• FRONT PAGE
• New Zealand Judge files
• Justice on tour
• LEGAL TRENDS AHEAD
• Legal story archive
• Viewers have their say
• Contact Us
• SITE MAP

Justice on tour

SUPREME COURT BUILDING COSTING TAXPAYERS OVER $260,000 PER HEARING

8 August 2010
Repeated Official Information Act requests by kiwisfirst over the last year have pried only limited information from the New Zealand Ministry of Justice regarding ongoing costs of the exorbitantly-priced but inauspiciously designed Supreme Court building (pictured).  The official cost to taxpayers is $80.7 Million, but the true figure is likely closer to $100 million.  This equates to $25 for every man, woman and child in New Zealand for construction of a building which is the venue for less than 50 hearings a year.  But, as kiwisfirst learned, this "start up" cost appears to be only the tip of the cost iceberg.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand replaced the "user pays" the Untied Kingdom based Privy Council as the last court by right for New Zealanders in 2004.  Until Prince William officially opened the Wellington monument to New Zealand's five highest judges in January of this year, the nascent court operated out of the High Court building 200 metres up the street.

As most of New Zealand now knows, the Supreme Court palace has become the recent backdrop for judicial scandal, with revelations that Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson tossed appeals for his bank and business partner, while Chief Supreme Court Justice Sian Elias tried to cover it up, in part because Wilson J threatened to expose her judicial indiscretions.  Two lawyers who unsuccessfully sought to convince Wilson to resign - Colin Carruthers QC and Jim Farmer QC - have ironically, and respectively, been hired by Judge Wilson to quash the inquiry into his misconduct and publicly cried for the abolition of the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner as a judicial oversight body.  Mr Farmer claimed in June that the oversight body, which dismissed over 400 complaints against judges in the four years of its existence before recommending its first panel inquiry in the Wilson debacle, is being used as a vehicle by disgruntled litigants to unduly punish judges.

So it would be fair to say these six judges (the court was increased by one this year) need a $100M palace to feel good about themselves.

Chief Justice Sian Elias personally vetted responses to OIA requests regarding ongoing maintenance expenditures.  Repeated refusals to provide detail on expenditures were based upon a claimed lack of records on a range of costs from "security screeners" to "catering".  Even without this the annual budget provided through 30 June 2010 amounted to $2,658,495 - not including the $4,000,000 paid out in judge salaries and perks.   The $2.7M did detail, among other things, $942,282 in staff compensation and $149,099 for "travel/meetings".  "Rent" for the horrendously expensive building in the heart of downtown Wellington is listed as $150,652 annually, indicating aggressive accounting which obscures the true cost to taxpayers.

Allowing for a cap rate of 8%, New Zealand taxpayers are paying roughly $262,000 for each appeal heard in the purpose-built building.  By comparison, the Privy Council cost the taxpayers nothing.

What has the taxpayer gotten for their money?  There are two ways of looking at this: from an international perspective and by the quality of justice it provides domestically.  By international standards, the decisions coming from the New Zealand Supreme Court are an embarrassment.  They are regularly given short shrift as precedent in English law-based jurisdictions around the world.  It is, as many lawyers have cited, a result of a lack of intellectual talent on the bench.  But it is also a reflection of a dysfunctional court where the law often takes a back seat to judicial capriciousness and unrestrained arrogance.

Domestically, the situation is worse.  The incestuous nature of judicial appointments has combined with an unabashed propensity to put personal loyalties before the law and justice.  The result is a morass of rulings which are already undermining the law and future of New Zealand.  The problem is that most of us will not see the effect of this until it is too late - after businesses pull out of New Zealand because it is a legally unsafe place to conduct business. BACK TO FRONT PAGE

THE FOURTEEN KEY PEOPLE IN THE NZ SUPREME COURT SCANDAL

28 May 2010
Bill Wilson (NZ Supreme Court Judge)
The tempest at the centre of the scandal, Judge Bill Wilson is by most accounts an amiable fellow with a good many friends in the legal fraternity.  Judge Ted Thomas, initiator of one of the formal complaints against Wilson to the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, considers him a friend.

Judge Wilson has also worked extensively on behalf of the government in some of the most sensitive and secretive cases.  He is an avid political operator and holder of many secrets concerning those in power.   He is a close friend and business associate of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Sian Elias, as well as a close friend and former mentor to Attorney General Chris Finlayson when the two were at Bell Gully law firm.  Yet none of this seems to fully explain his meteoric rise from private practice to New Zealand Supreme Court judge in less than two years - from 2007 to 2008.

Despite all the public attention his alleged misconduct has garnered in the last year, what people tend to overlook is that Judge Wilson is a prime product of the New Zealand court system and a master of its protocols.  He is an astute lawyer who was largely acting in much the same manner he saw his judicial colleagues acting.  His stubborn refusal to resign since news of the scandal broke is largely a reflection of the knowledge that his indiscretions pale in comparison to many of his judicial colleagues.  It is by judicial design that while New Zealand has laws which send parents to prison for spanking their children, there is no rule or law which prohibits judges from presiding where they have a conflict of interest.  Judges in New Zealand commonly use the excuse that New Zealand is a small country to justify sitting on cases where they have a conflict of interest.  

That said, it is safe to say that Wilson had trouble making the mental transition from private legal advocate to 'impartial' Crown adjudicator.  He used his judicial title to actively promote his horse stud business after being appointed to the Court of Appeal and sat in judgment on an astounding FIVE cases where his partner in this business operation Alan Galbraith appeared before him.  Indicative of how common and serious his poor judgment is, Wilson continued to sit on Galbraith's cases even after news of their extensive financial dealings was the subject of a special application to the Supreme Court.

During all these appearances, Galbraith and Wilson were 50/50 partners in a multi-million dollar horse stud, they were mutually obligated on a mortgage loan and Wilson was indebted to Galbraith in the six figures.  During the Saxmere appeal, Wilson and Galbraith were in the process of purchasing a $2.1 million property together.   None of this information was disclosed by the Judge to the parties unless one wishes to categorise Wilson's disclosure that he and Galbraith had a mutual financial interest in a racehorse as encompassing all this.

Wilson's colleagues have suggested he is a bit thick when it comes to the common sense realities of life and that this is partially at the root of his current problems.  They point to his reactions to developments early in this scandal as evidence.  In one example, his fellow Supreme Court judges dismissed Saxmere's application alleging conflict of interest by Wilson in a ruling 3 July 2010 where they (incorrectly) stated "There is nothing to indicate any indebtedness by the judge to Mr Galbraith...".  In response, Wilson phoned his business partner Galbraith to say he had been "vindicated" by this judgment.  Wilson shamefully appeared unaware he was bragging about how he got off on a falsehood to the one person who knew intimately how false this Supreme Court claim was.

Wilson's failure to disclose his financial indebtedness to counsel for Saxmere's opponent (Disco) was compounded by disingenuous statements to the Supreme Court in response to subsequent allegations of the judicial misconduct.  To all the legal eagles familiar with the factual situation who have read Wilson's statements, it is generally accepted Wilson was more than economical with the truth; that his evasions constituted material misrepresentations of his true financial relationship.  Several prominent lawyers, including Jim Farmer QC then tried to convince Wilson to resign last July, but Wilson was unreceptive to the suggestion. 

As with all appointments to the New Zealand bench since Peter Mahon was ostracised for exposing judicial corruption in the Air New Zealand Mt Erebus crash investigation, Wilson's ability to keep secrets and not upset the status quo were major factors in his appointment to the Court of Appeal in 2007 and Supreme Court in 2008.  The irony is that Wilson J, in refusing to resign, has indicated to those around him he is not going to be a scapegoat for practices long accepted by the New Zealand judiciary.  He has raised the specter that he will take others down with him if forced out on anything but his own terms. 

Despite earning $416,000 year as a judge and co-owning a horse stud operation said to be worth as much as $10 million, Wilson J is claiming poverty and minimally insisting upon a lucrative government golden handshake to resign.   All this has made the incestuous judicial community very nervous.   And Wilson is particularly well-placed to name names and events.  This, and the impotence of the New Zealand government in confronting judicial misconduct, has made Wilson the unlikely power broker in Woolgate.  While his fellow judges lobby for an acceptable solution which emphasizes maximum secrecy, Wilson J continues to sit on Supreme Court cases and make decisions.  He towers over the diminutive Chief Justice Sian Elias as they pass each other in the $100 million Supreme Court hallway each day with a wry confidence few of us can imagine.  Conversely, Elias CJ is worried sick that her tenuous friendship with Wilson may not be enough to protect her secrets if Wilson is not appeased.

Alan Galbraith QC
Alan Galbraith is widely regarded as one of the two most powerful lawyers in private practice in New Zealand (along with Jim Farmer QC).  He was called in by Disco (the old Wool Board) to represent it in its successful appeal against Saxmere before Judge Wilson and Company at the Court of Appeal in 2007.  Galbraith did not represent Disco at either the High Court or Supreme Court levels.  This begs the question whether he was called in specifically for his personal influence with the judge(s).  In a rare comment regarding his appearance, Galbraith turned heads by stating the Court of Appeal didn't rely much upon what he presented.

We now know that at the time Galbraith appeared before the Court of Appeal, Judge Wilson owed Galbraith a significant amount of money, that Galbraith was pressuring the Judge to pay down his indebtedness, that they co-owned a horsebreeding operation with a valuation at the time of as much as $10 million, and that the two were in the middle of purchasing a $2.1 million property together.  We also know that none of this was disclosed by the Judge to opposing counsel and that this is what fundamentally underpins the current scandal. 

What has largely been lost in all of this is that Mr Galbraith failed his legal obligation to make a disclosure to opposing counsel - if not a personal request for another judge.  Yet Galbraith has not faced a single complaint for this egregious legal ethics failure.  Such are the double standards for powerful lawyers/judges in New Zealand.  The difference in this case is that the New Zealand taxpayers are being asked to pay Galbraith's legal bills despite his appalling conduct. 

The cost of this indiscretion on New Zealand has been huge - and it is getting ugly.  Galbraith was paid handsomely for his role before the Court of Appeal.  Disco has recently submitted invoices to the Attorney General to get reimbursed by the taxpayers for money it paid Galbraith because Wilson J's failure to disclose has resulted in an order for a new hearing.  No mention is being made of how Galbraith was equally culpable in his legal obligation to disclose.

Sian Elias CJ, New Zealand Supreme Court
New Zealand Supreme Court Chief Justice Sian Elias has been a master at selling the public on both her naivete and high morals in this scandal.  She wants New Zealanders to forget that she is a close friend and business associate of both Galbraith and Wilson and remember instead that she refused to sit on the Saxmere case the two times it came before the Supreme Court because of her relationships with these gentlemen.  

The reality is that Elias micromanages information at the Supreme Court - to the extent she has taken it upon herself to personally approve any requests for information on Court operations.   If she was your neighbor, she would be the one with binoculars and an ear to the wall.

Yet when it came to Wilson's misconduct, she has repeatedly pleaded ignorance and steadfastly kept her head in the sand.  Despite corroborated evidence of Judge Wilson's misconduct presented personally to her early in the scandal by Sir Ted Thomas, the Chief Justice disgracefully adhered to the position that Wilson had represented to her months earlier that he had done nothing wrong - and that this was good enough for her.  She not only fiddled as Rome burned - she thumbed her nose at her obligations as head of the legal fire brigade to forthrightly deal to the raging fire and protect the honour of the court.   Elias CJ refused to consider the evidence put to her by an honourable colleague that Wilson was guilty of judicial misconduct, she refused to question her good friend Wilson and she even refused to consider the evidence of judicial impropriety after her other good friend Galbraith privately met with her to inform her and other colleagues that he was troubled by Wilson's deception. 

Sian Elias also refused her judicial obligation to notify the Saxmere interests that they might be entitled to a new trial due to the unsafe Supreme Court decision of 3 July 2009 which incorrectly found Judge Wilson had no perceived conflict of interest.  At the same time, she has proactively engaged in the behind the scenes negotiations on behalf of her friend Wilson with the New Zealand government.

How egregious was Chief Justice Sian Elias's own conduct in this scandal?  Consider these facts: Both Sir Ted Thomas and Alan Galbraith had separate personal meetings with the Chief Justice in July 2009 where they bluntly laid out the evidence that Judge Wilson's conduct in the Saxmere appeal was a hanging offence.  The Chief Justice refused to do anything.  FIVE months later, Sir Ted filed a formal complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner regarding Wilson J, stating: "I consider the complaint too serious to refer to the Chief Justice under s 17 of the Act".    

Sir David Gascoigne (Judicial Conduct Commissioner)
Senior Partner in the New Zealand law firm Minter Ellison, based in Wellington, Mr Gascoigne took over the position of Judicial Conduct Commissioner after things became too hot for Ian Haynes, and Haynes abruptly resigned in May 2009.  It is evident today that Mr Gascoigne had no idea how corrupt the set-up was at the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.  Ian Haynes made no effort to clue him in before he left.  Moreover, unbeknownst to anyone, Haynes was sandbagging the most problematic complaints of judicial misconduct for his successor to deal with. 

The complaint against Judge Wilson was one such complaint.   

Though Mr Gascoigne is an 'old boy' accustomed to protecting the status quo, he struggled to come to grips with how to honourably dispose of the snowballing complaints against NZ judges.  His adjustment has been slow.  Consequently, he has fallen significantly behind at the same time complaints against judges to his office have increased markedly.  Several months into his appointment, Gascoigne appealed to Attorney General Chris Finlayson for help.  In March of this year, Parliament amended the governing act to allow the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner, while allowing the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner greater latitude in disposal of complaints.

The Wilson complaint alone has consumed a significant amount of Gascoigne's time, given largely to his extraordinary attempts to cover up the essential facts with layers of bureaucratic procedure, much of which he is creating as he goes.  Such stonewalling apparently caused Sir Ted Thomas to leak a copy of his December 2009 complaint to the New Zealand Herald in April.   Meanwhile, Commissioner Gascoigne's unswerving defence of Judge Wilson during the process left Australian Chief Justice Murray Gleeson dumbfounded.  Though we now know Gascoigne was dealing with three separate complaints against Wilson for this same offence, the fact the Commissioner issued a press release with his belated recommendation to convene an investigative panel which stated "a judicial conduct panel may well form an opinion which is favourable to the judge" is telling.

Sir Edmund (Ted) Thomas (retired NZ Court of Appeal Judge)
One of three persons who filed a detailed formal complaint with the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in regard to Wilson J's misconduct in the Woolgate scandal, Sir Ted's 18 page complaint eclipses the others as far as weight and influence.

The 75 year old retired Court of Appeal Judge (right photo) would have easily been a full time appointment to the nascent New Zealand Supreme Court if not for his age.  Though he could be on occasion erratic and caustic, and prone to rambling judgments, Sir Ted is destined to go down as one of the truly honourable judges in New Zealand's history.  His lifetime of achievements in law could easily fill a small book.

Any complaint by a lawyer against a judge, especially if made public, would be a career killer in the parochial New Zealand legal fraternity.  Fortunately, Thomas did not have to worry about this.  Nonetheless, he experienced considerable consternation at several junctions in his 9 month journey to expose Wilson's misconduct on the bench.  The fact that Wilson was by then a Supreme Court judge increased the abuse he would certainly take from his judicial peers.  This became immediately apparent to Thomas when he presented the factual evidence to Chief Justice Sian Elias in Hong Kong in July 2009, only to be dismissed out of hand. 

Over the ensuing months, after Thomas had assisted unsuccessfully to coax Wilson to take the honourable route and fall on his sword, Thomas detailed the allegations and evidence in his complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner David Gascoigne - only to be stiff-armed again. 

Privately Thomas confided the system was not receptive to the evidence and said he had resigned himself to the likelihood nothing would be done.  This was particularly the case after Judge Gleeson was quietly sent packing back to Australia and the result of his investigation kept secret.

But apparently Thomas' conscience weighed on him.  The fact that Wilson's misconduct had become an open secret in the legal community would made a mockery of impartial justice in New Zealand and forever taint the reputation of the Courts if allowed to be covered up by the government.  In a noble fit, Thomas leaked his detailed complaint to the New Zealand Herald two months ago.  

Ian Haynes
Ian Haynes was appointed as the first Judicial Conduct Commissioner under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act 2004.  The office was created to instill judicial oversight after some high profile cases of New Zealand judges downloading porn on Court computers and materially altering official court records.  

Called the gatekeeper to the judges' secrets, Ian Haynes will be remembered for his furtive obstruction of meritorious claims detailing judicial misconduct as the first Judicial Conduct Commissioner. 

Haynes is a former president of the New Zealand Law Society, the Auckland District Law Society, as well as a senior partner of the largest law firm benefactor of legal aid in New Zealand (Kensington Swan).   As such, it surprises no one that he found no need to recommend a formal investigation into any of the 350+ complaints he dealt with during his time as Commissioner. 

When Haynes abruptly resigned in May 2009, he left a stack of the more problematic complaints on his desk for his successor to deal with.  One of these complaints was the then-1 ½ year old Wilson complaint.  Haynes had initially attempted to dismiss this Wilson complaint in 2008, but was stymied by Canterbury Law Professor Duncan Webb and Solicitor Sue Grey who forced the legal issues, compelling Haynes to retract his dismissal.  Ruffled but undeterred, Haynes left the country for six weeks, refusing to answer questions until he got his head around what to do next.  When he returned, he duly placed the complaint in his office to gather dust.

Notwithstanding this rare setback, Haynes' success in dismissing complaints as Commissioner was due to a system he developed whereby he engaged "independent counsel" to advise him whether a judicial complaint was worth investigating.  The scheme was ingenious.   Under the prevailing Act, Haynes had a statutory obligation to expose judicial misconduct.  However, he recognized that if he hired 'independent' consultants for legal opinions, he could then rely on those legal opinions to dismiss complaints where a prima facie case of judicial misconduct otherwise existed.  Because the 'independent' counsel had no statutory obligation and owed a legal duty of care only to Haynes, the only risk to them in giving bad legal advice was if Haynes were to go after them for negligence.  In a classic one-hand-washes-the-other scheme, Haynes thusly avoided his statutory obligation by dismissing complaints based upon outside legal advice.  On the other hand, the private practice lawyer giving the advice provided Haynes what he wanted, was given anonymity and was nicely paid as a result.

Haynes played the scheme to perfection.  He refused to disclose copies or details of the legal advice, claiming it was legally privileged.  He also refused to name who it was that was providing him the advice or how much they were being paid, citing the fact that his office was exempt from the Official Information Act.

Murray Gleeson (Australian Chief Justice (ret.))
The former Australian Chief Justice whose candor matches his legal intellect proved too candid for the secretive NZ Judiciary.  Inside accounts are that Gleeson was gobsmacked not only by Wilson's conduct but the unabashed lack of judicial rules prohibiting conflicts of interest, where even the limited "guidelines of judicial conduct" stated it did not bind judges and was, until recently, a closely guarded secret in itself.  

Called in earlier this year with tremendous hoopla by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to give an independent legal assessment, Gleeson's privately expressed frank opinions of the egregious nature of Judge Wilson's offences resulted in his unceremonious departure and no record of his recommendations.  But Judge Gleeson has too much dignity to embarrass his recalcitrant hosts by making any public statement when they have made it clear they do not want to take his advice.

Sue Grey (Saxmere's counsel)
The reluctant whistle-blower, Ms Grey started her Saxmere counsel role as a dyed-in-the-wool (lol) believer in the New Zealand Court system.  Her NZ law school indoctrination taught her to have unflinching faith in the system, never question it and never talk to the press about cases.

It has been suggested she naively adhered to the seldom practiced principle in New Zealand that lawyers should be fierce advocates for their clients, even when these clients' interests conflict with the Crown's interests.  This integrity - coupled with the fact she had not practiced enough in New Zealand Courts to understand the true reality - personally prevented her from dropping Saxmere as a client after threats by the Solicitor General David Collins that she must do so.  

As with anyone who attempts to expose judicial corruption, furtive attempts by the judiciary have been made to discredit her.  These have been only minimally effective due to her exemplary legal background, as well as her political savvy in keeping the focus on the negative commercial and economic effect such judicial corruption is having on her major wool producing client.

She has not escaped unscathed.  She was fired from her job at Department of Conservation by direction of Solicitor General David Collins.  She fought back and won a significant financial settlement from the Crown earlier this year for her political dismissal.  In typical fashion, the Crown has a confidentiality clause which prohibits the NZ taxpayer from knowing what this has cost them.  In addition to being fired from her job, Ms Grey and her client were threatened by the Crown with crippling solicitor and client costs last year when they persisted in exposing the facts before the Supreme Court. 

During the arduous battle which shook the very foundation of her faith in the system, Ms Grey learned the press was not the enemy.  Today she singularly credits the fourth estate with keeping the judicial misconduct from being covered-up by the system and exacting punishment on her and her client merely for blowing the whistle. 

The true testament to Grey's extraordinary courage is that despite learning many NZ lawyers have paid a professional price for exposing such transgressions, and being financially targeted herself, she never waivered.    

Dr David Collins QC (Solicitor General)
What David Collins lacks in physical stature, he more than makes up for in ambition.  He recognized early in his career that the path to legal success required distinguishing himself as a legal expert and placating the powerful interests which control New Zealand society.   

Doctorate law degrees are rare in New Zealand.  So Collins proudly promotes his Queen's Counsel and doctorate designations wherever his moniker appears or name is mentioned.   He values publicity over ideals, often advocating a novel legal position one day and fiercely opposing it the next.  He hobnobs with anyone he thinks has any power and regularly cements personal relationships with such people by going out of his way to demonstrate his loyalty.

Collins was initially appointed Solicitor General under Attorney General and non-lawyer Michael Cullen.  The discrepancy in knowledge of the law between the two men meant that Collins was effectively running the show.  He did not handle the mantle of power well and immediately began using his position to advance his private interests and cover up some personal criminal conduct.  There were effectively no checks on Collins power, as A-G Cullen was in no position to challenge Collins. 

When allegations of Wilson J's misconduct originally surfaced, Collins endeared himself to the judiciary by moving quickly to quash it.  He orchestrated the firing of whistle-blower Sue Grey from her job at Department of Conservation, filed extensive legal submissions in support of Judge Wilson's conduct and personally appeared in Court to show his support for Wilson in what was a civil case between two private parties.

When Chris Finlayson was appointed Attorney General under the new National government, the two men became kindred spirits on the subject of Bill Wilson.  Finlayson owed a lot to Wilson due to Wilson providing moral and professional support to the junior Finlayson when both worked at Bell Gully.  It was with Finlayson's blessing that Collins filed a 31 page submission as "Intervener in the Public Interest" in February 2009.  The submissions staunchly defended Wilson's conduct and purportedly relied upon some 43 legal authorities worldwide in reaching its recommendation "in the public interest" that Wilson had acted legally and ethically.

Chris Finlayson (Attorney General)
Chris Finlayson is an intelligent, hardworking, articulate and successful politician who was appointed Attorney General after news of Wilson's indiscretions first broke.  He exudes a confidence bordering on arrogance which comes from figuring out how everything works in the world by the time he was thirty years of age.  

Finlayson personally owes a lot to Bill Wilson, having been adopted as Wilson's protégé early in his legal career at Bell Gully.  Even after being elected to Parliament, Finlayson was referred private briefs by Wilson.

Perhaps not that surprising for a politician and lawyer, Finlayson formulates his position based upon what is best for him and his career and does not concern himself with being a hypocrite.  When National was in opposition, Finlayson made political points by passionately suggesting the mark of honourable leaders was whether they addressed wrongdoing by their friends differently that they did their opponents.  Months later, as the new Attorney General and in his official capacity, Finlayson could not wait to defend Wilson's conduct from the bench based solely on their friendship. 

Evidence in the case would later show that even when confronted firmly with the facts that Wilson had acted deceptively, Finlayson told fellow Member of Parliament Colin King that he would not abandon his friend Wilson.

Sir Ted Thomas personally met with Finlayson last winter to detail to the Attorney General the egregious extent of Wilson's judicial misconduct.  Thomas also provided the Attorney General names of some prominent senior lawyers to corroborate what he told him.  It is not apparent what Finlayson did with this information other than to attempt to run damage control with his friend Wilson.  Publicly his office continued to support Wilson.

After kiwisfirst and the NBR ran stories exposing the depth and breadth of Wilson's misconduct and called for Wilson's resignation, Finlayson tried to diffuse the brewing scandal by generously offering taxpayer funds to reimburse the litigation parties' legal expenses in the case. 

Finlayson has now strategically distanced himself from the matter.  Even though he has long been an admirer of Australian Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, Finlayson had no contact with Gleeson when he came to New Zealand to give an independent assessment of Wilson's conduct in January. 

In March, Finlayson turned over his official duties as Attorney General in respect to the Government's handling of the Wilson debacle to fellow MP Judith Collins.

Early this year Finlayson suggested that the government's official submissions filed in support of Wilson to the Supreme Court were Collins' initiative.  

Liam Baldwin and Jock Anderson at the NBR
Bucking the conventional wisdom that it is dangerous to report on court corruption in New Zealand, reporters Liam Baldwin and Jock Anderson were the first in the "mainstream media" to expose the judicial scandal, in a country where vindictive judges have long memories and lawyers would be struck off for such candor. Although they have struggled to find the "deepthroat" inside source who would prove how deeply seeded and pervasive the judicial corruption is, they are the Woodward and Bernstein in Woolgate.  Moreover, where NZ broadcast media are still reticent to report on the unlawful conduct, tribute must be paid to these intrepid reporters who have taken personal and professional risks in exposing the knickers of the most powerful people in New Zealand.

Francis Cooke QC
The son of Lord Robin Cooke, Francis Cooke was Saxmere's lawyer at the Court of Appeal.  He was drawn into the scandal because, days before the appeal hearing, Judge Wilson did disclose to Mr Cooke that he owned race horse(s) with opposing counsel Alan Galbraith.  Cooke stated that this disclosure did not raise alarm bells to him because a good many judges are in racehorse partnerships.  Cooke gave the benefit of the doubt to the judge for neglecting to cite his indebtedness and extensive company partnership with Galbraith.

Duncan Webb
Duncan Webb is a former Canterbury University associate professor, Legal Complaints Review Officer and self-proclaimed expert on legal ethics.  He has co-written two books on legal ethics and is a firm believer that lawyers do the right thing if left to their own devices.  Nonetheless, Webb was appalled enough at Wilson J's failure to disclose his conflicts that he personally wrote a complaint to the JCC on behalf of Saxmere.  Webb's submission was apparently so powerful that then-Commissioner Ian Haynes left the country for six weeks to avoid dealing with the complaint.  

After a lackluster stint as Legal Complaints Review Officer, a Crown appointment which conveniently included the requirement he not comment on the alleged misconduct, Mr Webb is back to practicing law at Lane Neave in Christchurch.  It is reported that Webb is still committed to supporting the claim of judicial misconduct by Saxmere against Judge Wilson.

The Russian dissident Alexandre Solzenitsyn said of Soviet society, " We did not care enough about liberty.  In the end we got what we deserved."

New Zealand stands at the crossroads.  Do we, as a nation, declare judicial abuse of power unacceptable, or do we suffer the lessons of history to find out ourselves how fragile liberty is?  Power is itself corrupting.  It is only by making those in power accountable that a society keeps this corrupting influence in check and its citizens free.  BACK TO FRONT PAGE

GERALD O'BRIEN INVESTIGATES FACT vs FICTION ON JURISDICTION AND CONSTITUTION

15 February 2010
When I was a child, I was taught that NZ was a constitutional monarchy.  All my life I believed this.  It was the result of indoctrination.
 Today I know there is no evidence that NZ is constitutional, a monarchy, or even a representative democracy. Inspection reveals that constitutional safeguards have been removed, constitutional conventions have been arbitrarily changed, and further changes to constitutional safeguards are planned. Examination of the operation of the regime reveals systemic corruption.

Q: What constitutional safeguards have been removed?
I'll mention three that are gone, and one under consideration for attack.  First, laws passed by the regime now always get assent.  Recall for example the Electoral Finance Act and Section 92 Copyright changes . The Governor-General's website states "New Zealand is a constitutional democracy and neither the Governor-General nor the Queen takes an active or initiating role in the executive functions of Government. By convention the Head of State almost always acts on the advice of Ministers of the Crown".

Rubber stamping by the Governor-General is deemed to be constitutional convention.
 It wasn't constitutional convention back when Sir Cyril Newall was Governor-General from 1941 to 1946. In a Minute [Minute by Cyril Newall, 16 March 1946, G48 21 P/6, ANZ], he said the Governor-General could refuse assent
a)      If he thinks that such a course of action offends against the law of the Constitution and is illegal, or
b)      If he thinks that the course of action, while not offending against the letter of the law, is such as to offend against the spirit of fundamental principles of the Constitution
History tells us Fraser did not have things all his own way during Newall's tenure.  It has been a different story since.
Second, the Legislative Council was abolished in 1951.  Whether or not it was operating effectively isn't the issue. The then National Party promised in its 1949 General Election manifesto that   "The Legislative Council as at present constituted has failed in its purpose as a revising Chamber and should be abolished. As the Government, the National Party will examine the possible alternatives to provide for some form of safeguard against hasty, unwise or ill-considered legislation."

New Zealand has been unicameral ever since and there has been plenty of ill-considered legislation.  The government maintains its own manual of operating procedures, the cabinet manual, and changes it and constitutional convention as and where it sees fit. As a constitutional document the cabinet manual has exactly zero worth.
Third, it was a constitutional right to have the people hear what you were accused of and the evidence, and the people ruled as to whether or not there was a case to be heard.  This was changed in 1961 when depositions hearings were introduced, placing that determination in the hands of those owing allegiance to the state. This has again been changed (2008) such that depositions are written and are evaluated by a judge.  Cost cutting upon cost cutting at the expense of justice.

Lastly, the current constitutional safeguard being attacked is the right to trial by jury.  It has been proposed by the regime that you will only have the right to a trial by jury if the prosecution charges you with a crime that carries a sentence of three years or more.  The Bill of Rights had already stabbed at the heart of this constitutional safeguard by placing the threshold at three months behind bars.  Make no mistake, this change if implemented will give the state complete control and the ability to lock up whoever it chooses, without scrutiny, for up to three years.

Q: You mentioned corruption?
Yes, when I say corruption or corrupt, think of "lacking or absent integrity, virtue, or moral principle".

Q: Examples?
Consider the emissions trading scheme select committee process.  It was a farce, and corruption of process. It was almost certainly a discouragement for all who were willing to participate. The regime had already decided what it was going to do.

 Consider Mr Key having a science adviser. It is a corruption of process. He must get his advice from the same places as the rest of the members of parliament and that advice must be documented and published. One secret unreviewable opinion cannot be allowed a special hearing.

Consider the judiciary suppressing the findings of the high court public hearing into the "Tuhoe Terrorist" raids of 2007, and the Solicitor-General threatening prosecutions to keep the information from the public. Disgraceful abuses of power.  Read the following text from the judicial complaints pamphlet authorised by the Attorney-General and Chief-Justice, and compare it with the actions just mentioned:
" ... Judges carry out their roles in public and must give reasons for their decisions. All court proceedings are open to the public (except for proceedings in the Family Court and other cases that are private due to their sensitive and confidential nature). The media and the public have the right to attend the court. This public scrutiny serves as a check to judicial conduct. Judicial decisions are published and are widely available, which means that the Judge's reasoning is open to further scrutiny and professional criticism both in the general press and in specialist legal journals."
 
The information in the pamphlet is, for all to see, complete bullshit.

Consider the response of the establishment when barrister Comesky stated publicly the intellectual candlepower on the New Zealand bench is lacking. The law society threatened sanctions against him for bringing the Court into disrepute. Arrogant and heavy handed abuse of power by the old-guard, no integrity there.  As it happens, neither the courts nor the society need any help bringing them into disrepute.  They do a great job by themselves. Many people, myself included, agree with Barrister Comesky.
Consider the scandals around the actions of the office of the Solicitor-General, and the inaction of the office of the Judicial Conduct Commission.
Consider the judiciary refusing to allow civil jury trials. Evil of the highest order considering the recent Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act makes use of civil proceedings. Blackstone will be rolling in his grave.

There's plenty of corruption around, even in local government.  Search around for information on Anne Hunt's fight, and Penny Bright's fights. Research Transparency International in NZ and see if you can find anything that gives you heart it exists and does what it claims it does.
I want to move on so lastly, consider that the regime chases down and punishes those who shine the light of truth on corruption, instead of addressing the corruption itself. The lack of action is an absolute disgrace, and all members of the executive branch are accountable, and should hang their heads in shame.
When systems and processes with inbuilt mechanisms to maintain integrity are in place such corruptions can't survive.  But there are no checks or balances left. The regime has stripped them away.

Despite the judiciary's claim to be unanswerable to anyone in the aforementioned pamphlet, they are part of government and are answerable to the people. In time, when NZ has a constitutionally legitimate government and a constitution that defines the form of that government along with the extent of its powers and the mechanisms to keep those powers in check, the corruption will be rooted out. Until then the illegitimate old-guard regime, clothed in dominion-like garb, will continue to do as they please.

 Q: Why do you say the current regime is illegitimate?
It is nothing more than the dominion regime that existed in 1947 when the UK cut constitutional ties, with tweaks and changes, continually blessing itself and putting on new clothes.

Q: Didn't NZ become independent in 1947?
We are told that NZ's independence "evolved", and we are referred to the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK), the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947 (UK) and the New Zealand Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947. If we stick to this timeline then there is only one event of interest, The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) ACT 1947 (U.K.).  The others only have relevance to the prior colonial government with so-called "dominion" status, as constitutional authority still resided in the UK.  With the passage and assent of The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) ACT 1947 (U.K.) the UK no longer had any constitutional authority over NZ.

Q: Couldn't the UK pass constitutional authority to the NZ parliament?
No it couldn't. The moment assent was given, the constitutional legitimacy of the NZ regime ceased.  Sovereignty passed to the people. No matter how you slice and dice it, if NZ was independent then no constitutionally legitimate entity existed in NZ to receive the constitutional powers the act purported to transfer. If a constitutionally legitimate entity existed to receive the constitutional powers then it was still plugged into the UK and there was no independence. We know this isn't the case because in 1986 the regime re-announced independence when passing the Constitution Act. No action by the UK was required for this event in 1986 because NZ was already constitutionally independent as far as they were concerned.

Q: So the government became legitimate in 1986 then?
No it didn't.  The passing of the Constitution Act 1986 does illustrate the supreme arrogance of the old-guard though. The illegitimate regime declared itself sovereign over all the peoples of NZ but we can ignore that because sovereignty resides in the peoples of NZ and it isn't something the regime can get ever get it's grubby little hands on no matter deceits it attempts.

They also confirmed the crown and the government are the same entity. It has been that way since 1947 but it is nice to have the regime fess up. Simply stated, the crown is a legal fiction the regime needs to maintain in order to run.

The reason legitimacy remains denied despite passage of the Constitution Act 1986 is that the regime continues to deny the peoples of NZ that fundamental right of independence called self-determination. The peoples of NZ have the right to determine the form of their government. The regime remains the old colonial regime, dressed up in drag.
The regime cannot duck its obligation to the peoples of NZ to allow them self-determination, an obligation that the regime has committed to the UN it is bound to observe.
In 1960 NZ supported the following resolution: Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [Resolution 1514 (XV) December 14 1960]
The declaration's juridical status was long ago raised to the rank of imperative principles of international law (jus cogens) and binding on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's principles.  In the declaration it says:
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The NZ regime agreed with this principle, self-determination, but only for territories not considered "self-governing". The regime denied NZ's peoples the right to freely determine their political status then.  To this day the regime continues to deny NZ's peoples this right.
Until the situation is properly dealt with the regime has no authority to act in anything other than a caretaker capacity.

Q: Why haven't others raised these issues?
They have.  Investigate Magazine was discussing the issue back in 2001, see http://twm.co.nz/letter_wish.htm. If you read that material you find that even former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves was surprised to discover the government and crown are one
"You end up with the Government saying 'We are the Crown'," says Sir Paul Reeves, "and that's a very interesting development, I think...how did that happen?"
How did that happen? It has been that way since 1947 but we didn't know because NZ's constitutional position has always been misrepresented to us by the regime.
From the material there it seems Helen Clark's government of the time simply put its head in the sand hoping the issue would go away, but it hasn't.
Q: Didn't the government do a review of NZ's constitutional arrangements recently?
Yes. The August 2005 report of the Constitutional Arrangements Committee is available online at this link .

To sum it up, they essentially recommended further widespread indoctrination of the peoples of NZ so that they understand NZ's current constitutional arrangements. Incorrectly, they declare that NZ has a constitution, and that it is not in crisis: "Looking at New Zealand's constitution, we have concluded that the lack of consensus on what is wrong, and how or whether it could be improved, means that the costs and risks of attempting significant reform could outweigh those of persisting with current arrangements."
 
It is of course silly to expect those in power to actually discover, on their own, that their regime is illegitimate.  NZ has a de facto government.

Q: De facto government?
Here is a clear definition for you. A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead [30 Am Jur 181. Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, p. 345]

Q: Can the courts rule on constitutional matters
No NZ court has constitutionally been established with competence to hear constitutional matters nor can one be until a legitimate constitution defining the form of government, of which the judiciary is a branch, exists.

The development of a legitimate constitution that defines the form that government takes along with the extent of the government's powers and the mechanisms to keep those powers in check, and the adoption of such a constitution by plebiscite, is the only way forward.  BACK TO FRONT PAGE

COURT OF APPEAL SELLS JUSTICE

1 June 2009 
Wellington man Benjamin Easton spends most of his days helping others to appeal unjust decisions by New Zealand Judges, researching law and observing the workings of Parliament from the gallery.  He calls himself "the Political Busker."  He lives off an unemployment benefit and support of a few friends as he works tirelessly at exposing, and attempting to correct, the injustices which, in some manner, affect all of our lives. 
 
It is not a welcome life, yet one Mr Easton feels compelled to live.  His first experience with the Courts involved the Family Court and his fight to see his children 9 years ago. He has accumulated a wealth of data suggesting the Court apparatus is inherently unjust and often overtly biased.   His cries of injustice, while a common retort of many who have entered the Family Court's confines, are lost on the public at large.  The tight secrecy which shrouds all NZ Family Court proceedings makes criminals of those who try to expose court abuses - as Member of Parliament Nick Smith found out four years ago - as it prevents the press from covering it. 
 
Mr Easton has helped many men and women since then through the process.  This includes making sense of the bureaucracy which places court-appointed "lawyers for child" on a higher plane than the parents who unwittingly find themselves drawn into court as a result of divorce, abuse or family trauma.  He was instrumental in organizing peaceful protests outside the homes of select Family Court Judges whose decisions consistently showed they considered a father's role in raising young children was unimportant when the parents became estranged.  The success of such public demonstrations was revealed when Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier lashed out through the media to say these demonstrators would not intimidate the judiciary.
 
A case which Mr Easton currently has before the Court of Appeal has elements of a Greek tragedy.  At once it exposes a dire resilience of a man whose legal arguments are perpetually knocked back by arcane, and often contrived, legal barriers, including large financial fees imposed by Court Registrars, often at the insistence of Judges who are looking simply to lighten their workloads.  Natural justice is prohibited in the very building emblazoned with slogans advocating justice, lives unfairly suffer.  Still we find contentment with any system which "keeps the trains running on time".
 
Easton v NZ On-Air and the Broadcasting Standards Authority is a Judicial Review against the Crown for not acting with responsibility and statutory duty against a broadcast aired by Radio New Zealand, Nine to Noon on February 27 2008.  It concerned an interview of Family Court lawyer Catriona McLennan on a review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. The lawyer used consistent language suggesting only men commit domestic violence and only women and children are their victims. 
 
Easton filed the suit in the Wellington High Court where he alleged the broadcast was biased and openly discriminatory.  Easton cited the statutory obligation under the Broadcasting Act 1989 requiring " that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest".  His claim against the BSA alleges breach of its responsibilities under s21 of the Act, which explicitly refers to discriminatory stereotyping in the portrayal of violence and protection of children.  
 
Judge Dobson dismissed the case and Easton appealed to the Court of Appeal. 
 
Mr Easton's legal challenge now includes the lawyer acting for NZ On Air twice compiling an application on behalf of the Broadcast Standards Authority without disclosing this had occurred.  The BSA is supposed to act as an independent oversight body, minimally suggesting the tail was wagging the dog in this case.  Judge Dobson did not agree.  According to Easton, the Judge dismissively stated at the hearing that lawyers do it all the time.   Certainly this is the case with many co-defendants, but Easton strenuously claims this case is not typical.  NZOA have not produced the required authority to act for the BSA into evidence and representation by common counsel was not evident on the face of the Court filings.  Easton contends that under the Act which NZOA operates, and the BSA is entrusted to regulate, the conflict of one lawyer quietly acting for the other is evident.  He adds that where NZOA is acting for the BSA, the conflict is amplified because the BSA was effectively subrogating its authoritative role under the Act.
 
Easton faces an uphill battle to have his case heard by the Court of Appeal, but it has little to do with the merits of his appeal or lack thereof.
 
In appeals, the Court of Appeal Registrar sets the "security for costs", an amount above the filing fee which is designed to cover the respondent lawyer's cost if the appeal fails.  It must be paid up front by the appellant.  It is an accepted part of our "loser pays" court system. 
 
The problem is this system favours the wealthy and vastly limits court access to the majority of New Zealanders.  Worse, it prevents bonafide appeals from being heard solely because an appellant cannot afford it.  In Mr Easton's appeal the Security costs were set at $9,480, a sum he plainly cannot afford.  In theory, an appellant can ask the Registrar to rule on the arguable merits and, unless the Registrar can say the prospects for success are miniscule, an appellant's impecuniousness (financial inability to pay security) must not be allowed to prevent a bona-fide appeal with apparent merit from being heard.  This theory is quite different from the reality in New Zealand, where security costs are imposed by Judges solely to prevent a case from being heard.  Mr Easton points to the greater implications where Registrars and Judges are able to impose financial bars or ignore law to kill off unpopular cases, saying, "In my appeal particularly, the case is not only that the Crown Entities Act prohibits what was done unless an order delegating responsibilities and duties has been made, both defendants are looking to impose security and collect costs as if each were separately represented."   
 
Easton's case exposes a growing problem which is far from new.  The Court of Appeal for years has discriminately culled out cases considered politically toxic, a challenge to the supremacy of the Court or were problematic for a host of reasons.  The infamous Taito case, which came down from the Privy Council in 2002, was scathing in its criticism of judicial conduct in the New Zealand Court of Appeal; conduct ranging from preventing defendants appearances and denial of legal aid applications to reduce appeal numbers, to a judge roping a registrar to join him in signing off an appeal dismissal before the Court opened (to meet the requirement of a judicial quorum).
 
The harsh reality is, since the abolishment of the Privy Council, New Zealand Courts have shifted markedly toward raising extraordinary financial impediments to valid claims.  The New Zealand Supreme Court - in effect, the same Court of Appeal judges whose discriminate conduct was so soundly rebuked by the Privy Council in 2002 - are now the final authority as to whether discretionary financial bars by the Court itself are acceptable.
 
In Mr Easton's appeal, the Registrar has failed to provide an opinion as to the perceived merits.  Mr Easton is still pushing for this.  This week, the Registrar reduced the security for costs from the $9,480 to $4,740 as a result of intervention by the Ombudsman.  It is a figure which is still beyond the appellant's financial means.  BACK TO FRONT PAGE

TRAGEDY FOLLOWS DAVID COLLINS -  Police Investigate

25 August 2008 
The New Zealand Police confirmed to kiwisfirst this week they are investigating New Zealand Solicitor General David Collins for criminal conduct under s111 of the Crimes Act, namely making a false declaration to the High Court in May 2007.

The false declaration was an attempt to cover up a deliberate breach by Mr Collins of a confidential agreement, as well as a Court suppression order, made in a sexual abuse case he had prosecuted against a health professional when in private practice.  The alleged offence came shortly after Mr Collins was appointed by the Labour Government to the post of the Nation's highest ranking lawyer (His sole superior, Michael Cullen, is perhaps the only Attorney General in the world's democracies who is not a lawyer).  If convicted of the charge, Collins would face Parliamentary removal from office and up to seven years in prison. story continued

A FATAL ERRANT SHOT BY POLICE IN AN AUCKLAND PURSUIT RAISES QUESTIONS ON USE OF DEADLY FORCE

Ross Meurant Weighs In

20 February 2009
Since speaking out on the issue of the police shooting and killing an innocent man, I have received calls of endorsement and abuse. And some questioning why I have the temerity to comment when I don't live in New Zealand.

As a former MP and a former commissioned officer in the police with a tertiary qualification in politics and public law, I suggest I am well qualified to comment.
It would be a simple matter for me to ignore what happens in my homeland. But having witnessed first-hand the perilous nature of the "rule of law" that exists in some of the Eastern European and Middle East countries I operate in, it concerns me when I see what I believe to be a trend in my country which, if it is not acknowledged, could result in significant erosion of the foundations of what too many New Zealanders seem to take for granted - separation of powers.

In New Zealand, Parliament (the legislature) makes the laws. The Government implements (via government departments, for example) the laws. The judiciary (the courts) rules on the legality of the application of those laws.

This is a simple but precious component in any democracy as we in New Zealand understand the concept. Thus, where the police as part of the government implement the powers Parliament gave them, it is for the judiciary to decide whether they exercised those powers legally.

In October 2007 the police, in a bizarre initiative in my view, under the ruse of "terrorists in our midst" abrogated the basic rights of "no detention without charge" and "to be taken before a court as soon as possible".

I was concerned that the hysteria generated by former President George W. Bush had taken hold of people in decision-making roles in my country. Rather than use powers of seizure and arrest which exist in the Arms Act and the Crimes Act, the police elected to strip, from every New Zealander, basic rights they have had since the Magna Carta. This was a regrettable and dangerous step which needed to be challenged.

I spoke out against the police actions during their "terror alert" because I believe they were excessive and, at the juncture where police peer-reviewed their own "criminal intelligence" before launching into a "terror alert", there was no independent objective test applied to the efficacy of the police decision-making. The police had merely self-reviewed the information they had before placing that information before a judge to secure assent to their intentions. Objectivity was excluded.

At the time I also referred to a recent shooting and killing of a man by police in Christchurch where the person shot was attacking cars with a hammer. Based on what I knew of the incident I do not believe police were justified in shooting to kill.

Yet a police representative insisted the killing was justified. In fact, neither that police spokesman nor I were qualified to make a determination on the killing. We may have opinions but, as I understand and prefer, final determination of culpability can be delivered only by a court of law which has objectively reviewed all the evidence available.

My principal concern over the Christchurch shooting was that the police seemed to be trying to influence the legal process to avoid having to put the police officer who fired the fatal shots before a court. In my view the police sought to win the minds of the people through a public relations exercise at the expense of proper judicial review.
As far as I am concerned, the day culpability is decided by a television spectacular will be a very sad day.

As I read about last week's shooting I also saw that a police spokesperson was saying: "They [the police] were only doing their duty." Once again the spectre of deliberate interference in the due process of law seemed to me to be manifest.

The law is very clear when police may kill a human being. They must fear, on reasonable grounds, death or grievous bodily injury to themselves or a third person and that the death or grievous injury cannot otherwise be avoided than by killing the offender.

I do not pre-judge the lawfulness of the police action on that fateful day. It is for a court to decide whether the police shooting was lawful and justifiable.
The fact that the police actually missed the "offender" and hit an innocent person introduces the question of whether or not they were reckless or negligent in their use of firearms. There is no question of the police deliberately hitting the wrong person - that would be an absurd assumption. But negligent and/or reckless use of a firearm is axiomatic and these elements form the basis of manslaughter.

Often we read where a hunter has failed to identify his target and has shot his mate. Inevitably the sequel is in court, where the issues of negligence and/or recklessness are addressed. In West Auckland, assuming the conditions existed to justify police shooting to kill, the police fired more than one shot and none hit the intended target.
The fact that an innocent bystander was shot must raise concern that the shooter failed to identify the target or was a poor shot. The "miss" factor must be a concern and juxtaposed against the police in the Christchurch situation two years earlier, when 13 shots fired at a dog all missed. Alarm bells should be sounding somewhere.
The sole purpose of my speaking out on this occasion is to bring into focus in the public mind the absolute necessity, in my view, of this case being judged in a court of law and not played out by police public relations people through the media.

Preservation of the rule of law is far more important than preservation of the police.  The place for the questions of culpability to be determined must be in a court of law.
This embraces the concept of separation of powers. It is fundamental to our democracy. Only then can the public have confidence in their police and only then can the police hold their heads high.  back to front page
 

Please Find Material Being Circulated Via Various Networks, in relation to Dr David Collins QC.

brief by  Anne Hunt
Horowhenua Councillor and Author

The following information however relates to my contempt of court proceedings which was finalised a year ago when the Court of Appeal quashed all High Court orders, including an order to destroy all copies of my book entitled Broken Silence.

FACT. David Collins disclosed an occupation subject to a court suppression order when he phoned me on 18 June 2001 to ask if I would be prepared to write a book on a case he had taken to the Privy Council. The note taken of this phone call was amongst the evidence set aside by Justice John Wild in the Wellington High Court.

FACT After notifying David Collins that I was no longer prepared to publish his book, he wrote to me acknowledging my instructions to destroy the manuscript I'd sent him, expressing concern that the project appears to have become grounded on some rocky shores and asking if  I would mind if we met to talk through some of these issues. This letter dated 22 January 2003 was amongst the evidence set aside by Justice John Wild.

FACT I had delivered a manuscript to David iCollins n his Chambers on 21 February 2003 and collected  this manuscript from David in his Chambers on 3 March 2003. This manuscript, with annotations on a total of 41 pages including those relevant to the litigation, was amongst the evidence set aside by Justice John Wild.

FACT Following an appearance in court I wrote to David Collins to find out about orders the plaintiff's lawyer Hugh Rennie QC had referred to in court. David sent me a letter on 3 March 2004 stating that he did not know what orders Mr Rennie QC refers to. In my letter I had referred to an assessment o the manuscript. David wrote: "If by that you mean an assessment of the suitability for publication of the manuscript which became Broken Silence, I have not undertaken any such assessment".

The Court of Appeal accepts that Dr Collins undoubtedly made quite extensive notations on the manuscript.

Although David Collins had volunteered information about the existence of a settlement in the litigation which was the subject of my book, I did not discover until the terms of settlement were disclosed to me, that he had failed to warn me that one of the confidential terms of settlement was that the settlement itself was confidential.

I am adamant that if I had known that the existence of the settlement was confidential, I would not have agreed to publish this book, because there would have been no point covering seven years of litigation involving the Privy Council without recording an outcome.

FACT On 27 April 2007 Steven Price, as my lawyer for the appeal, wrote to David's lawyer regarding the possibility of an affidavit to help clarify David's role with respect to my book. "Of course I have seen the various documents (including the preliminary draft brief) in which Dr Collins denies that he played any significant roles in assessing the manuscript, as the appellant claims. That puts us in a rather awkward position, as Dr Collin's recollection of events is inconsistent with the appellant's, and, with respect, with some of the contemporaneous documentation."

I will refer no further to the sworn affidavit Dr Collins QC signed on 11 May 2007, when he was Solicitor-General, because it is the subject of an investigation by a senior police officer delegated I understand by the Police Commissioner to handle my complaint in relation to S111 of the Crimes Act 1961.

This police officer has stated, as reported in last week's edition of the Truth, that: "Despite Mrs Hunt's desire that the complaint not be pursued, as a matter of public interest the investigation  has continued."  This information was first published on kiwisfirst.

Phil Kitchin is amongst those who have viewed the documents mentioned in this e-mail. The manuscript was uplifted by the police from the office of the Editor of the Dominion Post, where it had been kept in safe custody following my videotaped interview by Phil Kitchin six days before the "police terrorism raids".

If you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Anne Hunt
annehunt@inspire.net.nz

AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT JUDGE LISTS THREATS TO THE RULE OF LAW

Continued from front page
Often speaking in historical terms, Judge Heydon went beyond the obvious prerequisites that laws must be clear, coherent and consistently applied, specifically noting that government officials must not be seen to be immune from its laws.  He spoke frankly of the omnipresent dangers to maintaining a viable Court system grounded on the rule of law when its officers are bestowed virtually unlimited powers.  He quoted Aristotle to punctuate the conflict: "he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire." 
 
Chief Justice Sian Elias appeared to listen intently as Supreme Court Justice Blanchard looked at his watch when Judge Heydon spoke of the three pillars necessary to maintaining an authoritative Court grounded in the law.  The first is a strong, independent bar.  While something New Zealand effectively does not have, the Judge still stressed the importance of a strong independent legal profession in ensuring Courts do not make rulings which consolidate its own powers over the intent and function of the law itself.  The second is that the public must be well-informed as to the workings of the Court and the reasons for its rulings.  The Honourable Australian Judge can be forgiven if he was unaware that suppression orders and closed hearings are quickly becoming the norm in New Zealand Courts, as he is unlikely to be privy to any more information than the New Zealand public in this regard.  The Judge's final measure was that the public respect and adherence to the rule of law remains high generally. 
 
During panel questions from the floor, Judge Heydon was asked by kiwisfirst whether the New Zealand Supreme Court posed a threat to the rule of law when it recently decreed in Gregory v Gollan "New Zealand legislation makes it clear that proceedings are to be tried by Judge alone unless the Court exercises its discretion to order a trial by jury" when the legislation actually states that it is the parties who can require a trial by jury?  After a halting reply that conceded only that it is not unusual for judges to use their powers to limit jury trials, he anxiously sought assistance from the other panel members.  There were no takers and Chairman Blanchard quickly sought another question for the panel.  BACK TO FRONT PAGE
 
 

RED FLAGGED BY THE BLUE GANG

22 June 2008   by John Creser
As a victim of a number of serious crimes and an observer of others, I question the performance of the New Zealand Police in resolving a number of matters I've personally brought to their attention over the past 20 years. Not one single issue has been investigated nor to my knowledge prosecuted to restore my property, please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I am not alone in my concerns and a former Police Prosecutor makes critical observations on the NZ justice system on the following web page http://www.verisure.co.nz/NZjustice.htm
 
Incident 1
In December 2007, after numerous discussions with Superintendent Dave Trappit and others at Police National Headquarters, I was advised to make a complaint of perjury against my trustee. http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df7bpft4_3g99kcg55&btr=EmailImport
 
This followed my trustees and solicitors taking bankruptcy action against me after claiming in several affidavits that they held no security for a very minor debt, while holding my share of an estate worth over $300,000. The following link refers to this issue -http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0605/S00031.htm
  Result- It has been 7 months and I have not been contacted by the Police
 
Incident 2
On the morning of the 22 of June 2007 I made a complaint that my car had been damaged by a group of five or six persons in the car park of the Mana Marina. I was chased to my car at 1am and a window was smashed. After following the vehicle the offenders were in, I made a complaint to the Porirua Police, providing the registration of the car and fingerprint evidence from the beer bottles at the scene & from the car. Video evidence was available from several sources. The damage to the vehicle cost over $2000 to repair.
 Result- The Police apparently lost the file and I have yet to be contacted one year after making the complaint.
 
Incident 3
In October 2006 I made a 111 call, please note, this was the day after a vehicle  was driven into a crowd and fatally injured two teenagers in Northland, and I reported in incident in where a woman driving a car had purposefully rammed another vehicle and then tried to run the other driver over when she got out of the car. A neighbour who works for the ESR also witnessed this incident.
  Result-I have not been contacted by Police, despite providing the registration of the vehicle concerned and advising that there were other witnesses.
 
Incident.4
I dialed 111 after a mentally deranged woman attacked my boat with a hammer and threw beer bottles at me on Titahi Bay beach.(in front of the Police)
 Result.-The Police did not arrest this woman at this time and she was free for a further ten days before being locked up in the psychiatric ward of Wellington Hospital for 3 months. I did not pursue the matter because she was clearly insane, something not recognized by the Police, who could have acted promptly and prevented another dozen or so people from being seriously inconvenienced by this woman's lunacy.
 
Incident 5
In 2004 I reported my car stolen to the Police. Three days after the initial report I started looking myself and followed a trail of evidence that led me to the thieves in Levin. This took me approximately three hours.
  Result-Despite providing the Police with all the necessary details to track & trace my car and recover it promptly, it took over a year to recover my car, which was a write off by then. The incident was reported by media and referred to in a Dompost editorial.
 
Incident 6
In 2004 I made a complaint to the Porirua Police that my estate accounts were being kept fraudulently and provided documentary proof that an account had been inflated by $1000.
  Result-Police claim that the falsification of accounts discloses no offence because all parties to the transaction were aware the bill was artificially inflated or padded. This is of course impossible because the account was made out to my mother who was incapacitated and in a rest home. The other parties who were aware the account was fraudulent were her two trustees who held an enduring power of attorney! To date there has been no investigation or attempt by the Police to obtain disclosure of bank records to confirm the falsification of an account which  is an offence under the Secret Commissions Act 1910.
 
Incident7
Last year I reported several hundred thousand dollars belonging to my trust being used for a purpose not authorised by the trust. This is an offence under s229 of the Crimes Act
Result. To date there has been no investigation.
 
Incident 8
In 1997 I was subject to a home invasion and awoke to find a houseguest unconscious and a person known to me trying to strangle me. Rather than kill the guy, as was my first instinct, I called the Police and took to his car with a lump of concrete.
 Result -The Police arrived and attempted to arrest me, before witnesses explained that I was the victim .. Naturally no charges were ever laid in respect of the home invasion & it was only because my houseguest was an officer of the Court that the Police finally brought one assault charge against the perpetrator.
 
Incident 9
On Friday the 13th of May 1988, I first reported the theft of a bag containing evidence relating to Court proceedings was stolen from the Wellington Railway Station. The Police did not investigate the theft, however I did eventually obtain an affidavit in 1995 identifying Ms Robin Morris as the thief and her employer  Dennis Selwyn Callessen, now a JP as a party to the theft.
  Result-The Police did not investigate the theft when first reported to them in 1988 and in response to a Parliamentary Question (10848) the Minister of Police stated that the Police did not investigate because I had waited 7 years to report a relatively minor theft.One must therefore conclude that a perversion of the course of justice is considered a relatively minor offence in New Zealand.A private prosecution was brought on my behalf but the Attorney General Sir Geoffrey Palmer stayed the proceedings without any review of the available evidence.
 
Incident 10
Police Constable Pratt, came on board my yacht in Tutakaka very drunk, indeed as he stepped onboard he fell face first onto the cement deck and split open his nose. He was rambling and apologized about an incident involving the theft of my bicycle and an assault. Constable Pratt then declined my offer to drive him home and crashed his high-powered Ute into a ditch 200 yards from the Tutakaka Pub.
  Result-Constable Pratt left the force but was never charged with that particular drunk driving incident that could have resulted in serious injury or death.
 
Incident 11
In 1987, I reported an assault after my bicycle was stolen from me on the beach at Waitangi, the birthplace of this fair nation. I lost a tooth in this assault.
  Result: even though there was evidence of contusions and the broken tooth, the Police (Constable Pratt) did not bother to press charges or recover my property.
None of these issues involve trivial complaints and reveal a deep-seated malaise within the culture of the New Zealand Police. At this present moment the NZ Police are seeking to interview four members of the touring British Lions over an incident at an Auckland Hotel, without so much as a complaint or a complainant. In my case you will note a pattern of denial from the Police who consistently refuse to acknowledge that I've made a complaint at all.  RETURN TO FRONT PAGE

THE RIGHT TO KNOW - when slience threatens justice

The Story of New Zealand Writer Anne Hunt. 
 dateline: 1 May 2008
Steven Price, who wrote Media Minefield (a journalists' guide to media regulation in New Zealand) says he thinks he's right in saying Anne Hunt's book, Broken Silence, is the only book ever to be banned and ordered to be pulped by NZ's High Court.

A stay of execution was required to prevent the destruction of her books in accordance with a High Court order, after she was found to be in contempt of court, fined and ordered to pay damages.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed all orders, including orders to destroy the book and suppression of the book's title.

However, the most disturbing aspect of this case is that the High Court had issued ex parte orders suppressing the existence of the proceedings, in response to a request by Hugh Rennie QC to allow the plaintiff, his client, his day in court.

In essence, Mrs Hunt faced the prospect of a secret trial to ban her book, which was published during May 2003.

Prior to her first appearance on 8 December 2003, she was not permitted to tell even her husband that she had been summoned to the High Court in Wellington to face serious charges: contempt of court and breach of confidence.

Nor could she contact anybody apart from her lawyer; prohibiting her from gaining access to the files used for her research and which had been returned to their owner.

As a consequence, she had been unable to challenge claims that she was in contempt of court, and therefore had no option but to recall all copies of her book from bookshops and place them in storage pending a further order of the court.

Her lawyer, Dr David Collins QC (who is currently the country's Solicitor-General), was unable to represent her in this matter, because there was a likelihood he would be required as a witness. There was even a possibility that he could also be charged with contempt of court as a co-defendant. (He had vetted a couple of other books written by Mrs Hunt, including The Foxton Murder  published during 1981. )

On 21 June 2003, Dr Collins QC had phoned Mrs Hunt to ask if she would be prepared to write a book on a landmark civil claim for exemplary damages, a case in which he had represented a woman who had accused  a prominent Wellington health professional of rape during therapy.

The health professional had been acquitted of all criminal charges, and a complaint to his professional disciplinary body lapsed following procedural irregularities. The civil claim (which was legally-aided to the Privy Council because it argued principles of law previously untested in New Zealand) had been settled out of court the previous month. Both parties retain permanent name and occupation suppression.

For her own litigation, Mrs Hunt found herself in a quandary because Dr Collins QC was President of the Wellington Law Society at that time, and the few lawyers who agreed to take her case urged her to join Dr Collins QC as a co-defendant, because he and the claimant had been the source of the information which the plaintiff claimed to be in contempt of court. Mrs Hunt chose not to take this course of action because she did not want to prejudice his legal career.

Representing herself therefore, Mrs Hunt soon discovered that she could not guarantee that she would receive a fair hearing unless she managed to convince a Judge to uplift the order suppressing the existence of the proceeding.  To do so, she had posed a hypothetical question to the Law Commission and attached to her memorandum, an e-mail from the Law Commission's consultant Neville Trendle advising that: "Potential prejudice to national security interests might warrant the exercise of the powers referred to."

Nine months after the order was imposed, Justice Miller conceded that the order suppressing the existence of the proceeding was 'extraordinary' and removed it.

Nevertheless all ten interlocutory hearings continued to be heard in closed Chambers, and all documents remained confidential to the parties until 6 August 2007.

(Determination to be able to prove that the High Court has the mandate to suppress the existence of the proceedings to deal with freedom of speech matters became the sole motivation to proceed with this matter until Mrs Hunt could obtain the right to disclose the court documents confirming that New Zealand Courts have the right, and more importantly, are prepared to exercise that right, to hold secret trials to deal with matters other than national security.)

In closed Chambers of the Wellington High Court, Mrs Hunt, an accredited Commissioner under the Resource Management Act, continued to encounter double standards which compromised her right to a fair trial.

Whilst the plaintiff failed to disclose crucial documents such as the court order directly related to the criminal trial, she was penalised for failure to number the pages during the discovery of documents.

Twice, important court documents she had travelled some distance to deliver direct to the Court, went missing and therefore the content was relayed verbally and briefly; thus given only cursory attention in the final minutes of the 'hearing'.

A Judge admitted merely skim-reading her comprehensive affidavit, yet engaged in a meaningful discussion on the minutiae of the plaintiff's submission.

When Mrs Hunt sought access to a letter which unbeknown to her, Dr Collins QC had sent to the plaintiff's lawyers and which the plaintiff had withheld from her,  the Judge instructed her to sit down.

She was ordered to obtain her legal file from Dr Collins QC and disclose all 116 documents, even though this material contained information she considered legally-privileged.

She was also ordered to hand over a copy of her manuscript, which contained handwritten notations on a total of 41 pages, including those relevant to the proceeding. This was the manuscript, she would testify, which had been delivered to Dr Collins QC in his Chambers on 21 February 2003 and collected from Dr Collins QC in his Chambers on 3 March 2003. (The Court of Appeal would eventually acknowledge that: "Dr Collins undoubtedly made quite extensive notations on the manuscript.")

The basis upon which Dr Collins QC viewed the manuscript was "to determine information he deemed appropriate for publication".  His file confirmed that before the manuscript had been delivered to his Chambers, Dr Collins QC had received two copies of a consent form signed by the complainant giving Mrs Hunt the right to access the complainant's legal and medical files, and publish information deemed appropriate by Dr Collins QC, a lawyer familiar with the legal proceedings upon which Broken Silence was based.

After one particularly gruelling session, Mrs Hunt felt keenly the absence of the media or members of the public to witness the manner in which the Judge conducted the hearing. 

In a memorandum dated 17 May 2005, she stated: "It is my belief that it is not the role of a Judge to persist with questions in order to pressure the defendant into making a statement which the defendant knows to be untrue."

"As stated in my submission presented to the Court on 2 May 2005, I have consistently corrected any person who alleges I have claimed that Dr Collins QC approved the manuscript and I will continue to do so. As stated in this submission, there is a difference between claiming that Dr Collins QC carried out a legal assessment of the manuscript and claiming that Dr Collins QC approved the manuscript or authorised publication of the manuscript."

Though she resiled as soon as possible from a statement conceded only in response to prolonged questioning  by the Judge, this statement was reported in the Judge's minute and cited frequently in subsequent submissions and judgements.

During these closed sessions, Mrs Hunt was also told that she would not be permitted to produce any evidence relating to Dr Collins QC unless she summoned him as a witness. She chose not to, on the basis of a draft brief of evidence he had submitted which made no reference to the manuscript she had delivered to his Chambers shortly before Broken Silence was published. 

The manuscript Dr Collins QC marked up was in all material respects identical to the one that was published, except for the implementation of the changes he had recommended, and a few stylistic and typographic changes.

During the High Court trial, Mrs Hunt was constrained from referring to Dr Collins QC during her testimony, particularly during cross-examination, on the grounds that she chose not to summons him as a witness and therefore any evidence relating to Dr Collins QC (whether contemporaneous documentation or verbal) would be considered 'hearsay' evidence.

The plaintiff's lawyers, on the other hand introduced documents gleaned from her legal file, and made claims on behalf of correspondents who were not called to give evidence.

In his judgement dated 17 May 2006, Justice Wild put entirely to one side Mrs Hunt's claim that Dr Collins gave her legal advice about her manuscript. "In deference to Mr Collins from whom I have not heard, I record that he is on record as disputing that he assessed the defendant's manuscript and approved it for publication."

Found to be in contempt of court, Mrs Hunt was ordered to pay a fine, damages and the plaintiff's disbursements.

An order was issued to uplift and destroy the books which had been held in storage since December 2003.

Mr Price, on reading the judgement sent out a six-page e-mail concluding with the question: "Am I the only person uncomfortable with this?"

He agreed to handle her appeal.

To the Court of Appeal Mr Price submitted that the central issue was whether Justices Wild and Young were wrong to find that the appellant's evidence was hearsay. "If they were wrong the appellant has not had a chance to put her case properly. This is particularly serious given the criminal nature of a finding of contempt of court, and the order to destroy a book that rests on it."

He said there was also a more fundamental problem. "Punishing an author for innocently and accurately using court documents provided by a lawyer is an unprecedented extension of the law of contempt."

He added that: "Most significantly the judge found that the book did not identify the respondent."

On 6 August 2007, the Court of Appeal delivered their judgement, stating that of course Ms Hunt could not give evidence as to what Dr Collins said for the purpose of establishing the truth of what he might have said. "But she could give evidence as to what she understood had been said as going to her state of mind and subsequent conduct.

"In the event, we think the Judge was inadvertently drawn into error on the ruling he gave in this instance. The proposed evidence went to Mrs Hunt's state of mind and why she acted as she did."

In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal stated that this lawsuit represents and attempt by 'A' to 'close down' any further public discussion of the various matters covered in the book. "It is easy to emphasis with A: for some years he had been subject to a harrowing series of experiences which must have resulted in enormous emotional stress, and most likely very substantial legal fees and disruption to his everyday life. In the end he had been found 'not guilty'. But the law does not say that the fact that he had been found not guilty precludes (subject to any appropriate suppression orders or confidentiality provisions) a consideration of those events.

"What may be written about is both innocence and guilt, or for that matter the 'unproven' cases in our courts. This may well be uncomfortable for one party or another, but it is part of the process of open justice and even wide considerations of freedom of expression.

"At the end of the day, the question raised by the book - which is a perfectly legitimate one - was that posed by Mr Price: "Did Annette get justice?'. Ultimately, it is for the reader to form his or her own impression of what answer should be given, if any can be had, to that particular question." 

Remaining copies of ' Broken Silence' can be ordered directly from the author Anne Hunt by contacting her atannehunt@inspire.net.nz

THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER SPEAKS

Dateline:1 May 2007
In 2005, the New Zealand government set up the  Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to provide oversight on allegations of judicial misconduct.  Since that time 172 complaints have been filed against certain judges.  The Commissioner answers why none of these have yet been deemed worthy of referral to a Judicial Conduct Panel for investigation as stipulated in the Act.  read full story

FARMERS STILL STRUGGLE FOR ANSWERS FROM BNZ AFTER TEN YEARS

Dateline: 25 June 2007
A former Franz Joseph station owner, Gray Eatwell, is touring the Country promoting his recent book You Can Bank on It, a scathing and occasionally humorous revelation and account of Bank of New Zealand overcharging practices in New Zealand.  
 
Kiwisfirst Editor caught up with Mr. Eatwell and his wife Vicki recently in Remuera to discuss the book that has the BNZ currently considering its options for stopping its distribution.  At the moment, however, the BNZ seem content to ignore the publication, no doubt wishing not to draw attention to its damning contents.  Nonetheless, the tremendous power of the bank is omnipresent, with several bookstores declining to carry the book and one chain, according to Mr. Eatwell, frankly telling him they did not want to risk offending the bank by carrying it.
 
While this first attempt at publication by Mr. Eatwell deals primarily with the Eatwell's own painful experience with the BNZ in the 1990's and falls short on providing actual financial figures that might dispel all doubt as to its scandalous claims, it is a surprisingly gripping, convincing and easy to follow tome.   Much of this stems from the character of the man that shines through its pages; a salt of the earth farmer and boat skipper who does not ask for much and has worked very hard for what he has got and, it is evident, a man still more interested in finding out the 'hows' and 'whys' behind the bank's practices than picking a fight.  Equally so for the similar revelations of the Colin Meads and the Ian Andrews contained in its pages and the repeated pattern of customer overcharging by the BNZ that has been independently confirmed.
 
That is not to say that the book won't leave the reader with nagging questions at the end.  For instance, why didn't the Eatwell's seek another lender to take over their $1.5 million farm debt when BNZ persisted in stiff-arming them on the refund of overcharges totaling in the five digits?  Their answer is that they were essentially naïve enough to believe that the BNZ would eventually do the right thing when the errors had been proven and by the time they knew this would not occur market conditions had de-valued the book value of their stock by half, throwing them in technical default of their bank security agreement and making refinancing with another lender cost-prohibitive if not impossible.  They insist that cash flow was never a problem but that the market devaluation of their stock allowed the bank to foreclose on their farm.   While most of the players in this drama from the Bank's side have retired or moved on,  an experienced former bank officer suggests that non-compliance with the security arrangements would have most certainly allowed the bank to escalate fees and accelerate payments.  As to the seminal question why the BNZ didn't 'do the right thing?' there appears no obvious reason, with Mr. Eatwell admitting he can only guess as to why.   This guess concerns a situation the Eatwells uncovered later that the Bank's parent company owned another bank in Ireland that was concurrently being charged by the Irish government with similar unfair banking practices.  Mr. Eatwell suspects that his recruitment of a number of Members of Parliament to press his own claim with the New Zealand banking authorities may have actually worked against him here.  Foreclosing on the farm took the bank's action out of the realm of the Commerce Commission and into a relatively simple and provable commercial dispute.  It also was a long-proven method of silencing critics by financially disabling them. 
 
Copies of the book You Can Bank on It can be obtained for $19.95 plus postage by contacting the publisher via email at rawtalent@xtra.co.nz        [Return to Front Page]

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CHALLENGED FOR PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES ON PROPOSED ART GALLERY EXPANSION PLANS

Dateline: 25 June 2007 
Roughly a year ago it was publicly unveiled that the Auckland City Council had approved a party room addition to the Auckland Art Gallery at the corner of Kitchener and Wellesley streets in the CBD.  They ballyhooed the splendor this would add to the City's image, that only 0.2 % of the land belonging to neighbouring Albert Park would be commandeered and only 4 trees in the park sacrificed.  The move was considered a slam dunk as it had the backing of some of Auckland's most powerful party-goers.  Calls for a review were curtly ignored.  Fundamental data was suppressed in favour of demonstrations by the Council on how thorough the evaluation process had been undertaken before the project was approved. 
 
Fast forward to last week, and the tucked-away confines of the Environment Court on Kingston Street in Auckland, where Justice L J Newhook was presiding over a formal appeal brought by Auckland Mayoral Candidate Ms. Coralie Van Camp, Mr. & Mrs. Chris Van Ryn and Ms. Hilda Jamieson to the approach taken to this project by the Council.  Not a news reporter (other than Kiwisfirst) or member of the public to be found, but a turnstile would still have been useful to accommodate the parade of Council lawyers and witnesses that at one point prompted a light-hearted joke from the Judge.    [PHOTO: Northern end of Art Gallery earmarked for expansion.  Council wants more of right and less of upper left]
 
With the irreversible risk to Auckland's public resources and heritage at issue - in particular the popular Albert Park, which is the closest thing Auckland has to a Central Park and acts also as a nature commons for students and faculty of surrounding Auckland University - the apparent lack of public interest in the proceedings was somewhat surprising.  That said, even this reporter expected the environmental impact testimony to prove as excruciating as listening to a dentist's drill.  Not so.  As interesting as the testimony was from both sides, it was equally troubling that, despite the 'thorough approach' claimed to have been taken by the Council to the environment and heritage issues, their effort fell far short of what they would expect from any other party had the roles been reversed.  Testimony revealed that ground water issues were dismissed, the Auckland Regional Council had not been consulted, safety, vandalism and security issues had been largely ignored, the aesthetic view from within the park negated and, at the end of the process, Albert Park was granted the heritage value of the Venus De Milo - only to the perverse extent that, like the loss of arms to the famous Greek sculpture,  loss of park land would seemingly make Albert more memorable.
 
Already in the proceedings the Council has been forceful in making it known it does not like to be challenged.  It will be interesting to see how much of ratepayer's money they spend on lawyers in the end - and one cannot help but lament how much better spent this money would have been seeking the appropriate public consultations at the start.  Ms. Van Camp has assumed most of the financial burden in the plaintiffs' claim to protect the Park.  The judge appears to be mindful of the tremendous cost Ms. Van Camp has incurred and seems determined to ensure the proceedings are conducted efficiently and do not become unruly as a result of tactical motions by the Council.
 
Barrister Alan Webb is acting for the plaintiffs and Chapman Tripp for the Council.  Justice Newhook is assisted on the bench by Environment Commissioners Mr. R. Dunlop and Ms. H. McConachy.  After five days of testimony, the proceedings were adjourned until 9 July 2007 due to scheduling conflicts between the judge and the assisting commissioners.    Stay tuned.

Expressions of support for Albert Park can be directed to Ms. Van Camp at cvc@slingshot.co.nz       ( Return to Front Page)

 MOODIE DEFIES COURT TO EXPOSE ARMY CORRUPTION

Date published: 8/03/2007

The long sordid history of the New Zealand Courts added a familiar chapter on 14 February 2007 when a three-Judge panel ruled that 67 year old Feilding Barrister Dr. Rob Moodie was guilty of contempt for publishing an engineer's report (the "Butcher Report", after the engineer who wrote it) that concluded the New Zealand Army was guilty of poor construction that resulted in a King Country bridge collapse that killed a beekeeper on 22 March 1994. 
 
In Court proceedings eerily reminiscent of the Air New Zealand Mt. Erebus crash cover-up and the notorious Russell McVeigh bloodstock and "Winebox" scandals that censored evidence of massive investor and tax frauds by some of New Zealand's most prominent lawyers at the time, the High Court repeatedly sequestered the report, keeping it out of evidence, while allowing the Army to submit a shadow report that, not surprisingly, removed all reference to the Army's negligence. 
 
The Army's shadow report which sanitized the investigative findings was at legitiamte issue because Keith and Margaret Berryman, the couple to whose farm the bridge provided access to, were sued by the Occupational Safety and Health Department in relation to the accidental death for not maintaining the bridge properly.  Dr. Moodie, who had been hired as the Berryman's lawyer was immediately troubled that a bridge built by the Army with a 40 year lifespan could collapse after 10 years.  The previous bridge on the site had been built in 1916 and had lasted for 66 years.  Dr. Moodie's family had a long history in bridge construction, this avocation only adding to his intrigue as to why the original report was not being made available.
 
Through a succession of High Court judges that began with Justice John Richard Wild ruling that the investigative report would remain suppressed, Moodie persisted in seeking its release.  In response to repeated requests for a copy of the investigative report, Moodie says then Solicitor General Terrence Arnold told him that there was nothing further in the report that would be a surprise or relevant.  Nonetheless, he was eventually offered a copy of the report on the condition that he sign a confidentiality agreement which prohibited his disclosing its content to anyone.  Moodie signed the agreement.  
 
When the Butcher report was finally provided in early 2005, Dr. Moodie was astounded not only as to the contents, which contrasted materially with the Army's shadow version, but also because he says he had been misled by the Solicitor General as to its content.  The report disclosed that the Army's "decision to use two 300 mm x 75 mm beams bolted together for the transoms (the cross beams that hold up the roadway surface) in place of a solid 300 mm x 150 mm member" was the largest single factor in the bridge failure.  This had the effect of trapping moisture, inviting and accelerating decay from the inside out.  Speed of the beekeeper's truck and improper maintenance were consdered as lesser factors but the improper construction had doomed the bridge to fail.  That solicitor, Terrence Arnold, has since been appointed by the New Zealand government to a permanent seat on the New Zealand Court of Appeal.  In contrast, Moodie, having gone public with what he is convinced was an utter abuse of Court process, is fighting for his professional life after being found in contempt for posting of this factual report on the www.moodieonlaw.com website.
 
In the contempt hearing held in Wellington 30-31 January 2007, Dr. Moodie argued that, as a former high ranking police officer and current lawyer, he had an obligation as an officer of the Court to reveal corruption that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.  He cited well-established law that supported the Court's equivalent duty to not be governed by protocol that resulted in a miscarriage of justice and/or abuse of the Court process.  Justices Judy Potter, David Baragwanath and John Hansen disagreed, viewing the matter as a simple and deliberate breach of a court endorsed agreement.  Dr. Moodie was fined $5,000 plus costs.  He responded that he would rather go to jail than pay the fine and immediately announced his intent to relinquish his legal license.  It is understood that a Canterbury farmer has since paid the fine on his behalf and a large sympathetic outcry at his announced resignation from the law has resulted in his subsequent decision to continue his fight as a practicing lawyer.
 
Moodie's fight has gained him recognition internationally.  In a not unrelated development, the Australian Supreme Court last year refused to allow the extradition of a defrocked catholic priest to New Zealand to face sexual abuse charges, saying there were legitimate concerns about his getting a fair trial in New Zealand.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE a "CESSPOOL OF CORRUPTION"

12 December 2007
When the new Solicitor-General David Collins QC (left) received $400,000 a year in legal aid payments from the government and his predecessor Terrence Arnold QC (right) was appointed directly to the Court of Appeal after criminally concealing evidence in a Coroner's inquest, the camp culture in the Office of the Solicitor General of New Zealand was shown to hit demostrable new lows.  One law partner wishing to remain anonymous for obvious reasons called the office "a cesspool of corruption".
 
People lament how the Catholic Church quietly shifted pedophile priests in the 1970's and 1980's to other parishes rather than take appropriate action.  Knowing now how widespread the practice was, the question as to how the situation could become so insufferable for so long remains as unanswerable to most people as it is unthinkable. 

As a society we look for easy answers.  Blaming heinous crimes on one monster is acceptable.  Conversely, believing an honourable institution could act in an inherently heinous manner defies reasonable comprehension.  Yet, if history has taught us anything, it is that unbridled trust and lack of proper vigilance are two of the biggest factors that make us vulnerable to such abuses.  
 
Advance to the  year of Our Lord 2007 and we find the Office of the Solicitor General of New Zealand has been exposed as a clandestine clearinghouse for legal abuses by club member lawyers.  And like the altar boys who raised the alarm in the 1970's, those now raising the alarm are being attacked as liars and punished for simply doing so.  So bad has the situation become in the Crown Law office that few lawyers with integrity now see working there as a dignified pursuit.  Firm reasons for this abound, although few outside the legal profession are currently aware of the dour situation.  Most simply do not want to believe it.  Kiwisfirst will only list a few of the worst examples.
 
In recent years judges have increasingly relied upon the Solicitor General for support.  When public resentment over certain judges being caught out for viewing porn movies on the job, sexually harassing staff and altering official court transcripts resulted in the NZ Government's creation of the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in 2004 to hold judges accountable, the Solicitor General conspired with the New Zealand Law Society and powerful judges to ensure the new oversight had no effective power.  They saw the appointment of former Law Society President Ian Haynes, a political operator and one of the largest recipients of governmental largesse in the legal profession.  As a partner with Kensington Swan, Mr Haynes' firm received $2.26 Million in legal aid during the last fiscal year.   Mr. Haynes' lucrative livelihood relies on keeping judges happy.  It is more than ironic then that his appointment and capacity has been publicly labeled by the Crown Law office as 'independent'.  The truth is very different and can be seen in Mr Haynes' failure, since taking office, to find even one of the 250 formal complaints he has handled against various judges worthy of a merely a formal investigation.
 
As a legal insider, Mr Haynes is privy to information.  A great deal of it.  He would know, for example, that former Solicitor General Terrence Arnold QC was repeatedly protected by judges and the Crown Law office against allegations of legal negligence and criminal misconduct.  High Court Justice John Wild QC alone intervened twice on Mr Arnold's behalf.  More importantly, Haynes would know that none of this sordid past prevented Mr Arnold's appointment directly to the Court of Appeal bench.  Sure, such an egregious past did threaten Arnold's appointment to judge but the New Zealand Law Society and Crown Law office both aggressively campaigned for his appointment and New Zealand Bar Association President Jim Farmer QC wrote a letter on behalf of the legal profession in his support when the going got tough. 

It should be apparent that many of the key players have a 'QC' suffix to their surnames.  It is indicative that membership in the 'QC' club does have its privileges.  The designation of "QC" stands for "Queen's Counsel" - lawyers who are endowed legal status and gratuitous treatment by the New Zealand Courts.  No Queen's Counsel in New Zealand has ever been convicted of a crime or of serious misconduct despite many credible stories of outlandish misconduct by some through the years.
 
It is noteworthy that an assistant deputy director Solicitor General, Grant Liddell, was put in charge of the wind up of the Serious Fraud Office in August 2007 to ensure further scandals did not crop up before the body was put fully to rest. 

Now with Arnold in the Court of Appeal, the new Solicitor-General David Collins QC is taking advantage of his friend to consolidate his base of unbridled power.  Collins wasted little time in his first three months on the job.  This was most evident when he approved the overblown Police terrorist charges against 20 New Zealand citizens, dropping the case only when public pressure exposed the extreme heavy-handedness of the operation.  During the same period, Mr Collins killed a Parliamentary Select Committee investigation into Vince Siemer's false imprisonment by High Court Judge Judy Potter on the basis that the matter was sub judice (currently before the courts and therefore off limits to Parliament) when it clearly was not.  A total of eighteen uncontested witnesses have provided evidence against Ms Potter.
 
In another blatant contravention of his position as the highest law enforcement officer in the land, Mr Collins sent a letter to website host Enlighten in July threatening legal action against the company by his public office on the sole basis he considered one of the domains Enlighten was hosting contained defamatory material - this despite the New Zealand domain itself never being the subject of any legal proceedings.     
 
This level of corruption is unprecedented in New Zealand.  It is worth recalling that the citizens of Nazi Germany were as law-abiding as Kiwis are today.  Then, as now, the perversions began with systematic control over the Courts and silencing of the independent press.  Few realize how close New Zealand came to the precipice over the "Tuhoe Terrorist" case.  This time the Solicitor General reversed his course, but what about next time?  That the supposed evidence used to keep the accused held without bail for a month is still being suppressed by Court order shows how serious close to tyranny we still are. 
 
Why is the New Zealand media not reporting this important news?  The troubling answer is they understand the inner workings of the Court as well as Mr Haynes does.  Hence, in this game of survival, it is difficult for many to consider the future of their children when the pressing concern is watching their back. (back to front page)

NZ POLICE TARGET 'TERRORISTS' BENT ON DESTROYING NEW ZEALAND

Updated 17 October 2007
Police today claim the find of an assault rifle in nation wide roundup proves they are on right track. 

In a much ballyhooed nationwide dragnet by the New Zealand Police, at least a dozen alleged 'terrorists' were picked up this week on charges relating to an alleged para-military training camp in which the accused supposedly romped in the Bay of Plenty.  In a Punch and Judy moment, New Zealand Police Commissioner Howard Broad held a press conference Monday where he alleged the Country was under threat from a hodge-podge group of violent revolutionaries that included disparate groups ranging from Maori activists and environmentalists to peaceful protestors.  Despite the fact that the Police Commissioner came equipped only with his allegations, the mainstream media switched into overdrive to broadcast his domesday message.  TVNZ devoted the first ten minutes of its broadcast Tuesday to let all potential tourists in the world considering New Zealand know that a man with a gun in New Zealand is the face of terror.  The Police say more arrests are anticipated.

TVNZ reporter Haden Jones promptly called kiwisfirst.co.nz Editor Vince Siemer to inquire about Jamie Lockett, one of the accused.  When Mr. Siemer responded that he did not know Mr. Lockett, Mr. Jones relayed that Lockett stood accused of 'counter-terrorism' and that he had mentioned the www.kiwisfirst.co.nz website.  After a short discussion, the common link was determined to be Shane Wenzel, a political activist and bankrupt who lives in Takanini.   Mr. Wenzel is currently being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office for overstating projected income in order to get a home mortgage, proving the Serious Fraud Office will leave no pebble unturned when it comes to diverting attention from the fact it has failed to prosecute the serious 'Big Rock' white collar criminals who are defrauding millions of dollars from honest New Zealanders.  Mr Siemer had met Mr. Wenzel in August to discuss a story on judicial inequities in New Zealand.  However, when Mr. Wenzel emailed evidence that basically did little more than confirm the national debt, the story did not advance.  
 
Like Iti, Jamie Lockett is a thorn in the craw, photogenic and articulate rabble rouser.  The police hate him.  He has had scraps with the Police and has had his shoulder separated by them in a previous arrest.  More troubling, he had the audacity to complain publicly about his treatment.  In another encounter with Police he kicked a constable in the head. He became a marked man and a subject of repeated police harassment.  At the same time, he unwittingly became one of those rare individuals who stands up for what all of us believe we have, consider we are entitled to, but truly do not - freedom and the right to due process. 
 
The proof goes beyond Jamie Lockett.  It was reflected in Tame Iti's (photo above) arraignment today - where no one was allowed in the 'public' courtroom.  Mr. Iti has been an outspoken advocate for Maori sovereignty for years.  The picture of him shooting a New Zealand flag several years ago has been shown every hour somewhere on New Zealand fed TV in a blatant attempt to incite hatred of Maori causes and corrupt public perception of what he truly advocates.  New Zealander's who have barraged the airwaves with cries to lynch these bastards can be excused for overlooking that we have all lost the fundamental legal protection of presumed innocent and for jumping to conclusions without getting the facts.  This is because most of us acquire our opinions based on the 'impartial' media.  Certainly we can count on this media to let us know if bureaucrats are leading us the way of Hitler's Aryan Nation.  History does not repeat itself. 
 
Moreover, why would a TV ONE reporter who had been in his office in Auckland a good part of the day be introduced as being on location 'all day' in the Bay of Plenty if this was not the truth?  Of course it would have nothing to do with the fact that the Police Commisioner worked the networks into a lather over this 'breaking news' story, only to then feed them drivel in the absence of hard data the media reasonably thought would be forthcoming once they went to air with the story.  If anything, this example proves the police public relations have beaten the media at their own game.
 
Kiwisfirst delved into the secret world surrounding these numerous accused terrorists.  It seems that Lockett and his fellow Accuseds' crime has more to do with their legal tactics and exercise of free speech than any subversive actions.  On this point, it is telling that the Maori party in Parliament has come out in defense of Tame Iti.  They know enough to be legitimately concerned about police and court tactics.  Until the NZ Police branded Iti a terrorist, no one felt threatened by this very public Maori activist.   
 
As for Lockett, his police problems led him to associate with disenfranchised groups.  Certainly Maori figure predominantly in these groups.  What is amazing through all of this drama is the tremendous amount of police resources spent on pursuit of Lockett and Iti.  The Police have stated that this investigation is more than a year old.  One would reasonably expect a return on this extraordinary investment.  But where is it?  We are still waiting. 
 
Given the extreme news coverage, it is reasonable to ask where the evidence is from this year long police escapade.  The Police suggest these subversives were a lethal and imminent threat to the entire nation because they had guns and -  nebulously purportedly but not yet demonstrated - Napalm (jellied petrol)!  Did someone say Petrol?!  Barricade the women and children! 

There is also the promoted suggestion by police that the group had para-military uniforms.  Come to find out that in any other country these 'uniforms' are called camouflage and are sold in truckloads at Wal-Mart.   Only in 21st century New Zealand is this construed to imply an Al Queda-type attack is imminent when the perpetrators additionally have that mass murder weapon petrol concealed in the tanks of their cars. 
 
Perhaps most significantly, the year-long investigation produced no evidence of any of this at the press conference.  Still, we should trust the Police.   The Louise Nichols case, where her alleged Police attackers had to be produced from their jail cells where they sat on another rape - unbeknownst to the jury in the Louise Nichols' rape trial - should give us comfort here.   Oops.  Forget that example. 
 
Lockett's current problems appear to stem more from his recent association with groups that promote Admiralty Law and 'Negative Averment'.  Admiralty Law deals with honour and sovereignty.  The emphasis is overwhelmingly on jurisdiction over the accused.  Negative averment constitutes a statement of fact that requires proving by the party making it.  It challenges the assumption that all parties recognize a legal authority or charge, instead relying on the law that presumes every man to perform the duties which it inherently imposes.  This regularly is based on the premise that it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove a negative (i.e. the Loch Ness Monster does not exist).  These arduous legal arguments can seem annoyingly pedantic to the novice.  Often times it can come down to the correct written spelling of an Accused's name or whether the Crown's allegations are based on a 'fictional' allegation against a mortal man who has not personally pledged allegiance to the generally recognized legal authority.  A negative averment quite often alleges that the plaintiff did not have the capacity to bring the legal action.  
 
Nonetheless, in a country where our judges commonly receive only three years of tertiary education, many courts have been befuddled by the arguments.  Shane Wenzel had recently spoken with Jamie Lockett about a broad-based education program that would be promoted to teach these techniques to the public - as well as the platform that fines imposed by a debt-ridden nation constitute involuntary servitude.  Consequently, judges privately sought assistance from the Police and the New Zealand Solicitor General to quash what they identified as a small but growing problem.  The upshot of this 'plot' is that only in New Zealand can people who advocate the letter of the law - however quirky their interpretation - be labeled 'terrorists'.  The new Solicitor General David Collins' quick-draw willingness to form the posse in response is exceeded only by his personal ambition to be the next hanging judge.

Admittedly, Lockett does not pursue his quest in the manner of Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.  He is a bitter man.  Still, it is a travesty to label him a subversive intent on overthrowing the government of New Zealand and hold him without bail.  The irony is that this heavy handed police and court action has raised his profile and shown him to be a patriot to many.   
 
The New Zealand Police have promised that more damning evidence lies ahead and have indicated that charges under the Terrorist Suppression Act are imminent.  In the meantime, Iti and Lockett have been denied bail as the local and International uproar mounts.  A public protest has been organised for Friday morning in front of the Auckland District Court.

Prime Minister Helen Clark is advisedly more cautious in her public statements, only going so far as to relay the official Police line as being just that.  Perhaps she has learnt something from the Louise Nichols case.  Whatever Helen Clark has learnt, what we will see in the weeks ahead will be a lesson to us all.  [back to front page]