Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Warkworth Police Corruption

  1. #11

    Chris Finlayson's personality

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Rather than attacking the personality of Chris Finlayson, is it more positive to attack the role of the Attorney-General in not doing its statutory role?
    The issues are not mutually exclusive. And I doubt whether you can justly separate the two. Chris Finlayson has exposed more than he likes to take it up the butt - not that there is anything wrong with that!

    By seeking to have very senior lawyers relinquish their status in the NZ legal system simply for justly criticising the quality of judgments coming from our judges is... draconian, or worse. When did we wake up to find the personality of the Attorney General has taken us out of the realm of other democracies who value freedom of expression?

  2. #12
    I agree wholeheartedly with Bill - we need to discuss strategies, what works and what does not work.

    We had multiple face-to-face meetings with 4 MPs. I was greatful that one MP actually flew from Wellington to Auck one day, specifically so that we could meet in a meeting room at the airport, then he flew straight back again. They gave us a lot of support and empathy, but little real action that made any difference. When you boil it down there is not much an MP can do really. One MP asked 3 questions in the House pertaining to our situation, however his questions needed to be generalised so the final wordings were rather watered down. And the reply from the Minister was the normal side-stepping that one can watch every week during parliamentary question time. So, even though it felt good to have questions asked in parliament, the bottom line is that it did not alter our situation really.

    One of the MPs we met multiple times was our constituent MP, Lockwood Smith (when he was in opposition). He was genuinely horrified by what he heard. After some of our gagging court cases we went to see him again to give him an update. I will never forget his reaction when I described the process we went through in the Family court, and the blatant disregard for the rule of law - his face went white, and he was very alarmed - he got up and started pacing the floor, clearly very agitated - then he turned to his PA who was in the room and said: "This is even bigger than we can handle". He looked very disturbed. I assumed the "we" he referred to was parliament. He asked us to put what we had told him in writing (which we did), but nothing ever came of it. I believe some MPs misunderstand the concept of the independence of the judiciary. They believe they can't interfere. They can't interfere in particular cases, but if the judiciary is out of control, if corruption in the judiciary is rife, parliament can change the rules within which the judiciary operate.

    Our strategy nowadays has moved somewhat away from the NZ parliament. We are trying a new approach which is to get support and publicity overseas. I firmly believe that NZ being a small country, cannot ignore too much pressure from overseas. We have spoken to 2 MPs in the House of Commons recently, and last week spoke with a Baroness in the House of Lords. They are all horrified by our NZ experiences. We hope to turn these contacts into pressure on NZ, and will see whether that makes any difference.

    We have fought this battle for 9 years now. The corruption cost us two children. We are now armed only with the truth. We will fight for as long as it takes to see justice. I know others on this site feel the same - they are prepared to fight to the death. Literally. We have no doubt that justice will eventually prevail. We just don't know when. Hopefully it will be in our lifetime, but if not we will setup mechanisms to ensure the fight continues after we pass. I am hoping that if we need it, there are still at least 25 years left in me. As we get more and more bold in spreading the truth about our experience, we notice that those who harmed our family simply lie low - it is as if, like Saddam, Gadaffi, and some others, once word gets out, they hope to escape by simply digging a hole in the ground and hiding away.

  3. #13
    Shannon, there is a very good article in today's Daily Mail in the UK entitled: Masters of Cover-up - how the establishment closes ranks to protect it's own and deny the people the truth:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...otect-own.html

  4. #14
    Neither does it make a difference to me what Finlayson's gender preference is. It kinda saddens me though that I cannot mention his preference in a parenthesised word, without others having to read into it, anything other than what the man represents himself to be. No different from saying that someone with the name Chris or Kim is male of female. By the way, the Attorney General was not appointed to be the Attorney General. Chris Finlayson was. I think I was trying to say above that the office of the Attorney General has been better served in the past, and it will again in the future.
    If Sir Geoffrey Palmer has the unofficial title of "the father of the NZ Bill of Rights, then
    Christopher Finlayson could be called "the executioner of the NZ Bill of Rights".
    Yet they were both Attorneys-General.

  5. #15
    Now then, to round out my advice from #17 above, what I am saying is this. As the incumbent Attorney General, IMHO Christopher Finlayson is one MP I would avoid dealing with for the foreseeable future. He is judge-friendly, he is public-servant friendly, he is lawyer-friendly. His attitude is the very, very old-fashioned one of "The King can do no wrong". Then "off with their heads" if they disagree with the King.

    And his friendliness in favour of the government, overwhelms any friendliness he might have to the individuals rights under modern rights-enlightened laws, certainly in comparison to some other current MPs. If you have a choice of who you deal with for the time being, don't include Finlayson. Prefer other MPs, and prefer use of your local MP (for example), if rights issues are at stake in your cause.

    When rights are the issue, Finlayson is your enemy, not your friend. This assuredly wasn't the case when for example Sir Geoffrey was A-G, but we don't have Sir Geoffrey now. Please learn from what I am trying to help you with here. I speak from very bitter and personal experience.

    Now then, a brief comment on the UK and NZ attitudes to the Bill of Rights. We passed the NZ Bill of Rights Act in 1990. The Brits did so (though they called the Act another name which I will not confuse you with) in 1998. When our Act was but a bill, that is not yet passed by Parliament, its most vociferous opponent was the NZ Law Society. But compare this with what happened 8 years later when the British bill was being publicly debated. The British Law Society was the most ardent ADVOCATE for their new Bill of Rights.

    Why the big difference? Well I ask you. When did the Berlin Wall come down? And what happened in the half a dozen years after it came down? Rights. Rights. And more rights. And despite European right enlightenment with a new millennium looming back in the late 1990s, unfortunately the NZ justice system was not paying attention, and we became stuck in the 1970s and 1980s. Remember those lawyers who were so vociferous against the Sir Geoffrey Palmer Bill of Rights Act? Well those antiquated lawyers are now our QCs, judges .. .. .. .. and an Attorney-General.
    Last edited by Bill (of Rights); 16-09-2012 at 04:30 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Maybe ... ... ... I wonder how many people in New Zealand have read the text of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I also wonder why the judiciary wants to ignore the bill of rights in New Zealand.
    Our posts overlapped. There is no 'maybe' about it, Yoda. Are you an expert on this stuff? Well I am.

    The Bill of Rights Act is one of the smallest Acts (to read) in our statutes, but there are already some of the biggest books written on it (Butler and Butler or Rishworth, Optican). And for every judge's ruling favouring the BoRA, there is another denying the BoRA in an identical setting. We can dream about a new Bill of Rights Act, but it isn't going to happen in your children's lifetimes. It is pointless complaining about how things are, without giving ideas of what we can to do to change things.

    What would you be doing, Yoda? Talking about it helps, but please don't "maybe" the experts who are actually in courts trying to fix it.

  7. #17
    A little over 200 years ago, our then Chief Justice (when our Chief Justice was in London) said this:

    "A right without a remedy is a vain thing to imagine."

    Last year our own Chief Justice Elias cited the above, and added her own version.

    "That rights are vindicated through remedy for breach is fundamental to the Rule of Law."

    Sadly, our Chief Justice is on her own in this. She is not backed up by a judiciary which is in disarray.

    The thought of a District Court Judge chucking out a prosecution because, for example, police didn't read an arrested person his rights, or because police didn't do discovery, or that police deliberately delayed bringing the case to court, or that police kept a police witness secret till the day before the trial, or that it was double jeopardy (all BoRA guarantees): is but a pipe dream. The Courts are in disarray. We have a Bill of Rights. But we have no way of enforcing it right now, because judges are so incredibly hostile to it. They are so dead scared that they might let one guilty party off on a technicality, that they are prepared to overlook legal rights breaches for hundreds if not thousands of genuinely jilted defendants. And don't the cops know it. And don't the cops take full perverse advantage of it.

    And by the way, when our Chief Justice said this:

    "That rights are vindicated through remedy for breach is fundamental to the Rule of Law." .. ..

    .. .. she was outvoted 2 to 3 by her Supreme Court colleagues, who think that rights are not vindicated by remedy.

    How the Hell we get out of this mess is beyond me.

    But we are are at least trying. With actual court cases, we are at least trying.

  8. #18
    There will be large segment on the Warkworth police with allot of documents being disclosed to the public when The New Zealand Police Corruption Association is launched. As well as Orewa and many other stations. Warkworth has many problems, it has it's own page

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
  •