Open hearing
The decision to appoint a tribunal to inquire into the events surrounding the case of Aaron Nattrass and Judge Brian Caird should help allay the disquiet hanging over the affair.
Doubts remain as to why a High Court judge should first allege that two colleagues, acting at the behest of the New Zealand Immigration Service, attempted to influence his handling of the trial; then retract his claim; and later step down from the case citing poor health.
An internal Judiciary inquiry did not provide an acceptable explanation. Legislators planned their own inquiry while legal experts described the outcome as 'unconvincing'. Plainly, justice was not seen to be done, and that is never satisfactory. But now comes a chance to clear the air by holding the tribunal in public. At least one member will be a British judge to help ensure impartiality. But the surest way to restore confidence would be by an open hearing in which the public could learn precisely what was said to the judge, under what circumstance, how he came to draw his conclusions, and why he retracted them.
One aspect which is likely to cause comment is the tribunal's task, defined as being 'to investigate whether Judge Caird should be removed from office for misbehaviour in making false statements about two other judges'. This seems to imply that he is already guilty and it is his sentence which is now to be decided.
Such terminology is unlikely to dispel the doubts which beset the case. Only if the tribunal is open and the full facts are known will justice be seen to be done.
