1
00:00:00,360 --> 00:00:02,599
Speaker 1: Lawye is a pretty upset at Shane Jones Ah because

2
00:00:02,600 --> 00:00:05,640
Speaker 1: he called the judge a communist. New Zealand Bar Association

3
00:00:05,720 --> 00:00:08,559
Speaker 1: has written to the Attorney General Judith Collins, saying an

4
00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:11,560
Speaker 1: increase in public statements about judges by ministers is amounting

5
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:15,120
Speaker 1: to attacks on the judiciary. Vice president of the Law Association,

6
00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:17,319
Speaker 1: Julienne Kincaid Casey is with me now, hey.

7
00:00:17,280 --> 00:00:19,520
Speaker 2: Julienne, Good afternoon, Heather.

8
00:00:19,800 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: Do you agree with the Bar Association the sentiments in

9
00:00:22,440 --> 00:00:22,800
Speaker 1: the letter.

10
00:00:24,360 --> 00:00:29,680
Speaker 2: I agree that we have to respect the separation of powers. Absolutely.

11
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:33,360
Speaker 2: It's a vital in a democracy that we all know

12
00:00:33,520 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 2: our boundaries. And I also share the concerns about some

13
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 2: of the ways that people are politicians are expressing the views.

14
00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:45,400
Speaker 1: Do you think do you think that his comments are

15
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:46,640
Speaker 1: an attack on the judiciary.

16
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:53,960
Speaker 2: I think that there are ways of expressing concerns with

17
00:00:54,080 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 2: judicial decisions rather than expressing some someone expressing themselves the

18
00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:03,480
Speaker 2: way he did. So. Really, to put it another way,

19
00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:06,319
Speaker 2: really we should play the play the ball and not

20
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:08,320
Speaker 2: the man or the woman as it were.

21
00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:11,600
Speaker 1: Is the mitigating effective for you at all? That he

22
00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:14,000
Speaker 1: didn't do what Stewart Nash did. Stewart Nashwin on the

23
00:01:14,080 --> 00:01:16,039
Speaker 1: radio and add a craik at the judges. Whereas he

24
00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:19,080
Speaker 1: said this in a private meeting that has since become public,

25
00:01:19,319 --> 00:01:20,640
Speaker 1: does that make it any less bad.

26
00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:25,440
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know the circumstances of the meeting, and

27
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:28,320
Speaker 2: I don't know the circumstances of high it came out,

28
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:30,440
Speaker 2: but I think there may have been other comments. I

29
00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:33,720
Speaker 2: also saw that just a little while ago, our Attorney

30
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,639
Speaker 2: General has said that she will speak to him again.

31
00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:39,399
Speaker 2: I would like to say that we had a very

32
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:42,319
Speaker 2: good speech in June of this year from the Attorney

33
00:01:42,400 --> 00:01:45,959
Speaker 2: General General on this very topic about the separation of

34
00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 2: powers and everybody working together with mutual respect and restraint

35
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:54,240
Speaker 2: and not resorting to coercion and confrontation. So I'm very

36
00:01:54,240 --> 00:01:57,040
Speaker 2: confident that our Attorney General knows exactly where the lines

37
00:01:57,080 --> 00:02:01,240
Speaker 2: are and where that's needed to be, where people need reminding.

38
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:04,120
Speaker 1: Else there the mitigating factor that the judge I mean

39
00:02:04,840 --> 00:02:06,240
Speaker 1: kind of actually was a communist.

40
00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:12,800
Speaker 2: Look, I don't know in sufficient about the circumstances of

41
00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:13,519
Speaker 2: the common.

42
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:15,839
Speaker 1: Julia, let me tell you, because you feel I feel

43
00:02:15,880 --> 00:02:17,480
Speaker 1: like you're coming into this argument with not a lot

44
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:19,720
Speaker 1: of knowledge. So the judge used to belong to a

45
00:02:19,720 --> 00:02:22,880
Speaker 1: social justice leagal whatever it was that basically is described

46
00:02:22,919 --> 00:02:25,560
Speaker 1: as a bunch of communists and he called her a communist,

47
00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:28,560
Speaker 1: so it's a descriptor as well as.

48
00:02:28,360 --> 00:02:31,880
Speaker 2: He wasn't talking about the judge and the decision and

49
00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:35,200
Speaker 2: her past in the Communist Party. He was using that

50
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 2: as a point to to criticize it.

51
00:02:39,040 --> 00:02:41,920
Speaker 1: So to my question, which was does it mitigated that

52
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:44,360
Speaker 1: she was a judge, your that she was a communist?

53
00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:48,280
Speaker 1: Your answer is not really, because he's criticizing her ability

54
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:51,119
Speaker 1: to make an unbiased decision here.

55
00:02:51,320 --> 00:02:55,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yes, it wasn't complement and it does disrespect to

56
00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:59,400
Speaker 2: the independence of the judiciary. The Parliament and the executive

57
00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:04,120
Speaker 2: have obviously got lots of powers if legislation isn't working

58
00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:06,320
Speaker 2: as they would like to see it working. And I

59
00:03:06,360 --> 00:03:09,280
Speaker 2: think there's just better ways of changing things than making

60
00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:10,200
Speaker 2: comments like Julian.

61
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 1: I think that you guys as lawyers, have a point

62
00:03:12,800 --> 00:03:15,919
Speaker 1: that he has probably cross I mean, he has crossed

63
00:03:15,919 --> 00:03:18,000
Speaker 1: that line, hasn't he He's attacked judiciary.

64
00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:20,679
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you don't.

65
00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:23,320
Speaker 1: Have any public sympathy, do you, because I mean that

66
00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:24,880
Speaker 1: would be fair, is that a lot of people are

67
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:26,840
Speaker 1: seeing what's going on with the judges and thinking, actually

68
00:03:26,880 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 1: there's a bit of creep going on here.

69
00:03:28,960 --> 00:03:32,839
Speaker 2: Ultimately it's the role of the Attorney General to sort

70
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:37,640
Speaker 2: of stride those to pillars of our institutions, the law

71
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:41,480
Speaker 2: and the judiciary. And I am fully confident that that's

72
00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:45,160
Speaker 2: happened in it. Do you think.

73
00:03:44,480 --> 00:03:47,840
Speaker 1: Instead of judges and everybody in the legal fraternity having

74
00:03:47,880 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 1: a moan about Shane Jones, who we know runs his

75
00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: mouth off, maybe the right thing to do in this

76
00:03:52,360 --> 00:03:54,880
Speaker 1: circumstance is the judges having a bit of self reflection

77
00:03:55,000 --> 00:03:57,839
Speaker 1: here and wondering why people are criticizing them and maybe

78
00:03:57,880 --> 00:03:58,960
Speaker 1: amending their behavior.

79
00:04:01,960 --> 00:04:04,840
Speaker 2: I actually disagree with you. I think when things are published,

80
00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:08,560
Speaker 2: I mean we all all lawyers are very careful and conscientious,

81
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:11,920
Speaker 2: and to suggest otherwise I think doesn't really understand what happens.

82
00:04:12,040 --> 00:04:15,320
Speaker 1: But Julian, I'm looking at decisions relating to the to Mecca,

83
00:04:15,560 --> 00:04:17,919
Speaker 1: the law that he was talking about, and two judges

84
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:25,520
Speaker 1: have completely misinterpreted what Parliament wanted. That your Julian, it's

85
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:27,640
Speaker 1: not just my view, it's the view of the dissent

86
00:04:27,720 --> 00:04:29,280
Speaker 1: and Judge Farie Miller as well.

87
00:04:30,320 --> 00:04:33,559
Speaker 2: There's a view of there is it a process where

88
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:36,479
Speaker 2: the cases go to court and then they are decided

89
00:04:36,520 --> 00:04:38,919
Speaker 2: by the judges. If people don't if people involved in

90
00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:40,920
Speaker 2: the case don't like the decision, they can appeal it.

91
00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:43,720
Speaker 2: And if people in Parliament don't like what's happening, they

92
00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:47,680
Speaker 2: can change the legislation and totally original kind of just finished.

93
00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:51,599
Speaker 2: The original legislation has left doubt and regal room because

94
00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:54,320
Speaker 2: that's the judges' job to interpret it that it's you know,

95
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:56,720
Speaker 2: being interpreted in a way that perhaps people in the

96
00:04:56,800 --> 00:04:59,159
Speaker 2: legislators don't like it. Well, then it is their job

97
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:03,280
Speaker 2: then to check legislation going through those processes, and they

98
00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:05,080
Speaker 2: have all of those powers available to them.

99
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:07,360
Speaker 1: Julianne, thank you. I appreciate you coming on and having

100
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:09,280
Speaker 1: the debate with me. Really good to talk to you.

101
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:12,120
Speaker 1: That's Julian Kincaid Casey, who's the vice president of the

102
00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:16,719
Speaker 1: Law Association. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen

103
00:05:16,800 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,

104
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:22,080
Speaker 1: or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.