• 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.
  • Judges push Parliament to protect them

    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
    Comments 3 Comments
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      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.
    1. 1victim's Avatar
      1victim -
      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
    1. Justice111's Avatar
      Justice111 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
      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.
  • 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.