PDA

View Full Version : Judicial conduct: NZ vs Australia



FairHearing
17-02-2016, 11:57 AM
Did you know that, based on the published official statistics on judicial conduct complaints, an average NZ judge is complained about 9 times more often than an average judge of New South Wales? At the same time, an average judge of the NZ Supreme Court is complained about 13.4 times more often than an average NZ judge (across all courts), and 120 times more often than a NSW judge.

Does that mean that -

NZ judges conduct themselves 9 times worse than NSW judges?
NZ Supreme Court judges conduct themselves 13.4 times worse than average NZ judges?
NZ Supreme Court judges conduct themselves 120 times worse than average NSW judges?

BarryCowlishaw
18-02-2016, 01:30 AM
Either way ....I wonder if they sense they are becoming- rather an embarrassment, eroding the credibility of the Courts and ultimately any perception of stability offered by the concepts and codes of behavior which empower the legal structure and fraternity.

Us normal folk call "Professionally Stupid" Behavior .... "Shitting in ones own nest" ..... perhaps they are overpaid? :)

PS...Good thing they dropped the sheepskin rugs eh? .....they were such a chuckle - :) worth a mention

FairHearing
18-02-2016, 08:18 AM
Good thing they dropped the sheepskin rugs eh? .....they were such a chuckle - :) worth a mention

Did NZ judges wear sheepskin? Or what are you referring to?

BarryCowlishaw
18-02-2016, 02:14 PM
Those pretentious wigs they were wearing until relatively recently.... looked a bit like sheepskin ... but certainly made it difficult to hold back a laugh when they were trying to be serious.... Part of the culture no doubt?

FairHearing
18-02-2016, 07:40 PM
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" Matthew 7:15-16

Back to the civil context, I think that the official statistics has inadvertently revealed the objective indicator of the appalling extent of judicial corruption in NZ. I wonder what others think of the numbers. Though based on the lack of replies, the statistics doesn't seem to attract much interest. Strange, I'd think even the JCC would hesitate to dismiss it as not "real and persuasive evidence".

golfa
18-02-2016, 10:56 PM
Being a foreigner, I've concluded that New Zealanders are a strange bunch. They generally behave like ostriches with their heads in the sand. If I can't see you, you can't see me. Most blindly believe when told that NZ is "one of the least corrupt countries in the World" and that corruption only happens when money changes hands. Nepotism and cronyism isn't seen as corruption. They are not interested when it happens to other people, they are only interested when it happens to them. Just look at the umpiring decision at the cricket last week. They were calling for the umpires head .... but the week before when NZ fielded 8 players at the 7s tournament, it was an "error".

John "Brockovich"
19-02-2016, 07:52 AM
Did you know that, based on the published official statistics on judicial conduct complaints, an average NZ judge is complained about 9 times more often than an average judge of New South Wales?....]

FairHearing: Please post the reference to this published official statistic or the 'report' itself.

Have you asked the Minister of Justice or the A-G or Opposition spokesman to comment on the figures or asked the Media why they have not asked those two Ministers for their comments?

Particularly the A-G, as it is his statutory role to "protect the judiciary from improper and unfair criticism" , if it is improper and unfair criticism.

FairHearing
22-02-2016, 01:10 AM
The official reports can be easily googled. But since you've asked, see page 2 of the open letter here (https://www.fairhearing.info/open-letter-to-rt-hon-john-key-and-other-members-of-parliament/). The footnote in the PDF file is hyperlinked to the information sources.

The Minister of Justice's response can be found at the same link. She's chosen to turn a blind eye.

The Attorney-General has failed to respond, I assume because the criticism was proper and fair, and/or because the A-G is himself corrupt. He's mentioned in the letter.

The MPs who responded said it's MoJ, A-G and/or JCC's job.

JCC said he has no jurisdiction.

The NZ media was contacted, but of course they will not publish even the statistics, out of the self-preservation instinct.

See also the distribution list at the end of the letter and the summary of replies on the web page.

John "Brockovich"
22-02-2016, 08:59 AM
The official reports can be easily googled....

Thanks: I note the villains in your case include Justices Harrison and Copper. If you read QC's post on "Judicial Conduct Checking Mechanism" (part of which is as below) Justices Harrison and Cooper are before the Supreme Court on an allegation of judicial corruption.

You might get some satisfaction out of that result in the Supreme Court.

Quote from QC:

"The alleged purpose of that alleged criminal act by the Registrar being to ensure the Supreme Court Justices would never have the April 2013 filed application before them that would require the Supreme Court to consider whether there was judicial corruption on the part of Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison and complicit corruption and criminal contempt by others with statutory authority within our justice system."

John "Brockovich"
22-02-2016, 09:34 AM
...At the same time, an average judge of the NZ Supreme Court is complained about 13.4 times more often than an average NZ judge (across all courts)...

FairHearing: Just remember with a Supreme Court decision the complaint could be against a judge or 3 judges or all 5 judges. Depending on the type of decision. So a strict comparison to the lower courts is difficult.

Particularly when those who are trying to hid systemic judicial corruption from the Public can rely on the equally corrupt JCC. They will argue that the disgruntled litigant (who just does not understand the law) merely has a target of 5 unfortunate honorable judges rather that 1 judge in the High Court, so the number of complaints against Supreme Court Judges is irrelevant. They will claim what is relevant is that the JCC [that is the equally corrupt JCC] reports that he has investigated allegations of corruption and miss conduct and found no wrongdoing to date.

As the A-G traditionally puts forward to Parliament, for appointments to the appellate Courts, those judges who have a tendency to be corrupt, then it is of no surprise that the more honest judges are left behind and the dishonest accumulate in the Supreme Court (and Court of Appeal). To the dismay of the Privy Council, who have no jurisdiction to correct these wrongs in the Supreme Court as they used to do to the Court of Appeal (e.g.Taito v
R.)

So your figures and % are in all probability correct and, more importantly, directly correlate to the unstopped miss conduct you would expect from those put forward by the A-G.

FairHearing
23-02-2016, 12:30 AM
Just remember with a Supreme Court decision the complaint could be against a judge or 3 judges or all 5 judges. Depending on the type of decision. So a strict comparison to the lower courts is difficult.

If 3 out of 3 judges of SC are corrupt, then why does it pose a problem in terms of the comparison with lower court judges? As per the JCC Act, one can complain about an individual judge, not a panel. If three SC judges plainly lied in their judgment, then a complaint can (and logically should) include all three. If, say, only one judge knowingly made a false statement in his own separate opinion in the judgment, then a complaint should be lodged against that specific judge. So the direct statistical comparison is appropriate.


They will argue that the disgruntled litigant (who just does not understand the law) merely has a target of 5 unfortunate honorable judges rather that 1 judge in the High Court, so the number of complaints against Supreme Court Judges is irrelevant.

There's no statistical distortion as the figures are averaged. In the case of a unanimous corrupt decision of a full SC panel, we'd have 5 complaints, one complaint per judge. It's the same as if the matter was heard by a single corrupt judge.


They will claim what is relevant is that the JCC [that is the equally corrupt JCC] reports that he has investigated allegations of corruption and miss conduct and found no wrongdoing to date.

They cannot claim this. The vast majority of complaints are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In other words, the JCC said that since the complaint concerned a judicial decision, he couldn't investigate. It doesn't mean there is no corruption. It means the JCC is not allowed/does not want to investigate corruption related to judicial decisions.

FairHearing
23-02-2016, 12:43 AM
If you read QC's post on "Judicial Conduct Checking Mechanism" (part of which is as below) Justices Harrison and Cooper are before the Supreme Court on an allegation of judicial corruption. You might get some satisfaction out of that result in the Supreme Court.

SC is corrupt supremely. The allegations will be either completely ignored, or afforded 1-2 lines of text to the effect that they are "devoid of merit". In the latter case, the judgment will either entirely omit the allegations or grossly misrepresent them.

Q. C.
23-02-2016, 08:32 AM
If 3 out of 3 judges of SC are corrupt...

They cannot claim this. The vast majority of complaints are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In other words, the JCC said that since the complaint concerned a judicial decision, he couldn't investigate. It doesn't mean there is no corruption. It means the JCC is not allowed/does not want to investigate corruption related to judicial decisions.

I think the point is that it is the JCC who is the real problem.

The JCC can, and does, investigate judicial decisions in relation to a complaint on 'conduct', that is the conduct of gross incompetence, incapacity or judicial corruption. You just have to word the complain the right way.

So the JCC is allowed to investigate those conduct issues against a judicial decision, however in doing so he always decides there was no real and persuasive evidence of that alleged conduct [regardless of the real and persuasive evidence before him].

In other words; you are correct in saying "It means the JCC...does not want to investigate corruption related to judicial decisions"

The decision by this JCC, and the previous JCC, to not find misconduct of gross incompetence, incapacity or judicial corruption is a 'policy' decision. It has nothing to do with JCCs' obligations under the Act or what the Act authorises them to do, other than the 'policy', the JCCs' have established and followed, being in breach of their obligations under the Act and the rule of law.

That is why the rule of law defines the JCC's statutory conduct as 'corrupt' acts, albeit allowed to continue unabated by systemic judicial corruption at Judicial Review.

John "Brockovich"
23-02-2016, 11:47 AM
... The allegations will be either completely ignored [by the Supreme Court], or afforded 1-2 lines of text to the effect that they are "devoid of merit". In the latter case, the judgment will either entirely omit the allegations or grossly misrepresent them.

Perhaps: However, the allegations (in the Application) have been before the Supreme Court since April 2013, without any decision as yet (that is 2 years 10 months).

If the Justices of the Supreme Court could ignore the allegations, in the way you suggest, they would have done so by now. So, by no SC decision as yet, Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison (and others with statutory authority) wait their fate.

BarryCowlishaw
23-02-2016, 07:30 PM
An interesting point you have made there relating to the privy council ... I have often wondered how those serving in positions of trust ... felt they had the authority to change that part of the judicial constitution without first consulting the public and seeking at least some form of consent.

Again this Business like "arrogance" was dumped on us by the Business/Banking lobby soon after their 1984 coup and a lot of uninvited decisions were made relating to aspects of this Nations Sovereignty and constitution.... all by the shifty class of person such as g palmer and his associate d graham ... both of whom- I find very hard to even honour by giving them capital letters in their name (did you notice?).... Both of them should have known better but g palmer passes himself off as (among other things) a constitutional lawyer ...... so much for qualifications .... Both are better qualified as CROOKs .... the evidence is pretty clear

It is a pity that the Privy Council is unable to simply tell our home grown arrogant halfwits to simply pull their heads in and remember their place is or was one of servant rather than proprietor

Who knows .... one day when these sods influence has passed away (trash is taken out) .... Some of these issues could well be addressed by more honourable and stable minds.

FairHearing
24-02-2016, 01:23 AM
Perhaps: However, the allegations (in the Application) have been before the Supreme Court since April 2013, without any decision as yet (that is 2 years 10 months). If the Justices of the Supreme Court could ignore the allegations, in the way you suggest, they would have done so by now.

I'd say, given that it's been almost 3 years since, they clearly had ignored the allegations and didn't even bother to scribble a judgment note on the application.

John "Brockovich"
24-02-2016, 08:36 AM
I'd say, given that it's been almost 3 years since, they clearly had ignored the allegations and didn't even bother to scribble a judgment note on the application.

Not quite:
On a complaint to the JCC, that the Supreme Court Justices were 'incapacitated' as they did not deal with an application filed in their Court in April 2013 (and later Memorandums on urgency and those seeking directions), the JCC made inquires of the Justices.

The JCC reported that the Justices confirmed the Registrar only gave the April 2013 Application to them in December 2015, thus it is not a conduct issue regarding the Justices but a Registrar issue.

Accepting that the:
1. Honourable Justices would not mislead the JCC, nor pervert the JCC's statutory investigation, by lying about the matter;

2. Registrar had confirmed by email a number of times that all the Applications and Memorandums were before the Justices;

3. Registrar had already waited 2 years and 11 months before he dealt with another separate Applications filed in October 2012;

4. April 2013 Application required the SC to deal with criminal contempt of Crown Counsels and others and judicial corruption by Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison,

the Registrar of the Supreme Court now faces the prospect of a criminal charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice (as soon as the District Court Judge authorises the summons on the Registrar).


So the ignoring of the allegations by the Supreme Court, according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, only started in December 2015.

golfa
24-02-2016, 11:01 AM
Haha, John. Seems the Justices are hanging the Registrar out to dry. Aided by the JCC. Be interesting to see what "evidence" the Registrar has to show that he had placed the Application before the Justices long before December 2015. And if the Registrar sent you emails saying the Application was before the Justices, someone is obviously lying.

John "Brockovich"
24-02-2016, 11:25 AM
Haha, John. Seems the Justices are hanging the Registrar out to dry. Aided by the JCC. Be interesting to see what "evidence" the Registrar has to show that he had placed the Application before the Justices long before December 2015. And if the Registrar sent you emails saying the Application was before the Justices, someone is obviously lying.

FYI:
The JCC, in effect, ruled the Registrar was lying, as the JCC was asked in December 2015 to answer the following proposition:

"Either the Judge [on behalf of all the SC Judges] has deliberately deceived you, the Registrar has deliberately deceived the Judges, or the Registrar and Judges orchestrated “a retrofit” of history to cover up the inordinate and never before explained delays which clearly breached my right to natural justice.

Two of these three equally plausible options have Supreme Court judges perverting your statutory investigation."