Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Judicial conduct: NZ vs Australia

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Just remember with a Supreme Court decision the complaint could be against a judge or 3 judges or all 5 judges. Depending on the type of decision. So a strict comparison to the lower courts is difficult.
    If 3 out of 3 judges of SC are corrupt, then why does it pose a problem in terms of the comparison with lower court judges? As per the JCC Act, one can complain about an individual judge, not a panel. If three SC judges plainly lied in their judgment, then a complaint can (and logically should) include all three. If, say, only one judge knowingly made a false statement in his own separate opinion in the judgment, then a complaint should be lodged against that specific judge. So the direct statistical comparison is appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    They will argue that the disgruntled litigant (who just does not understand the law) merely has a target of 5 unfortunate honorable judges rather that 1 judge in the High Court, so the number of complaints against Supreme Court Judges is irrelevant.
    There's no statistical distortion as the figures are averaged. In the case of a unanimous corrupt decision of a full SC panel, we'd have 5 complaints, one complaint per judge. It's the same as if the matter was heard by a single corrupt judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    They will claim what is relevant is that the JCC [that is the equally corrupt JCC] reports that he has investigated allegations of corruption and miss conduct and found no wrongdoing to date.
    They cannot claim this. The vast majority of complaints are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In other words, the JCC said that since the complaint concerned a judicial decision, he couldn't investigate. It doesn't mean there is no corruption. It means the JCC is not allowed/does not want to investigate corruption related to judicial decisions.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    If you read QC's post on "Judicial Conduct Checking Mechanism" (part of which is as below) Justices Harrison and Cooper are before the Supreme Court on an allegation of judicial corruption. You might get some satisfaction out of that result in the Supreme Court.
    SC is corrupt supremely. The allegations will be either completely ignored, or afforded 1-2 lines of text to the effect that they are "devoid of merit". In the latter case, the judgment will either entirely omit the allegations or grossly misrepresent them.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    If 3 out of 3 judges of SC are corrupt...

    They cannot claim this. The vast majority of complaints are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In other words, the JCC said that since the complaint concerned a judicial decision, he couldn't investigate. It doesn't mean there is no corruption. It means the JCC is not allowed/does not want to investigate corruption related to judicial decisions.
    I think the point is that it is the JCC who is the real problem.

    The JCC can, and does, investigate judicial decisions in relation to a complaint on 'conduct', that is the conduct of gross incompetence, incapacity or judicial corruption. You just have to word the complain the right way.

    So the JCC is allowed to investigate those conduct issues against a judicial decision, however in doing so he always decides there was no real and persuasive evidence of that alleged conduct [regardless of the real and persuasive evidence before him].

    In other words; you are correct in saying "It means the JCC...does not want to investigate corruption related to judicial decisions"

    The decision by this JCC, and the previous JCC, to not find misconduct of gross incompetence, incapacity or judicial corruption is a 'policy' decision. It has nothing to do with JCCs' obligations under the Act or what the Act authorises them to do, other than the 'policy', the JCCs' have established and followed, being in breach of their obligations under the Act and the rule of law.

    That is why the rule of law defines the JCC's statutory conduct as 'corrupt' acts, albeit allowed to continue unabated by systemic judicial corruption at Judicial Review.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 23-02-2016 at 08:35 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ... The allegations will be either completely ignored [by the Supreme Court], or afforded 1-2 lines of text to the effect that they are "devoid of merit". In the latter case, the judgment will either entirely omit the allegations or grossly misrepresent them.
    Perhaps: However, the allegations (in the Application) have been before the Supreme Court since April 2013, without any decision as yet (that is 2 years 10 months).

    If the Justices of the Supreme Court could ignore the allegations, in the way you suggest, they would have done so by now. So, by no SC decision as yet, Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison (and others with statutory authority) wait their fate.

  5. #15
    An interesting point you have made there relating to the privy council ... I have often wondered how those serving in positions of trust ... felt they had the authority to change that part of the judicial constitution without first consulting the public and seeking at least some form of consent.

    Again this Business like "arrogance" was dumped on us by the Business/Banking lobby soon after their 1984 coup and a lot of uninvited decisions were made relating to aspects of this Nations Sovereignty and constitution.... all by the shifty class of person such as g palmer and his associate d graham ... both of whom- I find very hard to even honour by giving them capital letters in their name (did you notice?).... Both of them should have known better but g palmer passes himself off as (among other things) a constitutional lawyer ...... so much for qualifications .... Both are better qualified as CROOKs .... the evidence is pretty clear

    It is a pity that the Privy Council is unable to simply tell our home grown arrogant halfwits to simply pull their heads in and remember their place is or was one of servant rather than proprietor

    Who knows .... one day when these sods influence has passed away (trash is taken out) .... Some of these issues could well be addressed by more honourable and stable minds.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Perhaps: However, the allegations (in the Application) have been before the Supreme Court since April 2013, without any decision as yet (that is 2 years 10 months). If the Justices of the Supreme Court could ignore the allegations, in the way you suggest, they would have done so by now.
    I'd say, given that it's been almost 3 years since, they clearly had ignored the allegations and didn't even bother to scribble a judgment note on the application.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I'd say, given that it's been almost 3 years since, they clearly had ignored the allegations and didn't even bother to scribble a judgment note on the application.
    Not quite:
    On a complaint to the JCC, that the Supreme Court Justices were 'incapacitated' as they did not deal with an application filed in their Court in April 2013 (and later Memorandums on urgency and those seeking directions), the JCC made inquires of the Justices.

    The JCC reported that the Justices confirmed the Registrar only gave the April 2013 Application to them in December 2015, thus it is not a conduct issue regarding the Justices but a Registrar issue.

    Accepting that the:
    1. Honourable Justices would not mislead the JCC, nor pervert the JCC's statutory investigation, by lying about the matter;

    2. Registrar had confirmed by email a number of times that all the Applications and Memorandums were before the Justices;

    3. Registrar had already waited 2 years and 11 months before he dealt with another separate Applications filed in October 2012;

    4. April 2013 Application required the SC to deal with criminal contempt of Crown Counsels and others and judicial corruption by Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison,

    the Registrar of the Supreme Court now faces the prospect of a criminal charge of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice (as soon as the District Court Judge authorises the summons on the Registrar).


    So the ignoring of the allegations by the Supreme Court, according to the Justices of the Supreme Court, only started in December 2015.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 24-02-2016 at 08:41 AM.

  8. #18
    Haha, John. Seems the Justices are hanging the Registrar out to dry. Aided by the JCC. Be interesting to see what "evidence" the Registrar has to show that he had placed the Application before the Justices long before December 2015. And if the Registrar sent you emails saying the Application was before the Justices, someone is obviously lying.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by golfa View Post
    Haha, John. Seems the Justices are hanging the Registrar out to dry. Aided by the JCC. Be interesting to see what "evidence" the Registrar has to show that he had placed the Application before the Justices long before December 2015. And if the Registrar sent you emails saying the Application was before the Justices, someone is obviously lying.
    FYI:
    The JCC, in effect, ruled the Registrar was lying, as the JCC was asked in December 2015 to answer the following proposition:

    "Either the Judge [on behalf of all the SC Judges] has deliberately deceived you, the Registrar has deliberately deceived the Judges, or the Registrar and Judges orchestrated “a retrofit” of history to cover up the inordinate and never before explained delays which clearly breached my right to natural justice.

    Two of these three equally plausible options have Supreme Court judges perverting your statutory investigation."
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 24-02-2016 at 11:29 AM.

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
  •