Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Conflicts with Legislation?

  1. #1

    Conflicts with Legislation?

    As we understand the NZ Justice system, our courts have total independence but are subject to NZ Legislation and Law.

    Knowing that a Partner of the defendants’ lawyer is the sole witness for their clients’ evidence, a District Court ignores Counsel’s submissions that warn of a conflict with NZ Legislation (Client Care Rules 13.5); and the court conducts a special hearing that relies on the lawyer’s evidence.

    While the court may have acted with prejudice and bias, who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that our courts observe and act in accordance with NZ Legislation?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
    As we understand the NZ Justice system, our courts have total independence but are subject to NZ Legislation and Law.

    ...who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that our courts observe and act in accordance with NZ Legislation?
    "Ultimate responsibility" up until 2004 was with the Privy Council, which upheld the rule of law. After 2004 it lies with the NZ Supreme Court justices.

    Unfortunately the Justices of the NZ Supreme Court often have a different view as to what their role is and do not necessarily uphold the rule of law or they create new law in conflict with NZ Legislation (when they feel it is necessary). Neither of which they are mandated to do.

    The Judicial Conduct Commissioner, under the Act he is bound by, has the ability to deal with such misconduct by those Justices or any other Justices/Judges, therefore has a gatekeeper role or "ultimate responsibility" on judicial misconduct". The Commissioner has the ability to investigate a misconduct complaint and if necessary to recommend a Judicial Conduct Panel be formed to consider recommending to Parliament that a Judge be removed from Office.

    Unfortunately, if a complaint is made to the Commissioner about a Judge's gross incompetence (in that the Judge by his decision demonstrated he was not capable of understanding legislation or simple facts) or that the Judge deliberately breached his Judicial Oath by falsifying his decision; the Commissioner will rule that act of "gross incompetence" or "falsification" relates to a Judicial decision and he has no jurisdiction to investigate judicial decisions. Which of course is a deliberate misinterpretation of his rule in dealing with alleged judicial "misconduct"

    So, in reality, there is no body or person with effective legal "ultimate responsibility".

    There is only Media exposure of systemic corruption within our justice system - but the Media remain silent or do not investigate.

    So the status quo remains and only a few have that knowledge of what is going on in out justice system and the Judges know they are free to breach their Judicial Oaths (however they please) with immunity, if they wish to do so.

  3. #3
    >>While the court may have acted with prejudice and bias, who has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that our courts observe and act in accordance with NZ Legislation?

    The answer isn't just "nobody". The whole NZ justice system is designed and operates to defraud the public and to cover up misconduct of those who are supposed to uphold the rule of law. The highest NZ court was nailed by the Privy Council in 2002 as a "system [that] operated arbitrarily. Certainly, it was contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice… [A]ppeals were dismissed pursuant to a fundamentally flawed and unlawful system". You can easily imagine in what abysmal (from the justice's standpoint) state the "system" is now, 17 years later, without the independent oversight of the Privy Council. Of course, as a fraudulent enterprise it's perfect and operates very smoothly.

    >> a District Court ignores Counsel’s submissions

    It's typical. I'd say, you are doomed unless you can somehow influence the High Court judge to find in your favour. As you can guess, the law plays no any significant role here.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 09-01-2017 at 04:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Q.C. Thank you for your information on “Ultimate Responsibility” in our Courts.

    You advise that New Zealand has no body that is ultimately responsible for ensuring Judges act in accordance with their Judicial Oath where they swear they will always act in: -

    “according to law, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand, without fear or favour”

    If our courts cannot be relied on to act within the rules and legislative guidelines that forms the cornerstone of our legal system, then our courts cannot provide justice, based on the principles of justice, as is expected by the New Zealand public.

    When any member of our courts deliberately act in conflict with Law and Legislation, their actions pervert justice and this only creates an incurable cancer within our courts and country.


    “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King Jr.

  5. #5
    If our courts cannot be relied on to act within the rules and legislative guidelines that forms the cornerstone of our legal system, then our courts cannot provide justice, based on the principles of justice, as is expected by the New Zealand public. When any member of our courts deliberately act in conflict with Law and Legislation, their actions pervert justice and this only creates an incurable cancer within our courts and country.
    Sounds like a well-known poster here.

  6. #6
    Thank you for your response suggesting that we seek a High court judge to hear the issues.

    In fact, this whole bias issue arose following an appeal to the High Court of a District court decision that had relied on the defendants’ claim that they ‘had received and had relied on,’ an offer emailed by the plaintiffs.

    In 2010 the High Court overturned the District Court decision when it found the defendants’ evidence ‘unreliable’ and they were wrong to rely on an offer to which they had not responded.

    The defendants’ lawyers appeared most upset at losing the High Court appeal, as they were now at risk of losing the management of their clients’ considerable trust accounts.
    When a judge and former colleague of both the lawyers and defendants, was sitting in the local district court, the lawyers filed an urgent application, on the pretext of, seeking a hearing to review of the 2010 evidence heard by District and High Courts.

    The new judge determined he should hold a special hearing seven months later to review the 2010 evidence. Only then the lawyers acting for defendants claimed to discover in their files, four emails that claimed the defendants, ‘never received or relied on, an offer emailed by the plaintiffs’.
    While IT and Document Specialists reported that the email photocopies, did not appear to be copies of genuine emails, the lawyers claimed the emails metadata was privileged.

    Despite Counsel’s repeated applications for discovery of the emails that contradicted the defendants’ previous evidence to the District and High Courts, the court would not allow discovery of the conflicting email evidence.
    Both the defendants and their lawyers swore affidavits, attaching copies of the emails that claimed, the events in their previous submissions and affidavits to the District and High courts, had never occurred!

    The District court appeared determined to hear the defendants new evidence, while ignoring the evidence previously accepted by the District and High Courts.
    At the commencement of the 2012 special hearing the court dismissed the written submissions from the plaintiffs’ counsel that informed the court: -
    • The defendants’ lawyers appeared to be acting as witnesses for their clients. In breach of NZ Legislation that mandated “they must not act.”
    • Of issues arising from the defendants’ and their lawyers’ new evidence that contradicted the evidence the defendants and the lawyers’ partners had submitted to the High court in 2010.

    Have presented these submissions the plaintiffs’ counsel was warned, ‘continuing to question the integrity of fellow practitioner’s evidence’ would result in a Law Society complaint.
    The hearing proceeded with plaintiffs’ counsel now unable to cross examine the defendants on their new evidence that conflicted with evidence, accepted as fact, by the High Court.

    The court transcripts of the special hearing records that one of the defendants, in response to a question from the Judge, reminded him that he had recently acted privately for his firm while attending a related NZICA hearing.

    Evidence of a relationship between Court, Counsel and Client might also be found in court transcripts where it records the defendants’ counsel used his partners new email evidence to conduct a lengthy cross examination of a key witness, but was unsuccessful in coercing him into changing his original affidavit evidence to the High Court.
    While Counsel was unable to change the witness’s evidence, in the subsequent District Court decision the wording of the witness’s evidence has been altered, from that in the Court records, so that now it falsely appears to agree with the court’s decision.

    Only by altering the wording of a witness’s evidence was the Court then able to claim that the evidence, previously relied on by the High Court, had never existed, thus allowing the District court to overturn the High Court decision.

    Following the hearing Counsel filed a supplementary submission to the court alleging ‘intimidation’ and the courts’ failure to uphold Rules and Legislation, as reasons why Counsel must consider resignation.


    Despite being presented with evidence of intimidation, bias and the failure to comply with Parliaments Legislation, the Courts of Appeal refuse leave to appeal the 2012 District Court decision.

    The refusal to allow an appeal of a District court decision where members of the court may have intentionally misled Justice to conduct a Fraud upon the High Court, only suggests that the heads of our New Zealand courts and justice system do not appear to have the moral fortitude to place the Interests of Justice above the financial interests of fellow members of the courts.

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
  •