Justice system - what justice system?

The decision of Brown J is still not on the Ministry's website despite the public interest in the decision.

That's hardly surprising considering what the decision actually says.

The decision is embedded below but can also be accessed at this link for easier viewing.

The New Zealand government is held in contempt overseas as well as on home ground for the manner in which they have manipulated the miners and their families, the money, the propaganda, and everything that's gone with it, toying with the baubles of office, telling tall stories, playing with so many lives.

This is a dangerous precedent and can not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Worksafe prosecuted Peter Whittall, not the Crown Prosecutor, 'Worksafe' - the former Department of Labour - the very people who should have been standing in the dock alongside Peter Whittall.  The real reason the charges were dropped, as we all know, is because it was clearly apparent that Whittall's evidence was going to incriminate the prosecutor - Worksafe.  

Para 31 looks at whether the prosecution decision was reviewable and talks about whether prosecutorial discretion was exercised or not - but crucially, not whether it was exercised PROPERLY, or fairly, or in an ethical manner.

This is why there is so much injustice and why the Ombudsmen and other agencies dealing with complaints are swamped with them, because the so called justice system is seriously dysfunctional and one of the main reasons for that is the difficulty in having prosecutorial decisions judicially reviewed.

The decision refers to precedents which established that prosecutorial decisions should only be subject to judicial review if they are in regard to abuse of process.  This case certainly seems to fit the bill in that department . . .

In paragraph 42 Brown J states "I do not consider that the impugned process is of such gravity that the high level of restraint should be relaxed and judicial review permitted."  Twenty nine men are dead.  What exactly does constitute "gravity" in his book I wonder?

The simple fact is this, if the Police or the Crown Prosecutors make the decision to prosecute they should get it right BEFORE they lay the charge, not after, and certainly not after making some dirty little back room Pontius Pilate deal like this one.  Otherwise, they should be subject to judicial review - especially after they lay a charge and then withdraw it or offer no evidence. 

Poor wee Joseph.  Look at him, full of hope for the future, all he wanted was a job, full of trust, we should be demanding accountability for Joseph and the other men - look at this young man - barely more than a child, and killed inside a mine that everyone knew was a time bomb!

And have a look at the ladder - the emergency exit - what a joke!  The shaft collapsed during construction, the whole mine was an utter death trap and a catastrophe just waiting to happen.

Related links are here.

Recommended reading - Rebecca Macfie's book - Tragedy at Pike River Mine

At this link is an unrelated example of a seriously flawed and blatantly and indisputably corrupt prosecutorial decision of similar magnitude, which also shows how even the threat of judicial review was enough to make the prosecutor think again, suddenly announce they intend offering no evidence and run for the hills.  In order for there to be justice and transparency in New Zealand prosecutorial decisions must be subject to  review.  This site's full of such examples - must make a new label - never enough hours in the day - this post will be updated, but is being published now due to public interest in the decision.

Mining for justice - justice for sale - the price of a life and who paid it:

Pete Cahill, Sonya Rockhouse, Anna Osborne, Kath Monk, Helen Kelly, Bernie Monk
Peter Cranney, Nigel Hampton QC, and Simon Meikle, outside the High Court today.

Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse filed an application for judicial review in the High Court against the District Court and 'Worksafe NZ' regarding the decision to drop twelve charges against mine manager Peter Whittall in consideration of a payment that equated to around $110,000 for each of the families of the miners killed - paid by the former company's insurers, the company, Pike River Coal Ltd having been sold with the dead men still inside it and gutted of its assets by the greedy, overpaid directors and executives of state owned Solid Energy, who profited at the expense of the grieving families. 

Worksafe were formerly known as the Department of Labour, MoBIE (or the Moby Dicks as they were colloquially refered to), they were ultimately responsible for ensuring that safety systems were in place and in force at the mine, they knew that was not the case and turned a blind eye until the explosions killed twenty nine men.  The application calls for a High Court judicial review of the District Court decision to drop the twelve charges against mine manager Peter Whittall.

This follows the ruling of Dobson J in February regarding the disclosure of documents regarding the decision to drop the charges against Whittall in exchange for a payment of money from the insurers of the Pike River mine.

The decision of Dobson J can be viewed AT THIS LINK.

Crucial to these matters of course is the Court file, and of grave concern to many New Zealanders is the "disgraceful" revelation that parts of the Court file have now 'conveniently' GONE MISSING.

The submissions at the High Court over the past two days have focused on the matter of prosecutorial decisions, how they are regulated (such regulation seems rather vague, limited and ineffective), how these decisions are arrived at, and most importantly, the scope to review them in the Courts, which is extremely limited.  Despite this, Anna Osborne, Sonya Rockhouse, Kath and Bernie Monk and others are refusing to take the gross injustices heaped upon the families and friends of the twenty nine Pike River miners who died on or about 19 November 2010 when the unsafe mine exploded, killing them, and leaving the two survivors, one of whom is one of Mrs Rockhouse's son Daniel, who finally received recognition for his courage and integrity in saving the life of the only other survivor.  Another son, Daniel's brother Ben, was killed in the explosions.

The review of the decision to drop the prosecutions against Whittall focused on the distinction between the question of "evidential sufficiency" or lack thereof as a reason to decide whether to initiate, proceed with or discontinue a prosecution, and then there was the matter of the "voluntary payment".  The families were not even consulted about the decisions.

Lawyer Simon Meikle pointed out the terms of the Illegal Contracts Act at one point (section 3 defines illegal contracts and sections 6 and 7 go into further detail), and a number of legal arguments were skillfully put to the Court by Nigel Hampton QC who led the legal team for the Applicants.  Questions were raised around the terms and intent of the Summary Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings Rules and Acts, matters of intricate jurisprudence, and the Court interacted in a positive and enquiring manner with Mr Hampton as he traversed the various arguments.

There are remarkably few precedent cases regarding the matter of prosecutorial decision making and the review of such decisions, and it was a privilege to listen to Mr Hampton and the Court exploring the legal parameters in such depth and detail.

Anna Osborne, whose husband Milton was killed in the 2010 explosions at the Pike River mine, and Sonya Rockhouse, whose son Ben was killed, have asked for a judicial review into the Crown's decision to drop 12 health and safety charges against the former chief executive of Pike River Peter Whittall.  They are supported by a number of members of the public, member of parliament Damian O'Connor, Helen Kelly and the CTU, and others.

Outside court today, Ms Osborne, told Lisa Davies of ONE News it was "ridiculous" that Mr Whittall had been cleared, adding that the "justice system is a joke" and that the families of the victims "don't want to be screwed over."

Nigel Hampton, the lawyer for the Pike River families, described the decision as "chequebook justice" and told the judicial review that it "struck at the heart of the New Zealand Justice system, setting a dangerous precedent that justice can be bought".

Mr Hampton told Justice Brendan Brown the circumstances should never have happened and that "it was an abuse of public interest and an abuse of the criminal justice system and its processes".

He told the court it was an unlawful and exceptional decision that led to the 12 charges being dropped on December 2013, despite the fact sufficient evidence existed - which is the Key fact of the matter.

He says "that was the quid pro quo really. Money was paid and the charges were dismissed".

"Is it justice for the rich?" he asked.

"That's what I suggest this comes to and that I suggest is a disastrous message to allow to be sent to the public, that justice in this country can be bought. It has never been thus."

He says the families "would rather see Peter Whittall made to answer".

Ms Rockhouse and Mrs Osborne have travelled to Wellington so they can attend the hearing in person, fought for 18 months for the case to be heard.

"Sonya and I couldn't let it go, because we just haven't had justice... to finally get our day in court is huge," says Mrs Osborne.

Worksafe lawyer Joanna Holden argued that the decision to drop the charges was lawful and reasonable, and not the result of an abuse of process.  Her submissions sounded less than convincing, at least one lawyer present describing her submission as "ridiculous".

"The suggestion that Worksafe...that they failed to take into account the impact of the disaster is utterly and completely rejected" said Ms Holden, grasping at straws.

The families of the 29 men killed in the disaster were shocked and angry when the 12 charges were dropped against Mr Whittall in December 2013.  A legal review by MoBIE - the entity that was formed when the Department of Labour was restructured in attempts to remove the Ministry (or "Department") from culpibility and association with the deaths of the twenty nine men - decided that the "likelihood of gaining a conviction was low".

That decision was clearly tainted by the involvement of the Department of Labour - MoBIE dicks, Worksafe, whatever you want to call them, they are one and the same, and their guilt was evidenced when the Minister, Kate Wilkinson resigned and the CEO did the same, in the wake of the Commission of Inquiry into the killing of the twenty nine men and the operation of the mine when all involved knew perfectly well that it was a disaster just waiting to happen.  The decision is further tainted with the odious stench of corruption by the decision of Dobson J in ruling that the communication between Clown Prosecutor Brent Stanaway and others involved in the corrupt decision is protected from scrutiny, and the unbelievable excuse that parts of the Court file are suddenly and conveniently "missing".


The same day the charges were dropped, an un-named insurance company - who was the company - who are the shareholders of the insurance company and what conflicts of interest existed? - representing Whittall and the Directors of Pike River Coal Ltd offered a voluntary reparation payment of $110,000 to the families of each of the 29 victims and the two survivors. At the time the families labelled the pay out as "blood money".   You'd have to wonder if it's an insurance company like AMI or AMP - who sponsor the grandstanding of 'journalists' like Paul Henry and Mike Hosking, in order to manipulate public opinion - the matter of "public interest" was discussed in Court - who measures public interest?  How?  NZ is PERCEIVED as being relatively free of corruption - the Key word is PERCEIVED - the media control how politicians are perceived and most New Zealanders are extremely naive!

Is that the cost of a human life in New Zealand in this day and age is it???  $110,000???


It is a damning indictment on our legal system when two women are forced to go to these lengths to get justice for the killing of a husband and a son and the loved sons, husbands, brothers, fathers, of twenty six other families, after a deal done behind their backs - which they were not even consulted about, let alone asked if they agreed with it, a deal cunningly set up by taxpayer funded lawyers in an act which was a corrupt abuse of Court process and utterly abhorrent to any right thinking person.

Direct link to the previous decision of Dobson J:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9UGVBLUJwMXRaRG8/view

We await the reserved decision, this post will be updated when that is received and a link to it will be included.

The Solicitor-General's Prosecution Guidelines:

The Solicitor-General's Prosection Guidelines are particularly interesting when viewed in the context of the letter from Peter Whittall's lawyers to the Crown Prosecutor, which can be viewed at THIS LINK and OTHERS.

Rebecca Mcfie recently published a book which has received excellent reviews.

Dr Cohen also wrote a book which can be read at THIS LINK.

Many of the families of the men who remain inside the mine to this day despite all the big talk of the people responsible for seeing that justice is done for them and their men, husbands, fathers, much loved, every single one of them, many of the family members feel deceived, angry and betrayed, and they have a lot of support.

If you have trouble viewing the file embedded above, try clicking on the small left facing arrow in the top left hand corner, which will remove the left hand panel and move the document to full frame view, or view it directly at THIS LINK.

These Prosecution Guidelines were rewritten in 2013 - here's the link to the 2010 version.

And here is the Department of Labour Prosecution Guidelines:

Independent report damns EQC as they gang up with Her Majesty's Solicitor General and the Clown Law Orifice to persecute whistleblower:

Marc Krieger cast transparency over the 'work' of the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and provided an independent report into their activities , and was recently served with an application by Her Majesty's Solicitor General in respect of alleged contempt of Court for his efforts.  The application is astounding - and deeply concerning if it indicates the calibre of the writers and the focus of their efforts.

Wellington consultancy Martin Jenkins (MJ) and Associates and insurance expert Derek Scott were asked to conduct an independent review of EQC’s response to the Canterbury earthquakes.

They have reported that the Earthquake Commission planned poorly for a major catastrophe and therefore lacked the leadership and systems needed to cope with the Canterbury earthquakes.

The consultants interviewed 75 EQC staff and contractors late in 2011 and early 2012 and found:

• Only three of the theoretical list of 20 executive support people for EQC were available on September 4, 2010, the date of the first major earthquake.
• It took a year for EQC to appoint a general manager with the management capabilities to deal with a large scale disaster effort. 
• EQC’s poor response was determined by its pre-earthquake family culture – “nothing will happen until I retire.”
• People were tossed into the field which worked well where individuals were highly experienced and capable … But there were many cases “where initially we had no idea what we were doing.”
• iPads using Comet software were introduced with minimal cost benefit analysis and proved incompatible with EQC’s IBM claims software (ClaimCenter). The iPad application could deal with only one assessment per property and was therefore unsuitable for multiple events.
• Despite EQC having invested in a web-based, field orientated software system, it initially used paper data recording in the field.
•  Input staff did not fully understand ClaimCenter and by November 2011, ClaimCenter had 112,000 entries against which no activity had been entered. There was also a discrepancy of 40,000 building exposures between ClaimCenter data and Canterbury-sourced data.
•  Apportionment of damage between events was “largely subjective” despite best efforts.

EQC had a permanent staff of 22 and outsourced all core functions – call centres for claims lodgement, claims administration and processing (to Brisbane) and field operations.

“In the absence of overarching direction individual solutions were created on the spot with negative downstream consequences,” the report said.

It also criticised EQC for its lack of expertise on its systems capability. The expertise “needed to be at hand to constantly advise the management of realistic possibilities”.

“Without adequate reflection new challenges were often met with more resources or new teams rather than working smarter eg experienced staff claimed better use of the ClaimCenter system could have saved 100 staff.”

What happened was that a group of greedy public servants saw an opportunity to create a lot of overpaid jobs for their mates and because of a total lack of accountability in NZ at present regarding the public sector, they got away with it, to the cost of all NZ taxpayers, and the people of Christchurch and Seddon in particular.

EQC’s lack of planning and project management skills meant suppliers took advantage charging premium rates, the MJ report said. Hourly rates were set which were more costly than fixed-term contracts and the report gave the example of Datacom charging a scanning cost of $6 per page.

The Scott report said EQC found it difficult to maintain standards as leaders at its various field offices and imported assessors were inconsistent and the pods were all managed differently.

“The training function experienced difficulties in responding to continual changes in form and work processes made by individual field offices, whilst the Canterbury Events office frequently changed the names and functions of teams.”

Further thought also needed to be given to better prescribing jobs to the provider agencies.

“… A number of assessors provided by Verifact (Brisbane-based firm that supplied 210 Australian assessors) were either physically unsuitable for the job or lacked the necessary skills including those of basic numeracy. Many assessors and estimators appear to lack knowledge of EQC cover, the 1993 Act, building code or repair strategies even after induction and training,” the Scott report noted.

Unrest occurred when inexperienced and untrained staff were paid the same rates as personnel previously contracted to EQC.

Effective performance management did not appear to be part of EQC culture, Scott said, with the focus on quantity rather than quality.  Judge Noble said "I'm left with the uneasy impression that the understanding of accountability is blurred" regarding Crown accountability.

The NZ High Court sits on shaky ground records the application of Her Majesty's Solicitor General and the Clown Law Orifice, and Mr Krieger's response, and other reports show that lawyers and Judges are fiddling with themselves while New Zealand democracy and human rights go up in a puff of smoke and flames.

Corrupt Police prosecutors like Garry Wilson and Gregory Peters regularly conspire with Wilson's partner, Masterton Court registrar Liz Harpleton, and other Police, lawyers and Court staff, etc, to pervert the course of justice in the Masterton Court - they are incompetent and corrupt in the extreme. 

Complaints are routinely fobbed off and ignored, and the social and economic costs mount up - a dysfunctional legal system masquerading as a 'justice system' - used as a trough for pigs like Bryan Yeoman and the above mentioned police officers, ex police officers, lawyers, etc, and some of the highest rates of suicide in the world. 

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:

Another decision overturned on appeal - Williams J, High Court

High Court Judge Joe Williams rightly overturns the conviction which was corruptly obtained by Police in my absence, after Police applied for an adjournment on the basis that the prosecutor was a friend of mine and therefore a conflict of interest existed.  Sergeant Jodie Lawrence is a friend of mine, and was clearly being manipulated by senior sergeant Warwick Burr.  Despite the conflict of interest and the adjournment, Sgt Lawrence apparently went ahead with the prosecution despite the conflict of interest, in my absence - nobody told me that the Court had been moved from the Masterton Council building to the site of an old supermarket.

More waste of taxpayers money spent funding corruption.

For ease of viewing the decision can be viewed directly at this link.

Lunatics in charge of the asylum - Plotting my escape:

One of the things that used to drive me mad during my corrupt and unlawful detention in the maximum security lunatic asylum was the way the morning shift would arrive, unlock our spartan cells, give us our breakfast, and say to me "So, what are you going to do today Kate?"  (The other one was "Oh - look at the rabbits!" - outside the window, playing on the grass, this attempt to initiate conversation soon became very boring indeed, but I soon learned you had to be very careful indeed what you said, and it was good as a general rule to say as little as possible.)


It drove me mad because there WAS nothing to do in there, apart from read a few dog eared English Woman's Weekly's from about ten years ago, and stare into space.  Or risk conversing with the other 'patients' . . . many of whom had been sentenced to long periods of imprisonment for murder or manslaughter (and that's only what they were sent to jail for - some of them did unspeakable things in jail to warrant being sent to the Rangipapa lunatic asylum), but the majority of the other ladies there were really nice to me.  If it wasn't for them, and the people who worked so hard to get me out, like Jenny Evans, Gail Penney, Mrs Goodall, Tony Pearce, Benjamin Easton and Maria Van Der Meel, Liz Lambert, Stephen Cotterell, Areta Chapman, and others, the outcome could have easily been very different.

Many of the other 'patients' were incredibly nice and kind to me, especially the other ladies, HK, Jackie, Katrina and Terri, and despite the conditions being totally surreal and often like something out of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest with the barbarity of the forced medication and the history of the other 'patients' and the subject under discussion at any given time about this (confidential) history, we often had a lot of fun - much to the annoyance of the 'doctors' and some of the 'nurses'.  These ladies are lovely, I had nothing but the clothes I stood up in and a couple of pieces of paper with me when I was 'arrested' and brought to Rangipapa Unit, and the papers had been taken off me - and the clothes for a while, new 'patients' and ones who have been very naughty, are made to wear horrible denim 'gowns'.  Staff issued me with a toothbrush and a tube of toothpaste, tiny bar of soap, and a tiny bottle of shampoo.  If you wanted to have a bath you had to ask at the office for the plug, and return it when you finished.  Baths were a luxury and a privilege, I learned.

Despite the explicit instructions of my so called 'Responsible Clinicians' - corrupt psychos Jacqueline 'Jackie' Short and Brenda Sally Rimkeit and others, I managed to get my hands on a pen and paper while locked in the high security loony bin with at least two staff watching each 'patient' every waking hour.

I soon made good use of them, and mindful of the words of others who've walked all over me in the past ("Well Nicci I suppose as Finola said, we weren't ever going to write the perfect script. Just one step at a time to shut down as many avenues as possible.  In terms of the animal ethics issue, if you and Hugh feel there is any legal risk if she were to take up an issue, I would move to deal with it, otherwise just ignore it again."), bearing the MAF emails in mind, I rather wisely decided to take up the issue legally.

I managed to get my hands on the Guidelines to the Mental Health Act (link will be added shortly) for about half an hour once, which clearly state that it is unlawful to assume someone has a mental illness just because they disagree with people from an official organisation or on the basis of their political views and several senior lawyers have made written allegations with attached EVIDENCE that the NZ Police have been conducting a corrupt campaign of harassment and malicious and vexatious prosecutions against me.

This was also confirmed by Dr Justin Barry-Walsh in the psychiatric report he wrote regarding me - the first one done, but corruptly rejected by the Court. 

One of the honourable members of staff, with integrity, faxed these two handwritten documents to the High Court at Wellington on the 19th and 20th of February:

To Fax: (04) 914 3603            URGENT            19 April 2011
From Fax: (04) 918 2562 Rangipapa Unit, Porirua Hospital

To the High Court at Wellington:
May it please the Court:

I, Katherine Raue, wish to make an urgent application under section 84(2) and  section 84(3) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 to be brought before a Judge for examination and on the evidence of other witnesses, for the purpose of a Judicial Inquiry to establish that I am fit to be discharged from the hospital, (section 84(3)(b)).

I respectfully request that the Court consider such evidence as the attached affidavit from Witness X, and other documents, including several psychiatric reports and letters from lawyers relevant to this matter, and the evidence of several witnesses, including Witness X.

Judge DRW Barry of the District Court has already acknowledged that there are serious factual inaccuracies in at least one of the recent reports prepared for the Court.  At a recent fixture in the Masterton Court Judge Barry acknowledged that reference to " a previous pattern" of involvement with police when she lived in Wellington" (report of Dr Justin Barry-Walsh, November 2009, and attributed to Constable Peter Cunningham) was erroneous and significantly misleading in that I had not lived in Wellington for about thirty years, and had had next to nothing to do with Police all my life until having the misfortune to come to Carterton in 1999 and meet Constable Cunningham, who told Dr Barry-Walsh (and anyone else who will listen) this orchestrated litany of lies.

Judge Barry also acknowledged evidence from a number of lawyers which included a letter from one which stated that it was "obvious that you have been a lightning rod for Police attention since you arrived in the Wairarapa, and that has resulted in many unnecessary charges being laid and this was most unfair to you."  The writer (senior lawyer Ken Daniels) was pleased at the dismissal of a number of charges against me and that it was obvious that there had been no evidence to support them from the outset and they should not have been laid.  Other letters from lawyers also comment strongly on the refusal of Police take statements or formal complaints from me on a large number of valid matters including several matters directly relevant to the current charges against me.  Police themselves have admitted repeatedly refusing to take complaints when questioned about it in Court.

I also wish to respectfully request a review or Judicial Inquiry or an Appeal of the recent decision of District Court Judge B Davidson's finding under Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.  With respect to Judge Davidson, it is perfectly clear that there is NOT sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to establish that I caused the act that forms the basis of the offence with which I am charged.  For your ease of reference I attach the witness statements, and transcript of the Depositions Hearing.

If I may draw your attention to the transcript of the Depositions Hearing, page 7 (also marked 12 in the upper right hand corner for some reason), refering to the numbers in the left hand margin, at (5) or thereabouts the principal Crown witness states that he "took no notice at the time" of what I was saying. 

At (15) or thereabouts he states that he has ADHD and forgets things (ADHD is a mental disorder as far as I understand it).

At (20) or thereabouts the witness is again asked what it is thatI am alleged to have said to him and his response is:  "She goes to me, she says - I don't know, it's gone."

And at (30) the witness agrees that he hasn't got a clue what I said to him basically. The matter should not have proceeded beyond Depositions let alone the Section 9 hearing!

Briefly, the background to this matter is that on 11th February 2009 I was attacked in my home by the Crown witness in the matter of the alleged Perverting the Course of Justice, Michael Francis Murphy, and others.  Police refused to even take a statement from me regarding this violent attack, let alone charge Mr Murphy.  The attack was in response to - or rather, a result of - Mr Murphy finding out that I had raised concerns of child abuse and violence involving him to the local police - another matter the Wairarapa police have refused to investigate.

Three totally independent witnesses to this attack on 11 February 2009 all rang emergency seriveces on 111 as they witnessed the violent attack as it was taking place, but despite this, Police refused to take a statement from me, or from two of the witnesses.  I then requested the audiotape of the 111 call made by one of the witnesses, and Police refused to provide it.  After complaining to the Ombudsmen I received a computer disk containing 46 Police radio tracks, including the call to 111 from the third witness, who I had been unaware of prior to receiving the disk, which also contained a number of other tracks which were potentially very embarrassing to the police as well as incriminating Mr Murphy. 

Shortly after Police became aware that I had this disk (about two months after the attack) I arrived home one day and caught Murphy stealing a satchel containing the disk and some documents.  I immediately rang police and made a signed statement to Constable Laura Rhymer, which was recorded in her notebook. 

If I may draw your attention to page 12 of transcript of the the Depositions hearing (17 in the top right hand corner) reference is made to a statement allegedly taken a couple of hours later, also by Constable Rhymer, from Crown witness Aaron Brook (who can't remember what it is I am alleged to have said to him because of his ADHD).

This statement was NOT recorded in Constable Rhymer's notebook - and nor was it included in the Disclosure to the defence (me).  I was unaware of its existence until that very moment, half way through Constable Rhymer's evidence at the Depositions hearing.

Page 12 paragraph (20) of Murphy's evidence alleges that he didn't go to my house since Christmas 2008 except for a couple of occasions "when we were friends" (page one of the transcript).  - I specifically asked the amicus curiae - ex police officer Bryan Yeoman - to question Murphy closely about the attack on 11 February 2009, but Yeoman refused to do so.

Dr Brenda Sally Rimkeit wrote a certificate to the Court stating that in her opinion I needed to be detained in a psychiatric institution to have assessments done to see if I am fit to stand trial.

Judge DRW Barry had accepted my explanation only a few weeks earlier that the only reason I had failed to attend two earlier appointments was because they had been made in Porirua when they should have been made in Masterton (as the one in November 2009, with Dr Barry-Walsh had been), and also, I had been unable to attend the appointments at Porirua because I had received one days notice in one case and three days in the other case, and that WINZ had refused to assist me with travel costs on the grounds that "Work and Income cannot be seen to assist clients who do not abide by the law."!

Surely this is a breach of the cornerstone of justice for centuries, that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty!  I was unable to attend Court in Wellington on 28 February 2011 for the same reason,and mistakenly thought my attendance had been excused on that day, pending the completion of the psychiatric reports. 

I explained this reason for my non attendance for the two recent appointments to Dr Rimkeit, but she refused to accept it (unlike Judge Barry) and the amicus refused to explain it to Judge Davidson, who didn't allow me to speak.

Dr Rimkeit's report to the District Court, dated 22 March 2011 states on page 9:  "My concern that (sic) if she proceeds to represent herself at Court she may, through her delusional belief system falsely accuse certain parties of wrongdoing."

Dr Rimkeit's belief is that I suffer from "Delusional Disorder."  Even if she was correct (I do not agree) this is not a major mental disorder, and I do not pose a danger to myself or anyone else.  Just because I hold the view that the Police - certain specific police officers, not all police I hasten to add, have not treated me fairly, does not necessarily mean that I am delusional.

Dr Rimkeit's report and others contain a large number of factual inaccuracies.  Just one example of this is the last paragraph of page 8 of her report, continued on page 9, where Dr Rimkeit goes on about the "headmaster of the local school in Carterton that she was fired from being paid off or bribed . . . " and something about a car.  I clearly stated to her an entirely factual account about receiving a letter from the Board of Trustees of the school, sacking me because, according to the letter, the Board had recently received information from the local Police that I had "recently been charged with an offence involving a child." 

I have never in my life been charged with any such offence!  The writers of the letter are delusional, not me!

Dr Rimkeit raised the proposition that the Principal's new car had anything to do with the matter, I merely said it was a coincidence, and only after she asked me if I thought he was bribed with the car.  She also mentions suicide in the third paragraph on that page - I have never EVER attempted or even intended to commit suicide, I have never planned or threatened to.  I have repeatedly requested that discussions between me and the psychiatrists are recorded by audio or video and these requests have been continually refused.

The reports appear to be an orchestrated litany of lies, bearing no resemblance to fact, almost every paragraph containing significant FACTUAL inaccuracies, as opposed to matters of opinion.

My main concern is that any subsequent reports will take the inaccurate reports into account and be therefore tainted.  My only involvement with mental health services previously was to request a referral from my GP to the "To Be Heard" program.  This program assists people who feel they aren't being listened to (by Police etc) as I was/am suffering from depression (moderate).

Upon admission to Rangipapa, and on the orders of Dr Rimkeit - my "responsible clinician" the four medications prescribed by my GP were abruptly ceased, causing serious side effects.

I am not psychotic, or delusional.  Witness X, my landlady, will give evidence that a rock larger than my head was thrown through the window of the "granny flat" I occupy at her address very recently.  I did not imagine this, or the attack on 11th February 2009.  I identified Michael Murphy at the time the rock was thrown, as did the three independent witnesses to the attack on 11 February 2009, and again Police have refused to charge him.  Crown witness Aaron Brook has stated repeatedly that he saw Murphy in the near vicinity when I cought him burgling my house in April 2009.

Aaron Brook's evidence is consistent in that regard, unlike his evidence against me.  Mr Brook came to my house and volunteered this information.  I did not ever suggest that he tell Police anything whatsoever apart from what he actually told me he witnessed.  His statements (witness statement, Depositions statement) and the Depositions transcript are very vague indeed about the crime I am alleged to have committed, saying that he "felt" I wanted him to lie.

I respectfully submit that Aaron Brook is more delusional than I am, or at best he is simply mistaken, or misunderstood what I said.

The section 9 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 matter was not properly addressed if it was addressed at all.  The amicus curiae told Judge Davidson that the Depositions hearing had established that the Court was satisfied of my involvement in the offence, but I respectfully submit that this was not the case and the amicus knows that perfectly well.

I am not a lawyer, but have developed an interest in the law and would like to continue legal studies (I passed introduction to law).  I am currently being detained in a secure mental facility, having not been convicted of an offence, and have been for over eight weeks.  I am not being permitted any incoming or outgoing phone calls or visits except from lawyers, and not permitted any incoming or outgoing mail I was told today.

For over two weeks I was detained in conditions that were frankly appalling - isolation, no excercise, sunlight, company or stimulus, although as I write this I am now  in the "main ward" again and conditions are improved slightly.

While in the seclusion ward I had very limited access to my property, including basic items such as pen and paper.  Pain in my hand and wrist makes writing difficult and I have no access to a computer, typewriter, etc.  I apologise for the length and disjointed nature of this letter, the main points (in summary) are:

1.    I do not suffer from any major mental disorder.

2.    I am not a danger to myself, or others.

3.`    The requested assessments could be completed if I were discharged from "hospital", and appointments scheduled in Masterton.

4.    I have been here over eight weeks, and there have been four or five reports completed in that time, some of which suggest that I have "Delusional Disorder" for thinking that some Police officers are not treating me fairly, there has not been any consideration given to the possibility that this belief may be valid

5.    I am being forcibly medicated with strong anti-psychotic medication, causing serious side effects.  There has been no formal cognitive test done to support the "diagnosis" and no "treatment" apart from the medication.

6.    I respectfully submit that I was fit to plead not guilty (as I did), I am fit to appear in Court, and fit to represent myself if necessary.  I attach a copy of the decision of Judge DRW Barry on the matter of an application by the Crown pursuant to Section 344A of the Crimes Act 1961, dated 30 September 2010.  I opposed the Crown's application and represented myself at the hearing of it.  The application was in relation to a related charge of Escaping From Custody.

Paragraph 19 of Judge Barry's decision explains that this charge was included in the indictment for allegedly Perverting the Course of Justice. 

During the course of the hearing the Crown made another application, under section 347 of the Crimes Act, that I be discharged of the offence (deemed to be an acquittal).  I managed to conduct myself appropriately, under difficult circumstances, and represent myself competently.  I prepared for the hearing as best I could, having only received the various precedent decisions less than a day before the hearing (at least one of these was handed to me after the hearing began, the first time I'd seen it) and I achieved the outcome I had planned to achieve.  There were no "emotional outbursts" as referred to in Dr Rimkeit's report, not did I speak "out of turn" at any stage or have to be rebuked by the Judge.  I was acquitted of the charge, after an application from the Crown to the Judge to do so under section 347.

7.    An urgent inquiry is required into the factual inaccuracies in the psychiatric reports written since I have been incarcerated and forcibly drugged and the factually incorrect information given by Constable Cunningham to Dr Barry-Walsh.  The Family Court has asked for yet another report now.  The problem is that subsequent reports take the "previous history" - and the previous reports - into account, and are, and will be, therefore tainted.  Another example of the factual inaccuracies is the claim on page 9 of Dr Rimkeit's report that I was abused as a young child.  This is simply not true.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

(signed)
Katherine Raue
19 April 2011

_____________________________________________________________

To Fax: (04) 914 3603            URGENT            20 April 2011
From Fax: (04) 918 2562 Katherine Raue, Rangipapa Unit, Porirua Hospital

To the High Court at Wellington:

May it please the Court:
Further to my application for a Judicial Inquiry pursuant to section 84 of the Mental Health Act, dated 19 April 2011.

I am being prevented from contacting anyone, including Legal Services, the Court, the Police, etc, and staff are being extremely obstructive and not facilitating communication with lawyers.  Staff continually say "later", or simply disappear for hour after hour, day after day.

Lawyers assigned by legal aid are refusing to accept or carry out instructions.  Several such lawyers have been instructed to address the matter of the factual inaccuracies in the recent reports and to request a Judicial Inquiry into these matters, and simply refuse to do so, prefering to delay and drag out these proceedings in order to extract the maximum amount of legal aid that they can they  then inform me that the grant has been used up and for that reason they cannot continue to act.  One "forgot" to attend yesterday's hearing.

This is a gross miscarriage of justice.  I am the victim of crime - not the perpetrator!  I am not delusional in believing that certain police officers are not treating me fairly.  The failure and refusal of Wairarapa Police to investigate child abuse allegations has been well publicised recently.

I reported my concerns about Michael Murphy's violence (and that of his associates) to Police, who refused to acknowledge or investigate my allegations.  Police then disclosed my complaint to Murphy, who then came to my house with his associates and attacked me.  Police refused to charge him in spite of a mountain of evidence of the violent attack then corruptly charged me with Perverting the Course of Justice after Murphy broke into my house to steal the evidence of his violent attack.

Murphy recently threw a large rock through my window, Police refused to take a statement from me.  Staff at the facility where I am being held are refusing to allow me to contact Police, IPCA, family, friends, my bank, my landlady, the Court, etc.  The refusals amount to perverting the course of justice in themselves!

Documents which were in my possession at the time of my arrest on 4th March 2011 and others which were handed to me at the Masterton Police station have also disappeared including a copy of pages from Constable Rhymer's notbook and a Court Summons.  Staff at Rangipapa Unit gave me two fax forms and told me to write faxes to Masterton Police and Arohata Prison specifically about this missing property, which I did on 10th April, but then staff informed me that they had received instructions from Dr Rimkeit and Dr Short and that they were not to send the faxes!

The Unit Prison Liaison Officer, Chris Norris, told staff and me that Arohata Prison staff were saying I had never been at the Prison.  I was actually admitted there not just once, but twice - once on 5th March 2011, and a second admission was processed on the 7th March because the amicus curiae didn't turn up to Court that day and so I was remanded in custody until the following day.

The missing page of Constable Rhymer's notebook was found to be missing on the night on 7th March, I recorded this with a green highlighter given to me (loaned) by prison staff at Arohata.

The clear, heat sealed plastic property bag from Masterton Police station was shown to me by Prison staff on the evening of 7th March, it was opened by Prison staff in front of me and the papers given to me, the notebook page was obviously removed at the Masterton police station.  It is the fifth of five pages written by Constable Rhymer about the burglary by Murphy, the subject of the current charge of Perverting the Course of Justice.

It is now considered a crime to fail to report child abuse.  Preventing me from contacting Police and IPCA regarding the abuse by Murphy and his associates is therefore a crime.

Murphy demonstrated his violent tendencies when he smashed my door in in February 2009, and again when he threw a rock through my window recently.  He did this because I raised concerns with Police regarding him and his associates in regard to child abuse and violent behaviour.  My "responsible clinicians" are preventing me contacting police, IPCA, etc, to report these violent crimes, child abuse, etc, and saying I am delusional.  I am not.

(signed)
Katherine Raue