold
judges accountable reveals a stark reality: no judge in New
Zealand has ever been removed from office, and formal
complaints or appeals rarely (if ever) result in any
sanction or penalty against a judge.
No Judge Ever
Removed:
Despite the existence of the Judicial
Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act
2004—supposedly designed to investigate and address
serious judicial misconduct—there is no record of any
judge being removed from office through this process. The
threshold for removal is so high that, in practice, it is
unattainable. The removal of a judge from the High Court or
above requires a specific parliamentary address to the
Sovereign or Governor-General, a step New Zealand’s
Parliament has never taken.
Complaints Dismissed, No
Penalties Imposed:
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner
(JCC) receives numerous complaints each year, but the
overwhelming majority are dismissed or closed without any
action. Most are deemed to be outside the Commissioner’s
jurisdiction, frivolous, or not related to judicial conduct.
Even when a complaint is referred to a Head of Bench, the
outcome is informal counselling or guidance, not a public
sanction or penalty. No complaint has ever resulted in a
judge facing formal penalties or being removed from the
bench.
Judicial Review and Appeals: No Consequences
for Judges:
Judicial review and appeals exist to
correct errors in judicial decisions, but when a judge’s
decision is overturned, the judge faces no personal
consequence or sanction. The doctrine of judicial immunity
is absolute: judges cannot be sued, fined, suspended, or
otherwise penalised for their judicial acts, no matter how
serious the error. The only result is that the decision may
be set aside or remitted for reconsideration.
A
System Designed to Protect, Not Discipline:
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
As the
courts have repeatedly affirmed, the purpose of the
complaints and appeals system is to maintain judicial
independence, not to hold judges personally accountable.
Even when the legal system itself is found to be
“fundamentally flawed and unlawful”, as in the case of
Attorney-General v Chapman, the only remedy is for the state
to pay compensation—never for the judge to be held
responsible or disciplined.
The evidence is
clear: in New Zealand, judges operate with
near-total immunity from meaningful accountability. The
formal mechanisms for complaint and review are, in practice,
barriers to discipline rather than safeguards for the
public. Judges in New Zealand remain a law unto
themselves—unaccountable, untouchable, and immune from the
consequences of their own misconduct or error.
Some
possible solutions:
Many countries employ a range of
accountability mechanisms to oversee judicial conduct and
ensure public confidence in the judiciary. These include
independent judicial councils or disciplinary tribunals that
investigate complaints and can impose sanctions ranging from
warnings to removal from office; transparent complaints
procedures allowing public input; parliamentary or
legislative processes for removal in cases of serious
misconduct; and the publication of disciplinary decisions to
promote transparency and open
justice.
Internationally, bodies such as the
International Criminal Court also have formal processes for
investigating and disciplining judges, with provisions for
removal in cases of grave misconduct.
These measures
are designed to uphold both judicial independence and public
accountability, providing a model for professional oversight
that is much more robust than New Zealand’s current
approach, where complaints against judges rarely (if ever)
result in formal sanctions or removal, and outcomes are not
routinely
publicised.
