District Court Judge Ema Aitken of ‘Night at the Northern Club fame’ has lodged what many an unprecedented procedural application and wants to summons Chief District Court Judge Heemi Taumaunu to give evidence at her disciplinary hearing due to start in next month.
Trying to drag her boss into the witness box is just about as risky as a rowdy party at the Club.
The request is spelled out in a recent minute from the Judicial Conduct Panel, which sets out procedural timetables ahead of a two-week hearing in Auckland beginning 9 February 2026. Counsel for Aitken have asked the panel to rule on summons powers by 23 January, covering both a Ministry of Justice employee and Taumaunu himself.
The Judge’s gambit is somewhat eyebrow-raising, as it is bold, because no one in New Zealand’s history has ever been removed from the bench following a Judicial Conduct Panel inquiry.
The Night Out
The hearing, in the event that you have forgotten, will examine Judge Aitken’s conduct at a November 2024 Northern Club incident, where she’s accused of disrupting a New Zealand First event attended by then Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters.
She admits some comments were out of court, so to speak, acknowledging that they were “rude, uncalled for, and inappropriate” but denies gate-crashing or loudly heckling Peters, insisting she didn’t recognise him or know it was a political event.
Her lawyers have taken this further before. In late November, she tried (and failed) to get a clear legal test for “judicial misconduct” set before the hearing began — a bid the Judicial Conduct Panel rejected.
What the Chief Judge Has Said
In the aftermath of the Northern Club story hitting the media, Taumaunu issued a statement calling the episode “regrettable, unfortunate and unacceptable,” and said he had apologised to NZ First on behalf of the court.
Aitken’s lawyers say she wanted clarification added to that statement — her lack of prior knowledge about the political nature of the function — but that request was dropped following internal discussions.
Whether the Chief Judge will accept service is another question. The panel has powers akin to a Commission of Inquiry and can compel evidence, but constitutional immunities for judges performing judicial duties may complicate matters.
Some constitutional experts suggest that while judicial acts are immune, administrative acts could be subject to summons — a distinction that might be decisive.
Beyond Courtroom Gossip
This is more than inter-bench kerfuffle because it raises core questions about judicial accountability in New Zealand and the limits of disciplinary powers under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004.
Aitken also made an attempt at judicial review of the panel’s establishment — which was dismissed earlier — reflecting deeper legalistic challenges to the process.
Proceeding . .
