Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Judicial conduct: NZ vs Australia

  1. #1

    Judicial conduct: NZ vs Australia

    Did you know that, based on the published official statistics on judicial conduct complaints, an average NZ judge is complained about 9 times more often than an average judge of New South Wales? At the same time, an average judge of the NZ Supreme Court is complained about 13.4 times more often than an average NZ judge (across all courts), and 120 times more often than a NSW judge.

    Does that mean that -
    • NZ judges conduct themselves 9 times worse than NSW judges?
    • NZ Supreme Court judges conduct themselves 13.4 times worse than average NZ judges?
    • NZ Supreme Court judges conduct themselves 120 times worse than average NSW judges?

  2. #2
    Either way ....I wonder if they sense they are becoming- rather an embarrassment, eroding the credibility of the Courts and ultimately any perception of stability offered by the concepts and codes of behavior which empower the legal structure and fraternity.

    Us normal folk call "Professionally Stupid" Behavior .... "Shitting in ones own nest" ..... perhaps they are overpaid?

    PS...Good thing they dropped the sheepskin rugs eh? .....they were such a chuckle - worth a mention
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 18-02-2016 at 02:39 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    Good thing they dropped the sheepskin rugs eh? .....they were such a chuckle - worth a mention
    Did NZ judges wear sheepskin? Or what are you referring to?

  4. #4
    Those pretentious wigs they were wearing until relatively recently.... looked a bit like sheepskin ... but certainly made it difficult to hold back a laugh when they were trying to be serious.... Part of the culture no doubt?

  5. #5
    "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" Matthew 7:15-16

    Back to the civil context, I think that the official statistics has inadvertently revealed the objective indicator of the appalling extent of judicial corruption in NZ. I wonder what others think of the numbers. Though based on the lack of replies, the statistics doesn't seem to attract much interest. Strange, I'd think even the JCC would hesitate to dismiss it as not "real and persuasive evidence".

  6. #6
    Being a foreigner, I've concluded that New Zealanders are a strange bunch. They generally behave like ostriches with their heads in the sand. If I can't see you, you can't see me. Most blindly believe when told that NZ is "one of the least corrupt countries in the World" and that corruption only happens when money changes hands. Nepotism and cronyism isn't seen as corruption. They are not interested when it happens to other people, they are only interested when it happens to them. Just look at the umpiring decision at the cricket last week. They were calling for the umpires head .... but the week before when NZ fielded 8 players at the 7s tournament, it was an "error".

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Did you know that, based on the published official statistics on judicial conduct complaints, an average NZ judge is complained about 9 times more often than an average judge of New South Wales?....]
    FairHearing: Please post the reference to this published official statistic or the 'report' itself.

    Have you asked the Minister of Justice or the A-G or Opposition spokesman to comment on the figures or asked the Media why they have not asked those two Ministers for their comments?

    Particularly the A-G, as it is his statutory role to "protect the judiciary from improper and unfair criticism" , if it is improper and unfair criticism.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 19-02-2016 at 09:01 AM.

  8. #8
    The official reports can be easily googled. But since you've asked, see page 2 of the open letter here. The footnote in the PDF file is hyperlinked to the information sources.

    The Minister of Justice's response can be found at the same link. She's chosen to turn a blind eye.

    The Attorney-General has failed to respond, I assume because the criticism was proper and fair, and/or because the A-G is himself corrupt. He's mentioned in the letter.

    The MPs who responded said it's MoJ, A-G and/or JCC's job.

    JCC said he has no jurisdiction.

    The NZ media was contacted, but of course they will not publish even the statistics, out of the self-preservation instinct.

    See also the distribution list at the end of the letter and the summary of replies on the web page.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 22-02-2016 at 02:13 AM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    The official reports can be easily googled....
    Thanks: I note the villains in your case include Justices Harrison and Copper. 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.

    Quote from QC:

    "The alleged purpose of that alleged criminal act by the Registrar being to ensure the Supreme Court Justices would never have the April 2013 filed application before them that would require the Supreme Court to consider whether there was judicial corruption on the part of Justices Cooper, Toogood and Harrison and complicit corruption and criminal contempt by others with statutory authority within our justice system."
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 22-02-2016 at 10:47 AM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...At the same time, an average judge of the NZ Supreme Court is complained about 13.4 times more often than an average NZ judge (across all courts)...
    FairHearing: 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.

    Particularly when those who are trying to hid systemic judicial corruption from the Public can rely on the equally corrupt JCC. 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. 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.

    As the A-G traditionally puts forward to Parliament, for appointments to the appellate Courts, those judges who have a tendency to be corrupt, then it is of no surprise that the more honest judges are left behind and the dishonest accumulate in the Supreme Court (and Court of Appeal). To the dismay of the Privy Council, who have no jurisdiction to correct these wrongs in the Supreme Court as they used to do to the Court of Appeal (e.g.Taito v
    R
    .)

    So your figures and % are in all probability correct and, more importantly, directly correlate to the unstopped miss conduct you would expect from those put forward by the A-G.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 22-02-2016 at 10:51 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
  •