Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Article: Judge Harvey's Injudicious Remarks Sink Him Again

  1. #1

    Article: Judge Harvey's Injudicious Remarks Sink Him Again


  2. #2
    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.

  3. #3
    Member Beachedas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Mangitanoka
    Posts
    44
    Blog Entries
    3
    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.

  4. #4
    Seniorita Member Shannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Whangarei
    Posts
    48
    Blog Entries
    5
    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!)

  5. #5
    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?

  6. #6
    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?

  7. #7
    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?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 09-07-2016 at 12:56 PM.

  8. #8
    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?

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    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."
    Last edited by Q. C.; 20-07-2016 at 02:29 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •