why a fair trial is a fallacy in New Zealand

When the headlines read ” Bar Association says ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane murder case endanger trial ” they got my attention . Fair trial  here in New Zealand   No way !!! so how could   the breach of the suppression order  which is implied to exist   possibly damage the fair trial of a murderer  when many others  who have not been associated with  murder do not get a fair trial .

Any one   who has been fortunate enough  not to have   entangled with the law is  of the mistaken belief that our  justice system is robust and works like a well oiled machine..  don’t be fooled  there are many things which   impact on natural justice here in New Zealand

Suppression  . By suppressing the name of the offender  the  chances  of a material witness coming forward is laos reduced , if the  offender was named   someone who knows him  is more likely to remember a relevant fact a week out from the murder  rather than  upon hearing his name a month or so later .. and what could have been relevant evidence is diminished  by doubt and confusion which occurs  with time.

How do we know that there is a suppression order, well you wont find anything from our court stating that there is a suppression order   , the judge in this case refused  one  but he mere fact that the lawyer for he accused  said he would file for one was sufficient  for  suppression  until the next appearance to be available .  But the court did not  make any statement that this is the case for that you have to search the statutes or  wait for a  reporter to write an article .

But  can you  believe the press  , one report states  that this was  court ordered suppression    when another explains that   it a statutory obligation .. why nothing  from the courts   directing what the situation is,   Despite there not being any firm direction and the name being freely available on any search of Graces name .

The police  are talking about prosecuting those who breach suppression this is done in  a flash and they  don’t even need evidence as the court supports their   prosecution.

Evidence is not required

I read  a publication by the law society which was so detailed that from my own  experience I could speculate as to the identity of the lawyer who  had  defrauded his client.     He   had been given name suppression by the  law tribunal  to conceal this corruption .   I was prosecuted, no evidence of  a suppression orders existence was required , the court merely said the tribunal had a right to make one.. when actually there is no scope for a suppression order under that legislation but they can make an order for non publication. No evidence existed as to the identity of the lawyer who appeared before the tribunal  or if an order under  the non publication  criteria was ever  made .  basically the question I still have   is   whatif I had said Mickey mouse would I have been similarly guilty  as there is about  much evidence that Mickey mouse was the lawyer  as there was for Neil Wells.

I have learned that    evidence is ignored all it takes is for a lawyer to say  I  have it on good authority your honour  that the sky is green  then the judge will say   it must be right as he must not knowingly mislead me

Perjury

perjury happens all the time       but  it is too difficult for the  police to prosecute it  so people  perjure all the time. In a recent case a  forensic accountant gave evidence   to support his  client despite the fact that he had sworn an oath that  as an expert witness he was obliged to   act in accordance with the code of conduct

An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.

An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness

The  client was very pleased    and sent an email  to the  forensic accountant  thank you I could not have done it without you  a complaint made to the police  will not be investigated as it is not a priority

Denial of a defence 

I  discovered corruption and  questioned how  a law enforcement body  which undertook public prosecutions could have  been given  that  authority when it did not exist  and the application was based on fraud.  I was taken to court    for defamation and I was not allowed to put my defence of truth  and honest opinion .

Lawyers acting in appropriately 

Nick wright who was the lawyer taking the case was during the course of the events a committed patient  , he  grossly misled the  court as did his seniour  lawyer David Neutze  who never checked the facts  and was  happy to  rely on his  own  reputation to  succeed in court .

The judges  believe that they have  a duty to believe lawyers  as a lawyer is an officer of he court and must not mislead the court.  However it is  apparently impossible to hold a lawyer accountable to the rule of law .

The Judges

the judges  can do their own research  and obtain material which has not seen the light of day in court  , they write their decisions accordingly  . Judge joyce  used his 92 page  judgement as a  attack on my character and reputation  .

Judges are not held accountable   for their decision , many  judges are husband and wife teams   and no  conflict of interest is declared

No trials fake documents 

see the experience of  Tatsuhiko Koyama   here

Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc, DipGrad

Enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand

The new zealand law firms

Law firms  are  a group of persons in a partnership, no partnering  documents are ever  visible  or discoverable  and   mist contracting is done  under the  trading name which is not registerd.  so the law firm  can never be sued  they are   a grey area  undefined  entity  which  is described in walis v sutton 

Litigation involving unincorporated associations is notoriously difficult when it is not done by way of representative action.
Unincorporated bodies are lawful but legally nonexistent. As Fletcher, in The Law Relating to Non-profit Associations in Australia and New Zealand
p.187 puts it:
“Legal issues arising from their activities are justiciable provided they can be presented without attributing a corporate character to the association.”

At p.190 Fletcher concludes that:
“The prohibition on assuming a corporate character does not prevent the members collectively from asserting their rights either by all joining as parties to the suit or by representative
action.”
Fletcher quotes an article by Lloyd, Actions Instituted By or Against Unincorporated Bodies (1949) 12 Mod. LR 409 at 411 on the subject of collective action by all members:
“Under this procedure, every member would, of course, have to be individually named and would have the full status of plaintiff or defendant, entitled to appear and be separately
represented, and liable to incur separate sets of costs.”

“There seems to be no doubt upon the authorities that a voluntary association, such as the plaintiff, which has never been incorporated in any way, cannot sue except in the name
of all the members unless advantage is taken of rule 20 and an order is made by a Judge that one or more of the members may sue for the benefit of all persons interested.”

thus  it is very  clear that   prawn pickle and herring  cannot  sue or be sued, therefore how could they enter into a contract least of all claim to   represent their clients  when in fact  they could nto be lawyers

the New Zealand justice system  is a farce 

we  do not  have the privy council

the supreme court is our highest court

Our highest judge   Sian Elais is married to Hugh  Fletcher 

Judges  are appointed by the  governor general  , Sian elias  has held the position of  Administrator of the Government when the Governor-General is unable to fulfil their duties

the  governor general  appoint   based on the recommendation  by the attorney general  who is generally a  member of he law society and  chooses members of the law society to be judges

there is a judicial complaints officer  The first Commissioner was Ian Haynes, ONZM, BA, LLB. He served from 2005 until 2009, he is now a member of the law society

Sir David Gascoigne KNZM, CBE, LLM served from 3 August 2009 until 30 August 2015 he is married to our Governor-General Patsy Reddy

Alan Ritchie, LLB became the first Deputy Commissioner in 2011 and took office as Commissioner on 31 August 2015, Mr Ritchie was also Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Society from 1985 to 2008. which was the former law society  which did not have a requirement for lawyers to have an obligation to the rule of law.

the  new law society  is both the disciplinary body and the   development  body for  lawyers , it is thus grossly conflicted

the law society is a statutory body  but  works with law societies which are incorporated societies set up after  the inception of the new lawyers and conveyancers act.

the law society has committees which review complaints  depending on whether you are foreign educated or local the results may well vary  some are protected some are crucified

the law complaints  review office is  funded by the law society  it is under funded and under resourced to such an extent that it   makes the wheels drop off . the persons who are appointed LCRO  are frequently  former lawyers

Lawyers hold top positions every where and are the advisors to  government. New Zealand is a small country  but   there are probably  more close  knit relationships in the judiciary   and legal system  than that would be  good for the health of the country and true justice    I would hate to think how many deals are done in the Northern club and other related clubs.

Leave a Reply