Twisted Prosecution Tests Court of Appeal

By Vince Siemer / November 17, 2014

 

“Justice will prevail” is a belief Vince Clayton clings fiercely to as his civil claim against a bent NZ prosecutor was given new life by a Court of Appeal judgment two weeks ago.  Rather than relegation to the scrap heap of shattered ideals which such beliefs routinely earn, Clayton may be the first to successfully run the ‘old boy’ judicial gauntlet.

The Court of Appeal judgment overturned High Court Justice Priestley’s strike out (on grounds it was hopeless) of Clayton’s misfeasance in public office cause of action against Christchurch Crown Prosecutor Philippa Currie (pictured).  At the same time, the CoA judgment dismissed Currie’s cross appeal for strike out of Clayton’s remaining public law compensation claim against the NZ Attorney General.

Clayton v Currie seeks financial damages against Ms Currie and the Crown for concealing exculpatory evidence in the 2007 conviction of Clayton and his partner Linda Westbury on 34 charges of receiving stolen goods.   The plaintiffs seek just over $2 million, including $100,000 in personal assets the Police have never returned.

Mr Clayton served 14 months in prison in 2007 before the Court of Appeal determined he and two co-defendants were victims of prosecutorial misconduct by Currie.  Specifically, Currie withheld evidence that the Crown’s chief witness was given sentencing concessions for unrelated criminal offending in exchange for his testimony.   Currie not only failed to disclose this inducement, she provided an assurance to the defendants her written statement no such inducement was given was a complete summary.  In fact, Judge Radford had deferred sentencing of the witness until after Clayton’s trial, recording the agreed intent “of course significant discount (on sentence) for the matter which involves the Christchurch trial.”
The witness, for his part, stated repeatedly under cross-examination his only incentive to testify was one of conscience.   The court granted the repeat offender name suppression to protect his reputation.

The Court of Appeal was delicate in its ruling, careful not to reveal the extent of Currie’s deception which included court transcripts proving Currie refused to divulge sentencing notes on her star witness and failing to respond to trial Judge Crosbie’s declaration from the bench that the prosecution owed the defendant such notes if they possessed them.  The judgment concluded only that Priestley J was wrong to label the misfeasance case as hopeless, suggesting that determination must be left to the trial judge.

The evidence leaves little doubt Ms Currie repeatedly deceived the court and defendants in criminal prosecutions against at least five defendants.  Peter Machirus, Nadia Peletio and Gary Morrell are other victims whose claim against Currie has been stalled in the High Court awaiting this Court of Appeal judgment.  Machirus has claimed the tort of deceit and malicious prosecution against Ms Currie.  Earlier, Machirus had summons issued against Currie in a private prosecution but the prosecution was thwarted when the Solicitor General used his executive power to stay prosecution.  In 2007, Machirus was labelled, incorrectly as it now turns out, a burglary-ring ‘kingpin’ by Police in their three year, multi-million dollar Operation Rhino.

Deregistered barrister Devina Murray is exploring obtaining propensity evidence against Currie since her 2013 conviction for smuggling contraband to a high security prisoner.
Ironically, it is this broad level of offending by Ms Currie which now provides the greatest pressure on judges to cover it up.  Christchurch Crown Solicitor Brent Stanaway in the High Court and John Pike QC at the Court of Appeal both claimed from the bar that sentencing notes on the witness were available directly to the defendants and on this basis alone the plaintiffs’ claim against Currie could not succeed.  When Clayton’s lawyer refused to call out Mr Pike’s false claim the defendants had never asked Ms Currie for a copy, counsel and client had a stern discussion, ending with them parting ways.

A week before the Court of Appeal judgment, the Canterbury Law Society shocked observers in ordering Currie pay a $500 fine and $2,000 costs after its standards committee determined she had deceived the court.  The offence carried the potential of striking Currie off as a lawyer.
Currie has refused to pay Clayton and Westbury the $8,000 costs awarded by the Court of Appeal, saying she has yet to decide on any appeal to the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Lynching Labelled “Show Trial”

~ Kiwisfirst

Judge Rhys Harrison

Political oppression against those who exercise their freedom to express critical views of judges is set to play out in Auckland District Courtroom 5.3 on 2 September 2013, where the New Zealand Law Society is seeking to have human rights barrister Evgeny Orlov debarred for privately criticising Court of Appeal Judge Rhys Harrison (pictured).

The prosecution has been five years in the making, has cost Society members almost $200,000 and is largely unknown to the public despite procedural appeals having gone to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

The saga began when Mr Orlov made a private complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner concerning what he considered to be racially tainted views of Maoris and foreigners by then-High Court Judge Rhys Harrison.

Though similar complaints have been made by others against Harrison, Mr Orlov’s complaint prompted then-Chief High Court Judge Anthony Randerson to write the Law Society on Court letterhead asking it to investigate Mr Orlov’s fitness as a lawyer.

The Law Society struggled but eventually came up with nine charges to levy against Mr Orlov. They all centre on “false and scandalous charges” Orlov allegedly made about Harrison in his JCC complaint.

Harrison and Randerson JJ both currently both sit on the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
In a mocking and meandering press release this week, Mr Orlov called the debacle a ‘show trial’, noting the Law Society intends to call no witnesses, while preventing him from calling Harrison or either of the two Judicial Conduct Commissioners as witnesses. Orlov draws a comparison with the 1899 Privy Council judgment ofMcLeod v St Aubyn which found; ” Contempt of Court may be committed by publication of scandalous matter respecting the Court after adjudication as well as pending a case before it. In England committals for such contempts have become obsolete: in small colonies consisting principally of coloured populations they may still be necessary in proper cases”.

Even for a colonial backwater, no witnesses and allowing no cross-examination seem a strange court process to prove ‘false and scandalous’ criticisms sufficient for a legal lynching.
Pertinently, Mr Orlov included a link in his press release to a New Zealand Law Society press release which publicly criticised a conviction in Fiji for quoting a report critical of its courts as “a serious restriction on the right to free speech”. In contrast, NZ Society members’ criticisms in Orlov’s prosecution have been few; generally directed at the financial costs being incurred despite few members knowing what the ‘false and scandalous’ allegations are at the core of the prosecution conducted in their names.

Another lawyer similarly attacked by the New Zealand Law Society sees the current policies of the Law Society being representative of broad apathy in the legal community which has turned to fear. He intoned, ‘ Feareverything, do nothing and, above all, be quiet’ is the adopted credo of lawyers in New Zealand.

The Orlov trial raises broader natural justice concerns by preventing inquiry (as scandalous) into the validity of a complaint he has made against a powerful State actor – a complaint which is not unique. Mr Orlov alleged Harrison J sanctioned Maori children being removed from their parents without hearing – oppressively awarding costs against him personally in violation of UN conventions for representing the parents in a claim alleging the Crown acted without due process. In another case, Harrison J ordered a known paedophile to be the custodial parent where the mother was a Russian bride being deported as a result of her marriage breakup. Investigate Magazine said earlier on this misconduct, ” The most stunning aspect of the whole story, however, is why on earth a man with Paul Copeland’s psychiatric history, a man who raped his own sister and tried to murder his wife with a bow and arrow, a man who enjoyed killing cats in the cruellest possible ways – why such a man would be allowed anywhere near a child“.

Judge Harrison’s brother Geoff Harrison was lawyer for that child.

Judge Harrison also criticised Mr Orlov for not being trained as a lawyer in New Zealand, seemingly justifying his complaint Harrison is xenophobic without any explanation from the Judge for this worrisome judicial comment.

Dr Frank Deliu, a U.S. and N.Z. trained lawyer, expresses similar views of Harrison and has provided the Judicial Conduct Commissioner seven sentencing decisions of Harrison J which cite their “host country” and crimes against “people of New Zealand” as factors in sentencing foreign-born New Zealanders. Dr Deliu is also being prosecuted by the NZ Law Society on the recommendation of Judge Randerson, although the charges are still being determined.

Mr Orlov’s press release invites interested parties to attend the “show trial” which is set to begin at 10 am. With no witnesses and a charge of making false allegations, he has billed it as colonial justice at its finest and asked attendees to accordingly wear black tie and evening dress.

Related Posts:

• Stasi law society April 25, 2014 Frank Deliu exposes Judicial Conduct Commissioner Omens of threat to…
• Law Society’s Political Abuse Called Out October 11, 2014 Hundreds of thousands of dollars of New Zealand Law Society…

Going to prison - not as easy as you'd think with Serco in charge:

In 2010 Judge Helen Winkelmann contravened two statutes and unlawfully denied the defendants in the Urewera trials their statutory right to a trial by jury - cemented in the cornerstone of the law - dating back to the Magna Carta - a citizen has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers, not one Judge.  The standard of the judiciary in New Zealand is by and large an utter disgrace, and as this video shows, the standards at the Serco run prison aren't too flash either.

Vince Siemer tried to hand himself in at Mt Eden prison following the split decision in the Supreme Court ordering him to be imprisoned for exposing judicial corruption, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court dissented with her colleagues, to her credit.

While most of the media - and most of the citizens of New Zealand blissfully ignore what's really going on with eyes wide shut, intrepid reporters like Vince Siemer, and Vinny Eastwood, who filmed and edited this clip - and composed and performed the stirring rendition of music in the clip - go where no man has gone before in the pursuit of the truth about our Courts, police, and prisons, and how whistleblowers are being unlawfully incarcerated in ever new and imaginative ways. 

Here Vince tries to hand himself in to the Serco run Mr Eden prison and finds out it's not as easy as you'd think.



Please leave an encouraging comment on the Youtube site to show support for the work Vinnie and others are doing to expose corruption and incompetence.

The NZ High Court sits on shaky ground:

While the people of Christchurch wait in vain for their earthquake damage claims to be dealt with, Marc Krieger has been served with an application for a Court declaration against him for "Contempt" for informing them of the reasons for the delay, which are, basically, incompetence and corruption on a massive scale.

On the day after fellow journalist and publisher Vince Siemer was ordered to go to jail for publishing the outrageous decision of Winkelmann J on his website Kiwisfirst, to deny the Urewera defendants a jury trial - as enshrined in the cornerstone of justice for centuries, the Magna Carta.   Her Majesty's Solicitor General has decided to waste taxpayers' time and money in an utterly futile and unsound application designed to impugn the reputation and destroy the quality of life of yet another unfortunate person who simply sought to expose injustice and corruption by publishing the evidence of it, and help the people of Christchurch to understand why their claims have been mismanaged and rejected.

The Crown's application is based on the assertion that "unknown defendants" published a spreadsheet containing information which the Crown claims was "confidential" and the property of the Earthquake Commission (EQC).  The spreadsheet was compiled by a subsidiary of Fletcher Construction, "Fletcher EQC", and it contained the details of 83,000 claims being processed by EQC.

An initial Court order prohibiting the disclosure of the spreadsheet "until further order of the Court", against "unnamed defendants", was served on an anonymous email address on about 10 April 2013.  On 10 July an application was made by Her Majesty's Solicitor General for a Declaration of (alleged) Contempt of Court.  The application declares that the Solicitor General will apply to the Court on 1 August for orders that Mr Krieger be held in contempt and "for such sanction" . . . "that the Court in its inherent jurisdiction considers appropriate" as well as an order for costs.  One of the more ironic statements in this application is at the end; after serving the "unnamed defendants" at the anonymous hushmail address, the Solicitor General has the cheek to say "Note:  the service of documents may not be effected by email or fax . . . "

On 30 June Mr Krieger filed a "Motion to Strike Out EQC's Frivolous Claims" against himself and these "unknown defendants", stating that apart from the request to dismiss the proceedings brought by the Solicitor General he politely declines to participate in the proceedings or to dignify this frivolous action by paying a single cent in filing fees (- and I don't blame him!)  Mr Krieger continues "Furthermore,  I wish to prevent the vexatious plaintiff and its counsel from further depleting what little remains in the EQC fund to pursue this ridiculous vendetta."  Mr Krieger's motion cites section 15.1 of the High Court Rules which allow the Court to strike out a pleading if it discloses no reasonably arguable course of action, is likely to cause prejudice or delay, is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the interests of justice, and the public interest, Mr Krieger's motion is embedded below in its entirety, because it's well worth the read:





This post will be updated with news of this frivolous folly - this is how your taxes are being spent - trying to shut up people who expose corruption.  In the meantime, more frivolity:

Silence of the Lambs

13 July 2013

First they came for the trade unionists...  

"I, Vince Siemer, am going to prison tomorrow after the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal ruling which in turn upheld two judges of the High Court decreeing I am in contempt of the Courts.  I consider I can show no better respect for the rule of law than contempt for judges who pervert it.  My 'crime' is publishing the secret December 2010 judgment of Justice Helen Winkelmann which denied the Urewera 18 defendants their statutory right to trial by jury on the basis a jury ?would likely use improper reasoning processes?.  The Chief Justice strongly dissented, recognising I disobeyed an unlawful order yet was denied the lawful right to challenge it in order to preserve my liberty.

I am believed to be the first person in the free world to be sentenced to prison for reporting a criminal court judgment.   (Who says New Zealand does not lead the world?!)  One reason I am the first is secret criminal court judgments are unlawful.  In my case, the Courts roundly protected the unlawfulness of Winkelmann?s order by asserting they need not determine the lawfulness on the ground even unlawful orders need to be obeyed until overturned - the Crown claiming a message needed to be sent to the larger community of this.    Interestingly, I invited the Attorney General to make submissions in the public interest regarding the lawfulness of Winkelmann's orders and he responded that, if he made submissions at all, he would seek an increased order of costs against me. 
Where Winkelmann?s order gave no reasons for the secrecy, the High Court Judges tripped over each other to retrofit the reason that justice required the secrecy.   The Crown conceded at my trial no prejudice or harm was alleged as a result of my publication, but they still wanted me imprisoned.  In a page out of a George Orwell novel, the Court of Appeal censored Winkelmann?s reason for negating the statutory right of appeal when upholding my conviction out of fear the public would not take kindly to being called stupid in a secret judgment.

First they steal the words; stealing the meanings only when required.
New Zealand judges are out of control.  We no longer have the instilling discipline of the Privy Council in England.  The NZ Court of Appeal judges trounced by the Privy Council as law-breakers in Taito v R now comprise the Supreme Court which replaced the Privy Council. 
Do you see any mainstream media reporting any of this?

We get what we deserve with our judges.  The incestuous nature of judicial appointments being what it is, every judge in New Zealand signed on to submissions to Parliament opposing the passage of the pecuniary interest of judges bill currently before Parliament.   Really?  Not one judge in the whole of New Zealand not actively opposed to this bill which requires them to register their financial and business interests?   While it seems impossible at times to get more than two Members of Parliament to completely agree, our 205 judges are in lock step with their independent view.  It is evident ?independent judge? is an oxymoron in New Zealand.

We have forfeited much with the loss of the independent Privy Council.  This should come as no surprise.  Former Attorney General Margaret Wilson was undeterred when 82 percent of Auckland law practitioners voted against her new Supreme Court.  When everyone?s back was turned it still happened.  We built a $100 million palace for five elevated judges, most of whom were known to engage in breaches of due process.  And, like sheep, this 82% fell into the fold even as this new court made mince out of established principles on judicial bias and essential legal rights, rolling over established legislation with all the finesse of a blitzkrieg.   It is the law today that the ?New Zealand independent and informed observer? is an endangered species and, where it does exist, does not consider a judge has a conflict of interest where he/she is business adversary or sibling to those who appear before him/her.  You now have to be rich to get to a hearing in the courts ? the Supreme Court ruling the requirement that plaintiffs pay the defendants? anticipated legal costs into the Court as a condition to obtaining a hearing is ?well-settled law? in New Zealand.  Two years ago, in Atty General v Chapman, the Supreme Court ruled judges are exempt from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the ground this statute that expressly bound them threatens their ?independence? we all know so well.

Maybe the diminishing numbers allowed to be heard in the courtrooms no longer care.  But we could possibly survive without the legal necessity of independent judges if these judges had any respect for the rule of law and the courts they serve.  But they have no respect for laws where their mates and critics are concerned, and the most powerful sheep lawyers in New Zealand, while silent about it publicly, make no secret about it privately.  As retired Judge Sir Edward Thomas said in a 2007 email to the president of the New Zealand Bar, ?I am not a keeper of the court?s conscience and am of the view that my primary obligation is to Alan, not just as a matter of professional obligation but by virtue of my deep friendship for him.  There is a limit to how far I will go to uphold the integrity of the court if the judges themselves won't.?

Where is the ?independent bar? on this?  Flocking behind the independent judges, either cowering in fear or cloaked in protective partisanship.  This silent flock is hoping the perverse court judgments in my cases do not generally denigrate the rule of law in New Zealand.  History finds this the safest place for lawyers to be.  Look at Fiji.

Those who see little comparison with Fiji fail to realise that Fijians do not feel oppressed.  That is the insidious thing with erosion of the rule of law.  It is frighteningly uneventful until the tipping point.  In the Earthquake Commission contempt the Solicitor General filed against Marc Krieger this week, it was not the Bill of Rights or due process legislation which even featured in the SG's application.  The SG largely relies upon three of my court decisions to eventually bankrupt this poor citizen who had the audacity to expose the EQC's attempt to write off $100 million which evaporated from the public coffers.

Anyone who doesn't believe a deep friendship for Alan? is a more valuable commodity in a New Zealand Court than truth and law chooses to ignore the reality.  For whistleblowers, one obvious problem is they do not have deep friendships with the perpetrators whose power and influence is the currency of the New Zealand courts.  Partisanship and secrecy is endemic, and it is laying ruin to the rule of law in black robe and white collar New Zealand.  It would be better if it was blood in the streets, if only to wake people up to the huge corruption occuring behind closed court doors.  No one should need to go to prison to protect the rule of law but the sad reality is sitting in prison is often the best way to stand up for legal rights.  While it is unfortunate this price must be paid, I consider my imprisonment a demonstration of my highest respect for the law."  ~ Vince Siemer (NZ's leading independent journalist and publisher.

 - source, Kiwisfirst.co.nz

Contempt of Court - Vince Siemer's cruel and unusual punishment

Publisher Vince Siemer of Kiwisfirst

On 9 December 2010, Winkelmann J delivered a judgment making pre-trial rulings in criminal proceedings, regarding the trial of the defendents in the matter that became known as the "Urewera terror raids". The front page of the judgment carried a heading stating that the judgment was not to be published in news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database or otherwise made publicly available until final disposition of the trial or further order of the court.   What Winkelmann J sought to suppress was her rulings that the defendants were to be denied a trial before a jury of their peers as they were lawfully entitled to, and that Winkelmann J sought to establish an arguably unlawful precedent forcing them to be tried by a Judge alone, because Winkelmann J was of the extraordinary view that a jury couldn't be trusted to arrive at a sound decision.  As we now know, the Urewera raids were found to have been conducted unlawfully.

Publication in a law report or law digest was permitted by Winkelmann J, as an exception to the order forbidding publication of her rulings.  Shortly after the judgment was delivered, the appellant Mr Siemer published an article on each of two identical “Kiwisfirst” websites he operated. The article referred to the decision made by Winkelmann J, and included a hyperlink which gave readers of the article immediate electronic access to a copy of the 9 December judgment.

The Solicitor-General brought proceedings in the High Court seeking to have Mr Siemer committed for contempt of court. A Full Court of the High Court held that Winkelmann J had power to make the suppression order in relation to the judgment.

The Crown argued that any other criticisms of the court order could not be a defence to a charge of deliberately breaching it. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Siemer had knowingly published the judgment in breach of the order and found him to be in contempt of court. The Court sentenced Mr Siemer to six weeks’ imprisonment. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Mr Siemer appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has, by a majority comprising McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ, dismissed Mr Siemer’s appeal.

The Chief Justice has dissented.

The first issue before the Court was whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases. The majority has held that New Zealand courts have an inherent power to suppress judgments. This power has not been extinguished or replaced by s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 (now repealed and replaced with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011), which confers a limited statutory power to suppress. The majority has decided that a suppression order can be made consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act where publication of the information would give rise to a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial right.  Ironically.

The second issue was whether a person who wishes to act in a manner contrary to a suppression order may seek to have it varied or rescinded. The majority has held that such a person may apply to the court for review of that order. The application must be made in writing and set out the reasons why review of the order, or its application to that person, is sought. The application must be considered by a judge, who will determine the procedure to be followed in response to the application, and make a decision upon the application itself.

The final issue was whether, in proceedings for contempt of court based on breach of a court order, the defendant may raise as a defence that the order should not have been made or made in the terms it was. The majority of the Court has decided that breach of a court order will constitute contempt of court, at least where the court had power to make an order of the relevant kind. It will not generally be open to a person facing contempt proceedings to defend them on the basis that the order should not have been made. The person bound by the court order should instead apply to the court seeking to have the order varied or set aside.

The Court has decided that there are very limited exceptions to this general rule where that is
necessary in order to ensure that there is a meaningful and practically available opportunity for those subject to court orders to challenge them.

In the present appeal, the Court held the view that it was open to Mr Siemer to apply to the Court to seek to have the suppression order made by Winkelmann J varied or set aside. There was no exceptional basis for allowing Mr Siemer to raise a defence, in the contempt proceedings, on the basis that the court order should not have been made at all or in the terms that it was.  Mr Siemer’s actions breached the order made by Winkelmann J and frustrated its purpose. For that reason, Mr Siemer’s conduct was held to be contemptuous.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Supreme Court has directed that Mr Siemer must commence serving his sentence.

The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz:  
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL
(SC 37/2012)
[2013] NZSC 68

Vinnie Eastwood interviewed Vince Siemer shortly after the release of the decision of the Supreme Court:


- In another recent ruling released today, another local businessman was sentenced to jail for contempt of Court for failing to co-operate upon being called for jury duty.

Point of Order Protest at Supreme Court and Parliament calls for Transparency in New Zealand Courts and public affairs:

The inaugural Point of Order Protest was held on 13 June 2013, beginning outside the Supreme Court in Wellington and progressing to Parliament.

Protestors led by publisher Vince Siemer of Kiwisfirst  united in Wellington today in solidarity with Transparency NZ, NZ Justice Forum, the NZ Private Prosecution Service, and a number of other individuals and representatives of various organisations concerned with human rights abuses, injustice in the Courts, etc, and demanded accountability, fair access to justice, transparent Courts, transparency regarding public affairs, and governance by the people and for the people, with fair elections and access to fair justice for all - rather than only the well off.  The Courthouse itself cost over $80,000,000 of taxpayer's money to build, it replaces New Zealanders' access to the Privy Council, which cost us nothing.

While Transparency International's NZ chapter is well 'incentivised' to come up with their "reports" which spread the propaganda that there is no corruption in New Zealand - or indeed the wider Pacific - the evidence tells another story - the National Business Review reports there is an alarming amount of bribery in New Zealand.  Vince Siemer and Kate Raue are only two of the many people who have been corruptly bullied by taxpayer funded Courts, Judges, lawyers, amicus curiae, Court appointed 'forensic staff', psychologists and psychiatricts and other purveyors of quackery who quaff at the great trough that is our ironically named 'justice' system, a system which is totally dysfunctional and prejudiced and biased in favour of the wealthy, including recent widely criticised changes to the legislation resulting in extremely restrictive access to legal aid.  Others protesting included Maria Van Der Meel of The City is Ours - protesting in particular to the manner in which the Council are dealing with issues regarding the bus lanes in Wellington and in particular Manners Mall - several people have been killed or seriously injured now, including Venessa Green, who was struck and killed by a bus in Willis St recently, as well as representatives of the Wellington Private Prosecution Service, and several independent journalists.

The processes for complaints through the established agencies are widely recognised as being inefficient because of incompetent and corrupt 'investigators', often ex Police officers, who've 'perfed' out of the force rather than face disciplinary action, such as Jon Moss and his mates at the REAA.  The Ombudsmen's Office, the IPCA, the Privacy Commissioner and Health and Disability Commissioner are all dysfunctional, incompetent, and often corrupt, which has led to a situation where there is a massive backlog of complaints and the only option for the victims is the Courts, which is what led to the overload of the legal aid applications and the changes to curtail access to legal aid.

Thanks to Simon Powers' widely criticised changes to the legal aid system, people no longer have access to lawyers unless they've got lots of money, these changes were slammed in a recent decision from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General.  The irony is, that the Criminal Bar Association represents the lawyers whose money tree was being pruned, rather than the public interest, and lawyers are still refusing to take clients unless the clients have the means to pay huge legal bills.  The same thing is happening in Europe where lawyers are protesting similar changes.  The decision of the Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General contains the words

"But the issue is not what is desirable as a matter of sound public administration, but what is lawful."

Vince Siemer was party to this little exchange in the Auckland High Court on 17 June 2008:

Judge Lester Chisholm:  "Mr Siemer, if we find that you have broken the law will you change your ways?  

Mr Siemer:  "What law have I broken?" 

Judge Chisholm:   "That is for us to decide." 

Mr Siemer:  "What law is it said that I've broken?" 

Judge Chisholm:   "Mr Siemer, I'm not going to get into a debate with you." 

Mr Siemer:   "Of course not."

Here's another:

"Mr Siemer:  Is this proceeding being recorded as I requested?
Judge Rhys Harrison:  Why do you want it recorded?
Mr Siemer:  Is this not a 'Court of record'?
Judge Harrison:  'Court of record' was a phrase coined many, many centuries ago, before recording devices came into existence, so it has nothing to do with 'accurate record of proceedings'.  So, no, there is no need to record, thank you."

The Point of Order Protest serendipitously ambushed Judge Rhys Harrison on Molesworth St as he was scurrying off to do his dastardly business, and followed him up the street addressing him with the loud hailer for a few moments, which was particularly appropriate.

Recent decisions to ignore the decision of Criminal Bar Association and ignore Peter Dunne's lack of a mandate make a mockery of our 'democracy'.

Access to the Courts is further obstructed by a general unwillingness to release information according to the Official Information Act, Privacy Act, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and a propensity instead to try and withhold and conceal as much information as possible and deliberately and unlawfully obstruct and hinder the provision of information routinely, thus clogging up the Office of the Ombudsmen with a landslide of complaints and resulting in a totally unacceptable delay of over a year for even looking at complaints let alone 'investigating' them - and complaints are all too often referred to the very people complained about to investigate anyway, such as the IPCA who routinely refer complaints back to the very police (or their colleagues) instead of any truly independent or robust investigation with any integrity we are routinely fobbed of with what often amounts to an orchestrated litany of lies.

In one case a woman had to ask a Judge for a Court Order just to obtain Disclosure from the local Police - in order to find out what it was she was actually charged with, over a year after the charge was laid - whereupon the Police had to admit that the charge never should have been laid in the first place - as the prosecutor knew all along!

Police are lying in order to unlawfully take DNA from innocent people which is extremely worrying given the evidence of the campaign of corrupt bullying and malicious and vexatious litigation which sadistic local officers indulge it - enough!  We pay taxes for fair and honest governance - not this travesty of justice we are currently enduring.

There's been a disgraceful whitewash regarding the Pike River mine explosions which killed twenty nine men, a whitewash of the GCSB spying, a whitewash of the Urewera fiasco, an unprecedented landslide of legislation curtailing human rights and access to justice and the Point of Order Protests will continue to act to change this taxpayer funded incompetence and blatant corruption.

Transparency NZ spokesperson Katherine Raue launched a stinging address at Parliament regarding the fact that twenty nine men still lie dead somewhere inside the Pike Rive mine while we've witnessed the systemic corporate failure or not only Pike River Coal but Solid Energy - Don Elder retained on the big salary and a "commission of inquiry" that didn't even have the power to compel witnesses to appear and conveniently minimised the role and liability of the Department of Labour and the government in the deaths of the twenty nine men, and a Court process that has ignored and intimidated and let down the families of those men on top of everything else they've had to endure - from the unspeakable shock of first finding out that there'd been an explosion while their men were in the mine, throughout the fiasco of a response, the second explosion, the hounding of journalists who didn't check their facts anyway, throughout all the days and weeks and months and years - over two and a half years - of birthdays and wedding anniversaries, children growing up without their dads and wives who, like many other New Zealanders, just won't put up with the fact that this government enabled the Department of Labour with resources (taxpayers money) and our paid public servants - and systems of governance - have failed so totally and utterly as was exposed at the inquiry (transcripts of the evidence are available to read, scroll down at this link) - although what was exposed was only the tip of the iceberg anyway.  Kate also gave parliament (and half of Thorndon) a piece of her mind regarding the incompetence and corruption of the NZ Police, particularly those in the Wairarapa and Wellington regions, and the complete dysfunction and obvious corruption of the IPCA and the fact that the so called 'investigation' into the fact that Sgt Mark McHattie threw hundreds of child abuse files in the rubbish bin and deliberately lied about it - saying "hand on my heart they've been resolved" when he knew perfectly well he'd thrown them in the bin.  The so called investigation has been going on for nearly seven years and nothing's changed - the 'inquiry' has just been a big gravy train for all involved, rewarding the perpetrators - conducted by the perpetrators and their mates and funded by the gullible taxpayers who believe everything the media tells them while the NBR report that there is an alarming amount of bribery in New Zealand at the same time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs funds Transparency International NZ to tell us there's no corruption in New Zealand or the Pacific region.  Yeah, right.

The investigation's been going on since at least 2007, and nobody involved in investigating the matter has even bothered to interview McHattie, and he and the other ringleader, Area Commander John Johnston have both been actually PROMOTED instead of charged with perverting the course of justice and imprisoned - while we've got over twice the national rate of suicide REGULARLY - it's not rocket science to see the link there, when the message we're giving people is "Talk to someone" and then the "someone" they talk to throws their files in the bin and gives his sicko mates their names and addresses etc, while they sit on their backsides sending each other emails about websites they shouldn't be worrying about anyway - the Courts have repeatedly found the publisher of the website innocent of their corrupt accusations and the NZ Police should be getting on with investigating child abuse and other violent crime instead of sending each other emails saying "Something needs to be looked at regarding Kate Raue's blog and the statements she's making on it about our staff."   Something needs looking at regarding why New Zealanders are being spied on in record numbers and unlawfully, and being stripped of our rights, while our taxes are used to fund a private army that rallies en masse to crack down on protests and pickets while they throw child abuse files in the rubbish bin.

The first Point of Order Protest outside the Supreme Court, with Kiwisfirst editor Vince Siemer, and protestors from  Transparency NZ , the NZ Private Prosecution Service, Wellington City is Ours and a number of other campaigners for justice and transparent governance.

Police out in force at a protest outside McDonalds in  March 2013

Police acting in force to protect corporate interests in return for cheap burgers, in contempt of regulations.

(Police bosses initially lied, claiming that Police didn't receive any incentive or discount from McDonalds, until it was revealed that they in fact did receive a discount at McDonalds, in total contradiction of police regulations.)  Our police force has becoming a private army for corporate and political interests, and our Courts are acting increasingly in a manner which is not in the public interest and not in the interests of justice.

And now the government is forcing through even MORE legislation making it illegal to strike.

Transparency NZ intends using sections 145 to 177 of the Crimes Act (among other pieces of legislation) to enforce fiduciary accountability in New Zealand and protect the public interest from incompetent and corrupt abuse of taxes, donations to 'charities', etc.

Silence in the Court: Vince Seimer appeals contempt ruling in the Supreme Court:

On 19 July 2012 Vincent Ross Seimer was granted leave to appeal the finding of contempt of Court regarding publication of the decision of Judge Helen Winkelmann that the Urewera accused were to be denied the right to trial by jury, on Mr Seimer's website, Kiwisfirst.com.  

The approved ground to appeal was whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases.

In the Supreme Court yesterday (15 November 2012), Siemer v Solicitor General SC 37 2012 (CA  417/2011  [2012] NZCA139) discussed the question of whether judges in New Zealand have inherent powers to suppress criminal court judgements - powers not provided in statute or the common law, and whether it was just to imprison a person who did not breach a lawful order.

The hearing challenged a Court of Appeal ruling (CA607/2011 [2012] NZCA 188) which declared NZ judges have this inherent power.  As it is, Judges in New Zealand enjoy immunity from public scrutiny or fiduciary accountability, and the rule of the validity of legitimate public interest has long been enshrined in law and upheld for centuries as the foundation of justice - justice must be seen to be done.  The Supreme Court appeal was heard before Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ, who have reserved their decision (this post will be updated after the decision is received).

Publisher Vince Siemer was convicted and sentenced to six weeks in Mt Eden prison for publishing the December 2010 judgement of Judge Winkelmann in R v Bailey (Emily Bailey, Urewera trials) which denied 18 New Zealand citizens their statutory right to trial by jury, despite the fact that the evidence against the accused was illegally obtained, like a lot of Crown evidence put forward in New Zealand Courts recently - it's a disturbing trend, and one not to be encouraged.  Judge Winkelmann then suppressed her decision so nobody would know that she had denied the defendants their right to a jury trial.

The judgment was ordered suppressed from the public, and no reasons were given for the suppression by issuing Judge Helen Winkelmann.  The reasons given for denying the jury trial were (1) a jury would find it difficult to sit through the trial which was expected to be long, and (2) a jury would likely use "improper reasoning processes".  And nobody is allowed to know about this, apparently.  It has already been established that the evidence was illegally obtained, as it was in a number of other cases, including the much publicised Hollywood style raids on Kim Dotcom and the Switched On Gardener franchise, among others.

This bears remarkable - and chilling - similarity to the recent contempt heaped on the Court by ex "Dr" Brenda Sally Rimkeit, who successfully perverted the course of justice, and acted as Judge AND jury, by corruptly claiming that Katherine Raue was unfit to stand trial or represent herself (or even plead) on charges of Perverting the Course of Justice on the basis that: "Ms Raue is unfit to stand trial. She currently has a mental impairment which is Delusional Disorder. Ms Raue has stated on a number of occasions during this assessment period that she feels capable of representing and defending herself against the current charges. She has suggested that her main line of defence is that the charges are the result of corrupt acts by certain parties and that she will name these parties in Court. My concern is that if she proceeds to represent herself at Court she may, through her delusional belief system, falsely accuse certain parties of wrongdoing."  I most certainly did intend accusing the NZ police of wrongdoing - as I am ENTITLED to do under the law!  And I would most certainly have proved that was the case too, the evidence is elsewhere on this site.

Section 138 if the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was repealed on 5 March 2012.  At the time of Mr Seimer's alleged offence, this section stated:

"138:  Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings:
(1)Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) and of any other enactment, every sitting of any court dealing with any proceedings in respect of an offence shall be open to the public.
(2)Where a court is of the opinion that the interests of justice, or of public morality, or of the reputation of any victim of any alleged sexual offence or offence of extortion, or of the security or defence of New Zealand so require, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:
(a)an order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of—
(i)the evidence adduced; or
(ii)the submissions made:
(b)an order forbidding the publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses:
(c)subject to subsection (3), an order excluding all or any persons other than the informant, any Police employee, the defendant, any counsel engaged in the proceedings, and any officer of the court from the whole or any part of the proceedings.
(3)The power conferred by paragraph (c) of subsection (2) shall not, except where the interests of security or defence so require, be exercised so as to exclude any accredited news media reporter.
(4)An order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—
(a)may be made for a limited period or permanently; and
(b)if it is made for a limited period, may be renewed for a further period or periods by the court; and
(c)if it is made permanently, may be reviewed by the court at any time.
(5)The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
(6)Notwithstanding that an order is made under subsection (2)(c), the announcement of the verdict or decision of the court (including a decision to commit the defendant for trial or sentence) and the passing of sentence shall in every case take place in public; but, if the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances so require, it may decline to state in public all or any of the facts, reasons, or other considerations that it has taken into account in reaching its decision or verdict or in determining the sentence passed by it on any defendant.
(7)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who commits a breach of any order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or evades or attempts to evade any such order.
(8)The breach of any order made under subsection (2)(c), or any evasion or attempted evasion of it, may be dealt with as contempt of court.
(9)Nothing in this section shall limit the powers of the court under sections 139 and 140 to prohibit the publication of any name.

It was questioned whether in fact section 138 even applied to judgements, and Ms Laracy, appearing for the Crown, accepted that the Court of Appeal would have probably overturned Judge Winkelmann's decision.  The difference between actual risk and hypothetical risk was discussed, as well as the questionable necessity of suppression given the existence of strict liability contempt.  The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 contains new provisions, the Criminal Justice Act and the Bail Act also contain relevant sections.

The question of whether the Court imposed the Order under inherent jurisdiction or under its powers under section 138 was discussed, and whether if Judge Winkelmann had no jurisdiction to make the Order there was no contempt.  The Solicitor General apparently decided that Judge Winkelmann didn't have the power to make the order, and struggled with seeing how fair trial rights were implicated by Judge Winkelmann's decision being in the public arena.

Powers must be exercised for a legitimate purpose.  It was put to the Court that the law requires the Judge to give a valid reason for suppression and not to exercise arbitrary excessive power.  The reason given was that Judge Winkelmann felt that the jury would not be able to come to grips with the complexities of the case apparently - and she obviously felt that the public of New Zealand were not sophisticated enough to hear about it either.  It stretches the bounds of credibility to suggest that the Judge was not influenced by political pressure that sought to keep the details of how the evidence against the accused was illegally obtained from public scrutiny - therefore jeopardising a fair trial.

Tony Ellis appeared for Mr Seimer, his summing up was brief.  He put it to the Court that there was no claim that the publication of the decision was a threat to justice and that the Order could not be justified as being in the interests of justice, that the Judge failed to give an adequate reason, that she exercised excessive arbitrary power, that it was against the fundamental rule of law that the Court be unaccountable, unappealable and the Judge above criticism while Vince Seimer goes to jail for reporting a trial that is in the public interest and in the interests of justice to be open and transparent.  He put it to the Court that there was no criminal or civil jurisdiction in fact, and that a person should be able to challenge an Order if it is unlawful.  He asserted that the Judge had no jurisdiction, either inherent or under section 138 (which applied at the time of the alleged offending), and that the law is "obscure, uncertain and unclear."

It's vitally important to democracy and fundamental to justice that Court hearings are open to public scrutiny and that Judges are transparent and accountable for their decisions.  We await the decision, and will update this post when it becomes available.  Another Siemer decision was referred to in a recent Judges "minute" I received from the Court - and more about the current practice of the Court in issuing these "minutes" instead of proper judgements at that link.