Source: Radio New Zealand
District Court Judge Ema Aitken at the Judicial Conduct Panel on Monday. Finn Blackwell / RNZ
A district court judge has told a judicial conduct panel she was her normal self and not affected by alcohol, as she fights an accusation she disrupted a New Zealand First event.
Judge Ema Aitken is before the panel accused of yelling at Winston Peters during an event at Auckland’s Northern Club in November 2024, saying he was lying. She argues she did not yell, did not recognise Peters, and did not know it was a political event.
The panel continued to hear from Aitken on Monday, resuming her evidence from last week.
She told the panel about a statement released in the wake of the alleged disruption. It had been drafted as a response from Chief District Court Judge Heemi Taumaunu, who had emailed the judge for her input.
She was called by Taumaunu while drafting her response, and told him – and media advisors listening in – that she wanted the statement to include that she did not know who the speaker was or that it was a political event, when she made her remarks.
“The verbal response to me in that call was along the lines of, ‘No, we don’t want to put that in the statement, it’s just buying a fight with New Zealand First,’” Aitken said.
“It was explained that the point of the statement from the chief district court judge was to try and shut the whole thing down in the press.”
Aitken said by 18 December 2024, she had not sought or received legal advice.
“I genuinely did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation, in that it was being advanced as inappropriate conduct by a sitting district court judge which was intentionally and politically motivated,” she said.
Her lawyer, David Jones KC, had asked Aitken about a letter from the attorney-general to the chief justice, claiming she had called out Peters by name during the alleged disruption. That was something Aitken denied.
“I never referred to him by name,” she said. “I didn’t know who he was when I made my comments.”
The panel heard late last week from other district court judges who had been sitting at Aitken’s table during a function at the Northern Club that night. The NZ First event was happening in a separate part of the club.
Judges and others from the table had been called at the request of special counsel, but Jones asked Aitken if she had any issue with them coming to give evidence.
“If I had asked them to come along and give evidence, I have no doubt at all that they would have come,” she said. “But I also appreciated that this was likely to be a very public hearing, and I did not want to put my colleagues in the position of having to give evidence.”
Aitken said she did not want to drag her colleagues into what she called “my problem”.
“This was my conduct and not theirs.”
Then Attorney-General Judith Collins. RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The panel was played a news clip of then Attorney-General Judith Collins reacting to the disruption.
Collins had said she was “appalled” by her behaviour, but Aitken said the attorney-general had the wrong information.
“I was shocked,” Aitken said. “The information the attorney is basing her comments on is incorrect. Disturbingly, this had been the tenor of media reports and commentary based on incorrect information.”
Aitken was cross-examined by special counsel Tim Stephens KC later on Monday morning.
He began by asking Aitken about the background of her legal career, her time working as a lawyer, and ultimately her appointment as a district court judge.
Stephens asked about her relationship with te ao Māori in the courts. Aitken said she kept her obligations as a judge in mind by acknowledging the crest of the New Zealand coat of arms that hung inside the courts.
“Our responsibility as Treaty partners, whether we’re pākeha or Māori, as judges is to give effect to the coat of arms, which has Māori and pākeha equally depicted in a balanced way in that coat of arms,” she said.
“So I always glance at it when I enter the court, and I do that to remind myself that I must judge without fear or favour, affection or ill will, whoever’s before the court.”
The Northern Club. RNZ / Marika Khabazi
Stephens questioned the judge on what she had had to drink that night at the Northern Club. She recalled she had between one and two glasses of champagne.
It was suggested by Stephens she may have been “disinhibited” by the alcohol.
“You must have been affected to some extent?” he asked.
Aitken rejected that suggestion.
“I was not affected in any way that I felt or discerned at the time,” she said. “I was my normal, tired self.”
Stephens asked Aitken if she recalled saying Peters’ comments were lies or misinformation.
“I’ve never been able to remember the precise words that I used – I’ve maintained that from the outset because I don’t, but they would have been to that effect.”
She disputed calling the comments disgusting, saying she “did not use those words”.
“That’s just not a phrase that I would use, ‘this is disgusting’, in that context. I may have said ‘this is appalling’ – that would be the sort of phrase I might have used – but I did not use that expression.”
The hearing continues on Monday afternoon.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
