Tourist wants Kiwi judge investigated
A Canadian tourist who won an appeal against an Invercargill judge’s handling of her case thinks the judge should be investigated.
Heather Gleason-Beard said the nightmare was ended for her, but she didn’t want anyone else to receive the same treatment.
‘‘He definitely abused his position of power,’’ she said after learning the Court of Appeal had quashed her conviction on a charge of injuring with reckless disregard. An acquittal was substituted, in the court’s decision on Thursday.
She wanted Judge Mark Callaghan investigated and perhaps reprimanded, but an investigation seemed unlikely.
Senior law lecturer Ma¯ mari Stephens, of Victoria University, said the appeal process was the primary means for keeping judges in line. Judges were conscious of being criticised by the appeal courts, she said. ‘‘The appeal process does seem to have done its job, and such Court of Appeal statements, plus the public scrutiny, may well be sufficient to ensure any judge reevaluates his or her behaviour.’’
A complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner could result in the head judge of the court being informed, and it was possible a judicial conduct panel could recommend the removal of a judge.
Gleason-Beard, 26, was charged after an incident on July 9, 2017, in a Queenstown bar when she took offence at comments made by another patron about the size of her breasts. She said she had intended to just throw the contents of her drink at him, but the glass connected with his face and cut his top lip. He did not want medical treatment but said his tooth was chipped.
On the morning Gleason-Beard’s trial was scheduled to start in the Invercargill District Court on charges including wounding with intent to injure, in a private session the judge persisted in saying he doubted she had a defence. Without the credit for a guilty plea, Gleason-Beard was likely to go to jail, the judge said.
She felt bullied and ended up pleading guilty to avoid the possibility of jail, and was sentenced to 100 hours’ community work and ordered to pay $5000 to the man who was cut. She completed the sentence before returning to Canada in May.
The Court of Appeal found Judge Mark Callaghan had good intentions but a miscarriage of justice occurred. The guilty plea was the result of the judge’s intervention which overbore her decision and the right to have a jury decide the case.
It detailed a series of errors in the way he handled the case, including persisting with expressing an opinion on possible defences to the charges, and the sentence, when he knew only the prosecution view.
The judge’s ‘‘robust’’ exchange with the lawyer had an effect on the lawyer and Gleason-Beard. She was put in custody to consider her position, before saying she would plead guilty.
The judge’s interference had undermined her lawyer’s position, effectively over-rode him and been inappropriate in diminishing the lawyer’s standing in front of Gleason-Beard. The transgression was particularly serious, given the lawyer Liam Collins’ efforts to resist the judge’s approach, the Court of Appeal said.
Gleason-Beard said the appeal decision hadrestored her faith in the system.
She paid the $5000 reparation from her savings and would welcome the money back but if she didn’t get it, she would consider it part of her lesson learned.