After all the charges against me were thrown out last year when it became obvious that the Crown prosecutors and NZ police were LYING, I requested copies of the Court files. A simple request you would think - well think again - this is the response - more on the recent trend for NZ Judges to issue "Minutes" instead of proper legal decisions at this link:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON CRI-2009-035-000805
NZ POLICE - Informant
v
KATHERINE RAUE - Defendant
________________________________________
MINUTE OF JUDGE D R W BARRY
[Application by Mrs Raue for Information held by the District Court at Masterton and at Wellington]
_________________________________________
[1] By handwritten memorandum dated 21 September 2011 Katherine Raue wrote to the Wellington District Court Registry making the following request:
"I, Katherine Raue, DOB 28.7.1958 hereby request all information (or copies thereof) of all information held by the District Court at Masterton and at Wellington about me.
In particular I request all information regarding charges of perverting the course of jsutce and escaping lawful custody, and the six charges recently withdrawn in Masterton Court. I require this information urgently in order to consult a lawyer regarding breaches of my rights etc, and take legal action against the police."
[2] Accompanying the letter is the first page of a standard form for requesting a copy of a criminal record under the Privacy Act 1993. Below the words "I hereby request the Criminal Records Unit, Ministry of Justice, to provide me with the details of any criminal convictions I may have which are held on the computer systems administered by the Ministry of Justice" she has endorsed the following words in hand "All information about me held by Dept of Courts".
Discussion of legal position:
[3] Mrs Raue's letter does not specify the legal basis upon which she makes her request for information. The most appropriate proceedure for obtaining information held by Courts is through the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009.
[4] Mrs Raue has the right to access the formal Court record kept in the Registry of a Court pursuant to Rule 6(1). The formal Court record relevantly includes the Register of persons committed for trial or sentence, the return of prisoners tried and sentenced, the charges set out in any information or indictment, and judgements, orders and minutes of the Court (Rule 3).
[5] As a defendant Mrs Raue would also be entitled, under the supervision of an Officer of the Court, to search and inspect the Court files or any documents relating to those proeedings, and to copy any part or parts of them (Rule 7(1). The definition of "document" includes records made in electronic form (Rule 3), but records of proceedings made in electronic form may only be copied with the Court's permission Rule 7(2)). Any such permission is to be obtained through a particularised application under Rule 13.
[6] The form of application under the Privacy Act 1993 contains only part of the first page of the Privacy Act request for a copy of Ms Raue's criminal record as noted above. It is not possible to invoke the Privacy Act as a basis for obtaining the information Ms Raue seeks. This is because the Court is not an "Agency" for the purposes of the Privacy Act (Section 2(1)).
[7] Any application for information in respect of "the six charges recently withdrawn in Masterton Court" (sic) must be made to that Court (not Wellington District Court).
Direction:
[8] Mrs Raue should be given access to the formal Court record and to Court files for the Wellington District Court cases she refers to in her application of 21 September 2011 in which she was the defendant in accordance with Rule 6 and 7. If Mrs Raue wishes to make copies of electronic recordings of any proceedings she will need to make a particularised application under Rule 132. If Mrs Raue does so the concerns expressed by the Court in Misiuk v Superintendant of a Penal Institution HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-6625 8 October 2010 Dobson J, and the Supreme Court & Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 116 will naturally be taken into account in considering the applications. In particular I note the views of the Supreme Court in the latter case at paragraph [9]:
"There are obvious resource implications if Judges direct Court Registry's to provide parties with transcripts of hearings, of appeals and interlocutory matters generally on demand by litigants. For that reason, Judges should always satisfy themselves that there is good reason in the interests of justice for giving such directions."History of these matters to date:
[9] I summarise, for the assistance of any other Judicial Officer later involved in this request, my understanding of the background to the matters Ms Raue seems to be requesting information about:
`
The Alleged Offending and Court Proceedings
1 On 8 April 2009 Katherine Raue made a complaint to Carterton Police alleging that she had been burgled by Michael Murphy, a former friend. She claimed that Mr Murphy had stolen a computer disk containing evidence relating to another claim she had made in respect of him in relation to an incident on 2 February 2009 (sic). Constable Rhymer took a written statement from Ms Raue, which was signed by Ms Raue as being true and correct.
2 Later that day Constable Rhymer took a statement from Aaron Brook, who said that he had seen Mr Murphy leaving Ms Raue's property, A short time later Mr Brook retracted that statement and claimed that Ms Raue had put him up to making the false statement.
- Let's just stop right there. There are a number of factual errors contained in this "minute" - for one thing, the 'incident' relating to the disk - the violent home invasion - occurred NOT on 2 February 2009 - it occurred on 11 February 2009. Evidence shows that police have a habit of covering up violent crime in the Wairarapa and are protection recidivist violent offenders, and that this pattern of behaviour is politically motivated corruption, according to several top NZ lawyers.
For another thing, the charges were thrown out because it was proven that Constable Rhymer was LYING about having taken these statements from Aaron Brook - who has NEVER retracted his evidence that he and his cousin saw Michael Murphy very near to my home at the time of the burglary. Constable Rhymer was unable to explain to the Court why she took my statement in her notebook - but the statement she ALLEGES that she took from Aaron Brooks isn't in her notebook - and wasn't produced at all until very recently - it's conspicuous by it's absence in the Disclosure, and in the Depositions evidence, etc, she recently alleges that she took this statement from Brook on some pieces of A4 paper she just happened to have on her - YEAH, RIGHT!!!
The article at this link by Judge David Harvey discusses this matter of access to Court records.
This post will be updated shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment