• 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.
  • Justice Department "fixes" trial of court employee


    Last week, on a quiet Monday afternoon in the Porirua District Court, Judge Arthur Tompkins dealt with a case that up until recently would have been put to a jury to decide whether or not the Crown had proven its case. Now days, an offence has to attract a penalty of 2 or more years imprisonment before an accused is entitled to request a jury trial.

    Judge Tompkins was called in from Hamilton to preside over the trial because of the difficulty in finding a Wellington judge who did not know the complainant, the registrar of the Court of Appeal, Clare O'Brien.

    Ms O'Brien made a complaint to police last September that she had been assaulted by a process server outside the Court of Appeal in Wellington. Although the incident occurred in Wellington and the complaint laid with the Wellington Police, the case was dealt with in Porirua to avoid any media scrutiny. The court subsequently heard that the decision to prosecute the case had been taken before witnesses had been interviewed, with the Constable charge of the case, Gareth Kearney saying he; "didn't need to speak to other witnesses first because his orders to pursue the matter had come from above."

    In the lead up to the trial several applications were made by the defendant for disclosure of CCTV footage of the encounter outside the Aitken Street entrance of the Court. It was here the defendant alleged that Clare O'Brien had first committed an assault by "swatting" a cellphone being used to take a picture of her to confirm service.

    Several documents were filed by the police confirming that the Justice Department/Court of Appeal claimed to have held no footage of the incident. However a few weeks before the trial, the defendant struck up a chance conversation with a Court Security Officer who admitted reviewing the footage three days after O'Brien first made her complaint of assault. It was put to the officer in Court that; "had this footage shown O'Brien being assaulted rather than the other way around, that it would have been key evidence against the defendant and preserved."

    Despite the facts before the court that the Justice Department had obviously misled the police and the court about this critical evidence, further inquiry was not possible after security staff admitted that the footage had most likely been expired from the system, despite the fact that it was critical evidence in the proceeding.

    The Court heard evidence from all the witnesses, including the complainant which confirmed that Clare O'Brien had pushed the defendant first, thereby committing an assault. However in a bizarre twist of perverse reasoning which confirmed the depraved and corrupt nature of the proceedings, Judge Tompkins ruled that despite all the evidence to the contrary,Clare O'Brien had in fact been assaulted first before pushing the defendant.

    A sentencing hearing will take place in the Porirua District Court on 20 March 2014 and an appeal will be filed by with the High Court thereafter.
    Comments 5 Comments
    1. 1victim's Avatar
      1victim -
      Clare O'Brien epitomises all that is wrong with our justice system. This is her reward for denying many legitimate appeals from genuinely wronged citizens in her continuing abuse of her position as COA registrar. And isn't it amazing that cowardly turds like Gareth Kearney can never seem to remember the names of "those above" who instruct them to pursue these corrupt cases. Ultimately, scum like O'Brien will only learn the error of their ways by one action ........ but I daren't say it for fear of retribution from "those above" .....
    1. Q. C.'s Avatar
      Q. C. -
      Quote Originally Posted by 1victim View Post
      Clare O'Brien epitomises all that is wrong with our justice system. This is her reward for denying many legitimate appeals from genuinely wronged citizens in her continuing abuse of her position as COA registrar...
      I agree, the decision is obviously further reward for Clare O'Brian. As on 10 September 2013 she knowingly signed an illegal "Notice of Abandonment" on an appeal to the COA, while a matter within that appeal was still being considered by the Supreme Court (including that the Supreme Court had formally notified the COA of their involvement in determining an issue within the appeal).

      Clare O'Brian after 4 months of consultation with Crown Law refused to withdraw the illegal Notice. The Supreme Court has yet to determine the issue, which technically is on longer on appeal to the COA.

      Readers will not be surprised that the appeal to the COA concerns the corrupt conduct of two Justices; Justices Cooper and Toogood. And that the issue before the Supreme Court is the corrupt act of Justice Harrison, of the COA, in attempting to block the appeal hearing (of Justice Cooper's and Toogood's corruption) before the COA.

      A ruling in her favour is just reward for Clare O'Brian one would think !

      Remember Judge Tompkins, when ruling about Clare O'Brian, knew that having "no favour, fear or ill will" wording in a Judicial Oath does not apply when covering-up and protecting systemic corruption within our justice system.
    1. golfa's Avatar
      golfa -
      Corruption and incompetence in spades from Judge Tompkins. I bet he's proud because he knows he's untouchable.
    1. John "Brockovich"'s Avatar
      John "Brockovich" -
      Quote Originally Posted by golfa View Post
      Corruption and incompetence in spades from Judge Tompkins. I bet he's proud because he knows he's untouchable.
      Agreed, Judge Tompkins would be proud, but his grandfather (Arthur Lance Tompkins Q. C. and a Supreme Court Judge in 1963 to ...) who was neither corrupt nor incompetent would be ashamed if he knew and turn over in his grave.
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      We are writing and people are reading. The public know that the family court is gender biased. Mothers have watched their sons go through it and themselves have not seen their grandchildren. People know, people talk.

      Fathers walk and continue to. Well done Clare O Brien and her judicial support. The Family court is a gender biased laughing stock. Look at the fatherless children, thousands of them. Well done family court.

      Now to the other courts, would you start or bring a business to new Zealand after reading comments on this site? You would think twice and investigate further. The other courts will soon enjoy the reputation the family court has. The subjects will be different as will the reasons for the reputation. The reputation will come.

      Lawyers enjoy that reputation now, yet I can remember when the legal profession was held in high regard - not now. People are aware of the vagaries of their self assessing little society. In the end people will avoid them and doing business in new Zealand in the same way that many fathers have avoided the family court. They may have gone there, obtained parenting directions only to find mummy dosn't need to follow them - because she is mummy and that's ok. Dad leaves, gives up.

      Businesses are doing the same and other business leaders are apprehensive about judicial corruption, process corruption and getting stiffed so the dole que grows.

      One day it will be Clare Obrien's children who can't find work here and leave too. At that time Clare, think about your handy little contribution and realise that you and your cronies have not only shot us in the foot, but yourselves too.

      There will be yet another round of trumpeting about Family Court Reforms (soon) yet you can only put so much lipstick on the same old pig. They can dress it up with nice new trotter shaped shoes, give it a new nose ring, a go faster stripe but you still have the likes of judge Ulrich making directions which dont deliver benefits to the children but to mummy. We may still have directions from judge Johnson without the father able to put in any evidence - making directions without having heard the evidence.

      From a credability standpoint they might try matching shoes, lipstick and perhaps a clutch purse.
  • 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.