High Court judge accused of deception

has been accused of deception by not disclosing his shareholding in Takahopa Forest Trust. A judicial review of the Judicial Conduct Commissioners decision not to call on the government to investigate Justice Vennings conduct will conclude today in the High Court at Wellington High before



High Court Judge Geoffrey Venning has been accused of deception by not disclosing his shareholding in Takahopa Forest Trust. A judicial review of the Judicial Conduct Commissioners decision not to call on the government to investigate Justice Vennings conduct will conclude today in the High Court at Wellington High before Justice Lowell Goddard

Judicial Conduct Commissioner Sir David Gascoigne ruled there was no evidence to indicate that Justice Vennings had acted appropriately.Garry Muir, the lawyer in the landmark Trinity forests tax avoidance case of 2004, has sought the review, along with former legal partner Clive Bradbury and businessman Greg Peebles.



They have accused Justice Venning, an original 1992 shareholder in Takahopa Forest Trust Ltd when he was a solicitor, of failing to disclose the extent of his own forestry investment before hearing the IRDs case against Trinity, which found in favour of the IRD.



They also complained Justice Venning did not have permission from the Chief High Court judge to hold office outside his judicial job. Yesteerday Queen's counsel Gary Judd told Justice Lowell Goddard todays challenge was not to the soundness of the original decision, but to Justice Venning's alleged non-disclosure.



Mr Judd said Justice Venning alluded to his interest in forestry during a phone conference in 2004 before the Trinity case.He said I know a bit about forestry, I have an interest but he stopped there. He should have gone on to disclose his directorship in Takahopa.



Mr Judd said that Justice Venning knew a statutory declaration he signed in 1992, at the time the company was being formed, was false and therefore "Unlawful and to no effect"

He said the companys first statutory declaration to register itself, signed by another shareholder, became unlawful and to no effect when it was filed a day late.Justice Venning stepped in to sign the second declaration on July 27, but the sale and purchase agreement date was altered to read July 6.



Mr Judd said the use of the word "trust" in the name of the company indicated its intention to hold the land, which bordered Southland and Otago, for the trustee. He alleged the clause in the statutory declaration was false because the six foundation shareholders, including Justice Venning, were principally beneficially entitled.



Youd have to be an incompetent solicitor not to know the statutory declaration was false not to read it and understand it to ensure it was true."On Monday Justice Goddard said she failed to see the deceit.It all seems very open to me. There was no obvious decision to mislead or deceive.



If there had been a 'stuff up', to use a colloquialism, they couldve ripped up the agreement and created a new one  whats wrong with that? If there was something wrong with the declaration, dont you think the court registrar wouldve point it out? Justice Goddard asked.



Well, the registrar doesnt think, Mr Judd replied.He said the registrars job was an administrative one, to hand the document on.



Yesterday Mr Judd again brought the transactions Justice Venning had taken on behalf of the Trust to the attention of the Court, Justice Goddard asked whether or not the court could be sure if Justice Venning had disclosed the information to the Attorney-General before his appointment to the bench in 2002. Mr Judd replied "that he was sure that this argument would have been put to the court by now if he had indeed disclosed his interest.



In February last year, the plaintiffs told Trinity investors that if a judicial conduct panel was appointed and recommended Justice Venning should be removed from office or should not have sat on the 2004 hearing, it was likely his Trinity decision would have to be set aside.



One investor at the hearing lamented the lack of media attention given to what is a very serious situation and noted that " There is a reason Goddard is sitting on this - namely her proven track record at the IPCA in deflectiing complaints of criminal conduct against members of the legal profession . In one notable case when she was acting as Deputy Solicitor General - Judge Goddard was alleged to have covered up misconduct by Judge Lance in a criminal trial he presided over where his son's law associate was charged with extortion, Judgge Lance acquitted the man and ordered permanent name suppression.



