Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PRURIENT APOLOGIST?

Collapse
X
Collapse
  •  

  • PRURIENT APOLOGIST?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Finayson.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	3.8 KB
ID:	24850
    If civilisation is the progress toward a society of privacy, the New Zealand judiciary has no doubt reached its zenith.

    This was again confirmed this week when Attorney General Chris Finlayson (picutred) declared taxpayer-funded sojourns for the partners of our 206 judges is nobody's business.

    Weighing in on the Judiciary playing toad with a Dominion Post request for how much the citizenry were financially supporting judges' spouses, Finlayson said through his publicist, "Unlike elected representatives, there is no public interest, only a prurient interest, in publishing the minutiae of judge's expenses. It is an unwarranted intrusion into judges' privacy."

    The comment was recorded in a DomPost article this week that reported $500,000 in taxpayer funded travel expenses was paid for judges spouses over the last three years. Over the same period, $18 million was paid for judges' travel.

    But let not our delight at understanding a glimpse of an obscure system lead us to believe in the truth of what it demonstrates. This third of our government is so private that statutes expressly passed to make government more accountable and transparent - i.e., the Public Records Act 2005, the Official Information Act 1982 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - do not apply to judges.

    Increasingly, even court judgments are kept secret; with one case currently before the Supreme Court ( Rabson v Croad) challenging the power of the Court of Appeal to dispense with applications for judicial recusal by way of unrecorded and unauthored minutes.

    Few, if any, politicians yield the power of a New Zealand judge. And the public have no clue how these lawyers are appointed. Moreover, the old joke that you know a lawyer is lying because their lips are moving is transplanted by the dogma that NZ judges are never deceptive and do their best work in secret in order to protect others' privacy.

    This Orwellian view is aided by an enforceable code that exposing judicial misconduct can get a lawyer disbarred for bringing the judiciary into disrepute. In a land which champions the underdog, this shooting-of-the-messenger is unique - and more than a little perplexing.

    Not for Finlayson though. As Attorney General, Finlayson appoints the judges. He will likely appoint 4 of the 5 Supreme Court judges before next election and - few recall - he actively and unsuccessfully defended his mate Bill Wilson, who ultimately resigned in disgrace from the Supreme Court in 2010 when his conflicts of interest could no longer be concealed. It is fair comment Finlayson will likely never admit witnessing a judicial misdeed.

    Finlayson is dyed-in-the-wool loyal to a court system which his master has advocated is key to gaining more foreign investment. This explains why Finlayson went rabid when New Zealand's top equity lawyer, Tony Molloy QC, spoke candidly earlier this year about being embarrassed at international forums over the poor quality of judicial decisions in New Zealand. Loyal as he is to a diseased judiciary, and contrary to his public protestations, Finlayson could not help but to phone Dr Molloy to tell him he privately agreed with him.

    Few fear Finlayson may ultimately suffer the same (unexpected) fate as his mate Bill Wilson. Since the Wilson conflict of interest debacle he has been on fire brigade tending to judicial conflicts which - in the case of Geoffrey Venning and Hugh Williams - were worthy of the judges privately bragging about. He has not lost his focus and the judiciary will likely not forget his unbridled loyalty. He has banked his professional legacy on the "she'll be right" Kiwi apathy and shows no sign of relenting his attacks as 'prurient' the occasion public interest in what lurks behind the black robes.

    Credit: Kiwisfirst.co.nz

    • flimflam
      #1
      flimflam commented
      Editing a comment
      I thought that the tax payer had a legal right to see where their money goes. Is this so? If so perhaps these judges and finlinson see themselves as something asside of the nz public. A higher being for example, beyond reproach. Is this how we are served by these people.

      Remember with a criminal record you can't go and live in Australia so as more people leave nz who are we left with? Judges and people who can't leave. Are they the champions of industry who will turn our countries lack of fortune around? Heck no, the striving, hard working, thinking business folks have left or are leaving. Many are fed up with the court system, judiciary arrogance, self policing, self serving government departments and their officers, many of whom would be unemployable in the real world of commerce. We are pathetic We are only 4 million people. Still that number is reducing by 1000 a week as they leave.
    Posting comments is disabled.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • 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
  • TRANSPARENCY IN NEW ZEALAND
    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
Working...
X