No announcement yet.




    Click image for larger version

Name:	sir-peter-blanchard.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	34.2 KB
ID:	24750
    The Rt Hon Sir Peter Blanchard has been a judge of the Supreme Court, New Zealand’s final court of appeal, since 2004. He was a partner in Auckland law firm Simpson Grierson and director of several listed companies until his appointment to the High Court in 1992, and then to the Court of Appeal in 1996. He was a member of the Law Commission from 1990 to 1994, and was appointed a Privy Councillor in 1998.

    In his last sitting of the New Zealand Supreme Court earlier this month, Justice Peter Blanchard used the opportunity to expound his personal views that recall applications needed to be stopped.The comments were made from the bench but, when one lawyer requested a copy of the transcript, a curt reply from the Court declared Blanchard J was refusing to release it.

    These dark meanderings of a once-brilliant conveyancing lawyer foreshadow a disturbing trend of NZ judges dictating draconian policy from the bench. It is not simply Blanchard J's lack of discretion which provides a wake up call to the law-abiding public. Lawyers who attended the display cringed at the comments, knowing it was akin to Justice Blanchard's obscuring of the financial indebtedness of his former colleague Justice Bill Wilson which required premier wool exporter Saxmere to file a (successful) second recall to the Supreme Court.

    But apparently, even an old dog can learn new tricks. In refusing to release the transcript, Blanchard J was obviously mindful that it was his comments that caught him out in the first (unsuccessful) Saxmere recall hearing transcript that both embarrassed him personally and required the unprecedented second recall to New Zealand's highest court.
    In a country where judges are not accountable to anyone, it was a fitting departure for Blanchard J to take a perverse swipe at the messengers which expose a dysfunctional and often wayward Supreme Court.

    But the arrogance of Sir Peter Blanchard cursing the honest litigants who persevere - while seeking to encourage government policy changes to stop them - was sadly unnecessary, few seekers of justice can afford the millions of dollars Saxmere spent in multiple trips to the Supreme Court fighting judicial activism.
    Attached Files
      Posting comments is disabled.

    Latest Articles


    • Judge Goddard Shipped to United Kingdom for Inquiry
      by courtwatcher
      Official comments from the United Kingdom lauding the appointment of New Zealand High Court Justice Lowell Goddard to head an Inquiry into broad child sexual abuse have legal doyens in New Zealand privately scratching their heads. Goddard J scored dead last in the 2014 poll of New Zealand judges last year, with many lawyers extremely critical of Lowell’s opportunistic public stances, liberties with the truth and contrarian judgments. But let us not be burdened by the empirical truth when we sho...
      05-02-2015, 12:27 PM
      by admin

      Transparency International New Zealand posted a news story on Voxy yesterday stating its "emergent overall findings" into its "National Integrity Systems review" "found that high standards of independence, integrity and accountability were generally met, although areas for improvements were noted. New Zealand also scores highly for fiscal transparency." The story states a further report will be provided in July, with the full report concluding August 27th. The public are invited...
      14-05-2013, 02:50 PM
    • Judges push Parliament to protect them
      by admin
      New Zealand Judges have ganged up to push Parliament into considering legislation which gives them greater privacy, stating criticism of judges - what they called "unwarranted and improper attack" - is increasing on internet sites; adding complaints to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, while "appropriate in principle", are frequently being used "essentially to harass judges". Eight judges, including the Chief Justice and Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, expressly endorsed the submissions t...
      25-04-2013, 11:14 AM
    • Shake up for judges mooted
      by admin
      Judges are facing the biggest overhaul of accountability in decades, with the Cabinet considering legal changes that would compel the judiciary to publish annual reports, bring transparency to judicial appointments and attempt to stem criticism washing up against the bench. The changes being considered by ministers today will see the 115-year-old Judicature Act updated to modernise a branch of state that has come under fire from some.

      A Herald-DigiPoll survey has found 53 per cent...
      15-04-2013, 10:07 AM
    • Attack by Family Court judges force Government backdown
      by admin
      The Government has backed down from radical Family Court changes which would have banned lawyers from acting in the early stages of disputes over the care of children. The proposed changes, designed to save $15 million a year, have been slammed as "unsafe" in an outspoken submission by Family Court judges. Principal Family Court Judge Laurence Ryan, on behalf of the full Family Court Bench, said a proposal to ban lawyers until the final stages of parental disputes would drive parents into more...
      07-04-2013, 10:10 AM
    • Litigants without lawyers biggest problem facing the Family Court
      by admin

      Current proposals with the select committee considering the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill include a compulsory $900 family dispute service, axing counselling sessions and restricting access to legal representation for parents and children. Judge Laurence Ryan is the new principal Family court Judge and he is concerned about changes to legal aid - meaning dozens more litigants without lawyers .
      Ryan was appointed to the bench in 1996 - he has a strong interest in case ...
      25-03-2013, 08:07 PM