• Introducing the New Zealand Justice Forum

    The New Zealand Justice Forum aims to pool the collective experiences of our citizens, lawyers, and academics in order to discuss the many defects that weaken the integrity of the legal system.
  • Judge Harvey's Injudicious Remarks Sink Him Again

    Auckland District Court Judge David Harvey has once again put his hooves in his mouth at the NetHUI conference at Auckland's Sky City. In talking about copyright law, Harvey spun a tweet "We have met the enemy and he is [the] US".

    The comment resulted in Judge Harvey having to disqualify himself from the trial of Kim Dotcom in the U.S.'s pursuit of the MegaUpload tycoon for alleged intellectual property law breaches.

    Reporter Russell Brown, to whom the comments were purportedly made, called the disqualification justified but unfortunate as the Judge's comments had nothing to do with the Dotcom proceedings.

    Judge Harvey has had a long and colourful history of gaffs and often foul comments from the bench. He frequently has refused to release the court transcript after verbally showing his personal bias.

    He has often threatened lawyers with contempt for showing up late and gleefully commented from the bench in 2010 that "Legal aid is out of business. It now is controlled by the Judiciary".
    Comments 11 Comments
    1. Sir Richard's Avatar
      Sir Richard -
      This judge is an absolute wanker. Few people realise he was successfully sued before the Judiciary decreed judges are not accountable for their actions in New Zealand.
    1. Beachedas's Avatar
      Beachedas -
      More evidence that the New Zealand Justice system is a total joke, however on the bright side, the entire planet can bear witness to a thirld world justice system thats falling apart again & again when confronted with "yawn"first world problems.
    1. Shannon's Avatar
      Shannon -
      we need a petition for "Making Judges accountable for their actions" if they are in breach of legislations, rules and guidlines.
      How the hell can they not be held accountable! (Thats directed at you - Judge McNaughton - you should be held accountable and shouldnt be a judge!)
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Sir Richard View Post
      This judge is an absolute wanker. Few people realise he was successfully sued before the Judiciary decreed judges are not accountable for their actions in New Zealand.
      It is my understanding that Judge Harvey deliberately broke the law in his judgment of 20 March 2016 to block criminal charges against his fellow Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison.

      The charges alleged those three Justices were involved in criminal acts in 2013; the charges attract a prison sentence of up to7 year’s jail.

      The judgment of Judge Harvey only describes the charges as “conspiring to defeat the course of justice”. So the reader of his decision is unable to tell whether the Justices conspired to protect themselves, or someone else, from justice.

      Nor does the decision detail the charges, so the reader is left to ponder whether the Justices were conspiring to cover-up their conduct as paedophiles or some other heinous crime, or similar crimes of others.

      What is known is that Judge Harvey made his decision to block the criminal charges (for whatever criminal acts) without seeing or considering any of the evidence in support of the charges.

      What is also known is that the allegations are so serious, and involve the so called elite of our society, so the NZ Herald and The Dominion are terrified to run the story on the misconduct of Judge Harvey in breaking the law to protect his fellow judges. Judges who should be facing a jury on whatever the serious charges are about: including just who were the three Justices conspiring to protect.

      My understanding is that the misconduct of Judge Harvey is before the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Head of Bench, Judge Jan Doogue.

      Looks like it will probably be left to social media, or overseas Media, to expose this corruption.

      Anyone else had a bad experience with this Judge?
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      It is my understanding that Judge Harvey deliberately broke the law in his judgment of 20 March 2016 to block criminal charges against his fellow Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison....
      Q. C. - But a Judge who "deliberately broke the Law in his judgment" is committing a criminal act. So the Commissioner and the Head of Bench must arrange to remove Judge Harvey from Office.

      Or did I miss something?
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
      Q. C. - But a Judge who "deliberately broke the Law in his judgment" is committing a criminal act. So the Commissioner and the Head of Bench must arrange to remove Judge Harvey from Office.

      Or did I miss something?
      No you have not missed anything.

      The Head of Bench, Judge Jan Doogue, was formally asked to file a complaint about Judge Harvey's criminal act to the JCC (she was provided a copy of Judge Harvey's judgment and evidence that no evidence was called for by him).

      Judge Jan Doogue's response of 13 June 2016 was:

      "if you wish to refer the matter to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, that is a complaint that must be made by you personally to the JCC."


      She was then sent the following request on 29 June 2016 for conformation of her position as Chief Judge of the District Courts:

      "Chief Judge Doogue

      In regard to your email of 13 June 2016, I refer you to section 12(1) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner...Act 2004 which states:


      "Any person may make a complaint under section 11 about the conduct of a Judge."

      For clarity - is Your Honour refusing to support or file the complaint when you have irrefutable evidence of serious misconduct
      [actually a criminal act] by Judge Harvey.

      Please advise."



      How will she respond? or will she respond?
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      ...The Head of Bench, Judge Jan Doogue, was formally asked to file a complaint about Judge Harvey's criminal act to the JCC...

      She was then sent the following request on 29 June 2016... "For clarity - is Your Honour refusing to support or file the complaint when you have irrefutable evidence of serious misconduct [actually a criminal act] by Judge Harvey.

      Please advise."



      How will she respond? or will she respond?
      Chief District Court Judge, Jan Doogue, by letter of 8 July 2016 asked the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to "give due consideration" to the alleged criminal acts of Judge Harvey.

      She obviously did not want the Public and Parliament to see that she refused to act.

      How will the Commissioner respond?
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      Chief District Court Judge, Jan Doogue, by letter of 8 July 2016 asked the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to "give due consideration" to the alleged criminal acts of Judge Harvey.

      She obviously did not want the Public and Parliament to see that she refused to act.

      How will the Commissioner respond?
      Absolute success (sort of): Judge Harvey was forced to retire.

      The Judicial Conduct Commission advised by letter of 20 July 2016 that the complaint filed on 29 June 2016 against Judge Harvey for acting criminally cannot be investigated as Judge Harvey retired on 15 July 2016.
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      Absolute success (sort of): Judge Harvey was forced to retire.

      The Judicial Conduct Commission advised by letter of 20 July 2016 that the complaint filed on 29 June 2016 against Judge Harvey for acting criminally cannot be investigated as Judge Harvey retired on 15 July 2016.
      Today's hard question to the Commissioner:

      "Commissioner

      Thank you for your letter of today. I am concerned, as the section of the Act you quoted in your letter states "The Commissioner must dismiss the complaint if the Commissioner is of the opinion that...the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer a Judge"

      The complaint was made in June, at that point the person subject to the complaint was a Judge.

      The way you have interpreted the Act means that any Judge can commit any inappropriate act knowing that all they have to do, if they get caught out, is to retire before you make your decision, thus maintaining their important and rewarding status of being a "retired judge".

      I do not believe your interpretation is supported by Parliament's intent.

      Please explain why you have taken that position."
    1. golfa's Avatar
      golfa -
      I agree QC. "retired Judge" sounds so much better than "disgraced Judge".
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
      "Commissioner...The way you have interpreted the Act means that any Judge can commit any inappropriate act knowing that all they have to do, if they get caught out, is to retire before you make your decision, thus maintaining their important and rewarding status of being a "retired judge".

      I do not believe your interpretation is supported by Parliament's intent.

      Please explain why you have taken that position."

      Another hard question for the JCC

      "Commissioner

      Thank you for your letter of 29 July 2016.

      You state that your interpretation of the JCC Act is correct, that is, you have no authority to investigate the conduct of a Judge (when he was a judge) if he has since retired after the complaint was lodges to your Office. You rely on s. 5(c) of the JCC Act which states a "Judge" "does not include a retired Judge or a former Judge".

      You state my interpretation of the Act, that is, that you do have authority, is "arrant nonsense when read in conjunction with the definition of "Judge" in s. 5"

      I refer you to s.5(b) which states a "Judge" "includes a person who holds office as a temporary Judge, temporary Associate Judge, or acting Judge of any of those courts"

      As you know temporary Judges or acting Judges maybe sourced from retired Judges, but not former Judges.

      Your interpretation of the Act on that basis excludes authority to investigate the conduct of any temporary or acting Judge, if they were sourced from the pool of retired judges.

      So with the greatest of respects this makes your interpretation arrant nonsense. It is the timing of the conduct, the complaint and the retirement that are critical - the later 'retirement' does not, and cannot, trump the act or the complaint.


      Please reconsider your interpretation in light of s. 5(b) in combination with s. 5(c) and s. 4 of the JCC Act and advise on whether you will act on the Judge Harvey complaint."
  • Copyright

    The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events. If you are a legal copyright holder, or a designated agent for such, and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "fair dealing," and legitimately infringes on your or your client's copyright, please contact the administrator of this site. NZJF contains both original material and material from external sources. Original material: Copyright NZJF. Material from external sources: Copyright the respective owners / authors.