View RSS Feed

Justice111

Court of appeal now aware barrister has been hiding evidence

Rate this Entry
UPDATING MATTERS SINCE LAST POST DATED 14 SEPT 2016:

Court of Appeal, on 05 October 2016 via minutes, accepted evidence (a substantial number of bank statements) had not been discovered by clients of Barrister Peter Wright.

The 05 October 2016 COA minutes requested the applicants to explain why the contents of the undisclosed bank statements were relevant to their claim.

The appellants, given their application requested the COA to disbar Counsel Wright for assisting his clients in the unlawful suppression of evidence answered the 05 October 2016 COA minutes via 10 October 2016 memorandum which recorded the following.

As anyone will appreciate, the parties names are not included in the following copy of the applicants' memo filed into the COA on 10 October 2016 given COA judgment/s is/are pending.

1. On the 12 September 2016 (in an oral hearing) Randerson, Wild and French JJ heard the applicants’ submissions in support of two applications filed, and which sought, the Court to deliver an order disbarring Counsel Peter Wright from acting for clients xxxx (barrister) and xxxx (Police Officer); with the applicants’ further request to the Court to lay charges against Counsel Wright for his historical and ongoing conduct to assist his clients (xxx and xxx) in the unlawful and fraudulent suppression of a substantial number of material evidential documents (Mr xxxx’s bank statements).

2. On the 05 October 2016 French J issued minutes requesting the applicants’ to precisely explain the relevance of the contents of the unlawfully suppressed bank statements.

3. In response to the Court, the applicants require a justice to give a cogent explanation as to the reason for this request.

4. The Court knows, or ought to know, the contents of the unlawfully suppressed bank statements are completely irrelevant to the serious issues raised in the applicants’ applications currently before the Court for consideration.

5. As the Court (via Randerson, Wild and French JJ) are aware of, or ought to be, the applicants applications are solely focused on requesting the Court to FINALLY address (after the Court’s ongoing unexplained avoidance to date to do so) the historical and ongoing unlawful and fraudulent conduct of Counsel Wright to assist his clients xxx and xxx to suppress evidence (a substantial number of client xxx’s bank statements).

6. In the oral hearing before Randerson, Wild and French JJ on the 12 September 2016, justices saw Ms Copper (Counsel Wright’s Counsel) offer up NO defence (either materially or orally) to challenge the applicants’ applications’; the affidavits and undeniable evidential documents annexed to those affidavits; and the applicants’ submissions supporting the applicants’ applications.

7. In the interim, while the applicants await a response from the Court in reply to the applicants’ request recorded in paragraph [3] of this memorandum, the applicants offer up the following, though the applicants’ believe the following details they provide the Court below are completely irrelevant to the issues the Court has been requested to address (and deliver judgment thereafter) in regards to the applicants’ applications which are solely focused on the Court addressing the unlawful conduct (deliberate historical and ongoing suppression of evidence) by an officer of the Court (Peter Wright) and his clients.

8. The applicants’ say that their family trust issued cheques (of a significant value) to Counsel Wright’s client xxxx while client xxx was in the 6 and a half year (from mid 2002 to late 2008) de-facto relationship with the first applicant.

9. As the Court would appreciate and be aware of, bank statements of account holders that issue cheques to another only record cheque numbers and the amounts withdrawn. The bank statement of the party that issues the cheques does not record the recipients of those cheques.

10. The relevance of the contents of the unlawfully suppressed bank statements of Counsel Wright’s client (xxxx), though this relevance is absolutely unconnected with the issues the Court has been asked to address via the applicants’ current applications, is that the unlawfully suppressed bank statements will confirm Counsel Wright’s client xxxx received significant credits, via cheques, from the applicants’ family trust during the 6 and a half year de-facto relationship between Counsel Wright’s client xxx and the first applicant.

11. This Court is STONGLY reminded (AS IT WAS in the 12 September 2016 oral hearing) that issues between the applicants’ and Counsel Wright’s clients (xxx and xxxx) involves a financial loss to the applicants’ of, at the very least, 2.5 million. This being contrary to the misconceived figure of $33,000 recorded at paragraph [14] in the 2014 judgment of Harrison, Wild and French JJ.

Judgment number concealed in this post

12. This Court is also respectfully reminded that the same aforementioned 2014 judgment of Harrison, Wild and French JJ records, at paragraph [17] the fraudulent claims of Counsel Wright, on behalf of his clients, that “Mr xxx’s bank statements had been discovered in the Family Court for the purposes of relationship property litigation between Ms xxx and xxxx”.

13. To that end, the applicants’ believe there is NO lawful remedy available to the Court to excuse Counsel Wright’s unlawful and fraudulent historical and ongoing conduct to assist his clients (a barrister and police officer) to suppress evidence (of a vital nature) to avail Counsel Wright’s clients to obtain favourable judgments which foully (under the Court’s nose) have procured Counsel Wright and his clients’ unlawful and fraudulent pecuniary gain.

14. Though it may be harsh, the applicants’ voice their significant concerns that this Court, after the 12 September 2016 oral hearing, has not taken any steps to deliver an stern order demanding Counsel Wright compel his client xxxx to immediately discover the unlawfully suppressed bank statements. The applicants’ believe by judiciary members holding back delivering such an order is conduct on the precipice of the Court assisting Counsel Wright and his clients (barrister and police officer) in the deliberate unlawful and fraudulent suppression of evidence.

15. Given the absolute serious nature of the issues raised in the applicants’ applications, heard (via oral hearing) by justices Randerson, Wild and French JJ on the 12 September 2016, and given Counsel Wright (via barrister Ms Copper) has offered up NO DEFENCE against the applicants applications (either materially or orally prior to, and during the 12 September 2016 hearing), the applicants’ respectfully anticipate an expeditious judgment (in the applicants’ favour) to be delivered by this Court given the matter is extremely serious, that being the criminal historical and STILL ongoing conduct by an officer of the Court and his clients (barrister and police officer).

Submit "Court of appeal now aware barrister has been hiding evidence" to Digg Submit "Court of appeal now aware barrister has been hiding evidence" to del.icio.us Submit "Court of appeal now aware barrister has been hiding evidence" to StumbleUpon Submit "Court of appeal now aware barrister has been hiding evidence" to Google

Updated 20-10-2016 at 08:58 AM by Justice111

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Judicial Conduct

Comments

  1. FairHearing's Avatar
    >>with the applicants’ further request to the Court to lay charges against Counsel Wright for his historical and ongoing conduct

    To my limited knowledge, a court of law, let alone Court of Appeal, cannot "lay charges". It's parties' task to raise issues. The court's task is to adjudicate. In this sense, your "request" was hopeless. There is an exception - when you are in New Zealand and the judges want to help you for some reason; then any wonders are possible. I understand this exception doesn't apply to you.

    Irrespectively of the above, I struggled to understand your memorandum. I am sure the judges didn't read it - they don't normally read or otherwise take into account what a lay litigant says. Even if they did read it, the retards wouldn't get a clue what you were trying to say.

    For example, in 1-4, you seem to have said that -

    (1) at the oral hearing, you asked the court to lay charges against Wright for suppression of bank statements.
    (2) a month later, French asked you to explain how bank statements are relevant (the very fact of French asking you for further submissions after the hearing seems strange to me). Her point was, if the statements are irrelevant, then their suppression is not a valid basis for charges.
    (3) You boldly demanded French to explain why she asks silly questions.
    (4) You say that French knows that the content of bank statements is irrelevant to your application.

    (1) and (4) seem to contradict each other. You memo then becomes more convoluted towards the end.

    Sorry for bad news...