Which law spells out judicial immunity?
<p>I am trying to find the exact piece of New Zealand legislation that defines the immunity of judges from civil claims resulting from doing their job (or <em>any</em> immunities they may have).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0049/latest/whole.html#DLM6942300" rel="noreferrer">Section 23</a> of the District Court Act 2016 simply equates DC judges immunity to that of HC judges:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A Judge has the same immunities as a High Court Judge.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0048/latest/whole.html#DLM5759262" rel="noreferrer">Senior Courts Act 2016</a> (which one would expect to spell out the immunities of HC judges) only says that associate HC judges enjoy the same immumities as regular HC judges (<a href="https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0048/latest/whole.html#DLM6925904" rel="noreferrer">s 28</a>), and so do acting judges (<a href="https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0048/latest/whole.html#DLM5759465" rel="noreferrer">s 118</a>).</p>
<p>But just <em>where</em> the HC judges' immunities are defined in the first place?</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/new-zealand" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;new-zealand&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-new-zealand-tooltip-container">new-zealand</a></p>
<p>The New Zealand Supreme Court describes judicial immunity as &quot;common law doctrine&quot;:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Judicial immunity is common law doctrine [citing to the English line of case law, including <em>Sirros</em>]. Although its existence is now acknowledged in statute, its scope remains a matter of common law.</p>
<p><em>Attorney-General v Chapman</em> <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZSC/2011/110.html" rel="noreferrer">[2011] NZSC 110</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The immunity of superior court judges in Canada, including judges of the Quebec Superior Court, is inherited from English law.</p>
<p>(<em>Morier and Boily v. Rivard</em>, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/1ftx7#par85" rel="noreferrer">[1985] 2 SCR 716, at paragraph 85</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That judgment goes on to cite English cases dating back to 1607, and a doctrinal text (H. Brun and G. Tremblay, <em>Droit constitutionnel</em>) also agreeing that the immunity stems from common law (translation):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This absolute immunity is a rule of the common law applicable to superior court judges even where bad faith has been alleged.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Courts in Canada have also recognized that judicial immunity is now constitutionalized, through the unwritten constitutional principle of judicial independence. See e.g. <em>Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General)</em>, <a href="https://canlii.ca/t/4l93#par58" rel="noreferrer">[2000] 3 FC 298 (C.A.) at paragraphs 58-60</a>.</p>

new-zealand judiciary judicial-immunity