Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: THE LAW- according to Associate Judge David Ian Gendall

  1. #1
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8

    THE LAW- according to Associate Judge David Ian Gendall


    Associate Judge David Gendall has a well earned reputation for ignoring the law by taking a "blinkered" view of statute, precedent and procedure.

    This press release commnets on his summary judgement to the Crown Civil suit of the three Waihopai Christian activists. In a 15 page decision Judge Gendall concluded that the defences raised by the three peacemakers fails to make the threshold for an arguable case and has awarded damages against the three men pre-emptively without allowing the case to proceed to a trial.

    In contrast, after eight days of evidence at the activists’ criminal trial in March last year, a jury ruled the men not guilty of all criminal charges.

    In response to the announcement Otaki school teacher Adrian Leason said “Judge Gendall was always going to be under pressure to avoid a full hearing. Clearly the judge has worked hard on his ruling, however early indications suggest that he is in error on several crucial points of law. Over the next few days we will have a chance to discuss the details with our legal friends. If errors have been made we will pursue recourse through the appeal court process.”

    Mr Leason also expressed disappointment that the GCSB was awarded judgment without having to front up to a full court process. The latest hearing was notable for the absence of any GCSB representatives. Judge Gendall’s decision cuts short the legal process by awarding summary judgment to the GSCB without a court considering the defence’s arguments, many of which implicate the spybase in human rights abuses and war atrocities as part of the US wars in Iraq in Afghanistan. Mr Leason noted the GCSB’s consistent stance of ‘neither confirming nor denying’, saying “few people would want to know every detail of the GCSB’s operations, however some level of transparency and accountability is not an unreasonable request given the highly controversial nature of electronic intelligence gathering and its key role in the US-led war on terror.”

    “Judge Gendall’s media comments indicate that, rather than honouring the specific arguments of the civil case, he has perhaps fallen victim to the same temptation as the prosecution; the tendency to see this suit as a second chance at sending a deterrence message after the criminal trial declared the disarmament legal” said Mr Leason.

    The decision to seek summary judgment rather than proceeding to a trial is an understandable compromise between the government’s embarrassment at last year’s acquittal and the GCSB’s reluctance to be subject to any kind of public scrutiny.

    It is a novel measure to seek an alternative route to punishment through the civil courts. Documents unveiled by whistleblower website Wikileaks recently revealed that after the 2006 acquittal of the Irish ‘Pitstop Ploughshares’ who disarmed a US war plane at the Shannon Airport in the early days of the Iraq war, US officials contemplated suing the peacemakers for damages. US ambassador to Ireland James Kenny wrote to then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the wake of the acquittal assuring him of Irish government’s loyalty to US war efforts “in the face of public criticism”, and suggesting a civil suit or similar measure “to convey [US] dissatisfaction with the Shannon Five verdict”; but evidently it was not considered worthwhile.

    Documents were produced during the criminal trial costing repairs to the Waihopai radome and fencing at approximately $1.2 million. Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson has signalled the Crown’s intention to seek recovery of the full amount plus court costs. He did not make any attempt to defend the $500 million of taxpayers’ money spent on building and maintaining the base over the past 22 years amid the complete absence of any measurable benefits for New Zealand.

  2. #2
    Under the High Court rules you can apply to have an Associate Judge's decision reviewed by a High Court Judge - which is much cheaper than an appeal. The catch is you only have five working days to file the appeal. However, the High Court may allow more than the five days at their discretion.

  3. #3
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8
    If you did, you would probably find yourself before his older bro Warwick Gendall, this is his profile from kiwisfirst.com

    David Gendall AJ is a judge who makes up in determination what he lacks in independence. He tends to delight in belittling lay litigants who appear before him as well as rule in favour of the more powerful lawyer. This suggests that Gendall AJ is a political animal first.
    One bizarre aspect of Associate Justice Gendall's demeanour is his propensity to flee the court when confronted with a powerful legal challenge to his attempt to steer the hearing or when faced with a deception of the court. At least two unassociated complaints have been filed with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner regarding such conduct.
    Associate Justice David Gendall's low judicial ranking is noteworthy given the more rudimentary functions of an Associate Judge in New Zealand.
    Brother of High Court Judge Warwick Gendall. CAUTION: where one brother has a conflict, both brothers will have a conflict.
    Background / Education: Graduated LLB (Hons) from Victoria University of Wellington in 1973. Previously he worked as a law clerk at Luke Cunningham & Clere, and then Buddle Anderson & Co in Wellington. In 1974 he joined the Hamilton law firm of Chapman Feenstra & Cartwright, and in 1975 was admitted to the partnership of that firm (later McCaw Lewis Chapman). In 1988 he retired from partnership and joined the Law School at the University of Waikato as a senior lecturer. He was appointed dean of the law school in 2000, and then joined the High Court bench as a master in March 2002. He became an associate judge of the High Court when the title changed in May 2004 and is based at the Wellington High Court.

Tags for this Thread

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
  •