Employment Relations Act 2000

Institutions - Judges of the court

204: Protection of Judges against removal from office

You could also call this:

“Judges can only be removed by top officials if they do something very bad or can't do their job properly.”

You can’t simply remove a Judge of the court from their job. Only the Sovereign or the Governor-General can do this, and only if the House of Representatives asks them to. This is to protect judges from being unfairly removed.

The House of Representatives can only ask for a judge to be removed for two reasons. The first reason is if the judge has behaved badly. The second reason is if the judge can’t do their job properly anymore. These are the only reasons that can be used to try to remove a judge from their position.

This rule helps to make sure that judges can do their job without worrying about being fired for no good reason. It’s an important part of making sure our courts are fair and independent.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM61407.

Topics:
Crime and justice > Courts and legal help
Government and voting > Government departments

Previous

203: Judges to have immunities of High Court Judges, or

“Judges are protected from getting in trouble for doing their job, just like important judges in bigger courts.”


Next

205: Age of retirement, or

“Judges must stop working when they turn 70 years old.”

Part 10 Institutions
Judges of the court

204Protection of Judges against removal from office

  1. A Judge of the court may not be removed from office except by the Sovereign or the Governor-General, acting upon the address of the House of Representatives.

  2. An address under subsection (1) may be moved only on the grounds of—

  3. the Judge's misbehaviour; or
    1. the Judge's incapacity to discharge the functions of the Judge's office.
      Compare
      • 1986 No 114 s 23
      • 1991 No 22 s 113(3), (4)