Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judges push Parliament to protect them

Collapse
X
Collapse
  •  

  • Judges push Parliament to protect them

    Click image for larger version

Name:	judges.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	11.6 KB
ID:	24900
    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 to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. However, the cover letter asserts it has "the support of the judiciary".

    Among the host of unsupported claims, the judges' submissions declare "the judicial complaints process... has been used largely by disgruntled litigants who are disappointed in the outcome of their cases."
    In reaction to the broad-reaching and unsupported judges' submissions, kiwisfirst filed an Official Information Act request with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner seeking to know whether he was the source of their information or expressed similar views.

    Commissioner David Gascoigne responded that he has not expressed any opinion the complaints process is being used to harass judges or anything similar. He began by stating he has "a statutory duty of confidentiality" which necessarily limits his disclosures. He finished by saying he could only speculate that the judges' submission to Parliament "may reflect the views of judges who feel a disproportionate amount of their time is taken up with responding to some of the requests from me for comment about some aspect of the complaints that have been made about them".

    If the Commissioner's speculation is adopted, and one considers the statistics showing the Commissioner dismisses 85% of the complaints without seeking comment from the judge involved on the ground he considers s 16 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act 2004 prevents him from calling into question the judge's authority, then it becomes hard to believe New Zealand judges are so overburdened by this complaints process. Anything short of a judge dropping their knickers in court is deemed to be within their authority sufficient to preclude obtaining comment from them on a complaint before it is dismissed.

    But then again, perhaps Parliament will not ask all these judges who signed the submission claims for the supporting evidence. In this sense, as in the New Zealand Courts, evidence may be a nuisance rather than a necessity

    • flimflam
      #1
      flimflam commented
      Editing a comment
      People are still getting out of nz, for all of these reasons. We now expect the police to lie, we are not surprised that the judges lobby politicians, that they make findings without evidence. Here in nz we actually expect it now. They should not be surprised when most of the people before them in court are Asian or first or second generation imigrants, why? Because the informed thinking folks continue to leave, and where does this leave us as a country again ?

      Example Malcolm Rabson stiffed by the family court has employed hundreds of people, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax but will never have another business registered in nz. Well done judge Ulrich and the family court perhaps you can employ the people Malcolm used to.

    • 1victim
      #2
      1victim commented
      Editing a comment
      Of course when they say they need more "privacy" they really mean more "suppression".....

      ....and when they say "suppression" they really mean to "coverup" ....

      and what they need to "coverup" is their "corrupt decisions" .....

      and their "corrupt decisions" are in "breach of NZ Law" ....

      and their "breaches of NZ Law" are against our NZ "Bill of Rights Act 1990" ....

      and their crimes against our "Bill of Rights Act 1990" is a breach of the NZ governments obligations under the "United Nations Treaty" ....

      So what will our government do to protect our "Human Rights" in this matter ???

      I think they will give these Criminals their wish and pass legislation - without a referendum of course - and grant them more "Privacy" ....

      On a more serious note, we could have wished the 14 sheep a more dignified end to their careers, instead of having their fleeces tainted by sitting atop of these "insults against humanity" ....... Perhaps the "Union of Sheep" may have an "Animals Rights" case to take to the UN .... ???

      Just my opinion of course - am I still entitled to one ?

      1victim

    • Justice111
      #3
      Justice111 commented
      Editing a comment
      Legal complaint review officer (a sham in the new zealand law society's favour)

      Originally posted by Yoda
      One opinion is a step towards changing the way things are done in New Zealand.
      I agree that one opinion is a step towards change.

      I have been through the NZLS Complaints Process and after they dismissed my complaint I filed an application into the Legal Complaints Review Officer/s ("LCRO")which I believed was controlled by the Ministry of Justice.

      I spent over a year filing documents into the LCRO and attended a hearing which successfully gained me an order reversing the NZLS decision which had dismissed my complaint.

      However the victory was bitter as the LCRO made an order that the legal practitioner that had done me so wrong was to pay a fine to the NZLS, the same society that had dismissed my complaint.

      I believe the NZLS is guilty of "Unjust Enrichment" and they tick every legal box to have a claim to that effect commenced against them.
    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