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.

The Crown Prosecutor Perverts the Course of Justice:

I was greatly looking forward to the trial, and anticipated acquittal, access to justice, etc, following the psychiatric reports from Dr Justin Barry-Walsh and Nick Judson which stated inter alia:

"Her account included a number of persecutory ideas. However on balance, considering her ideas and reviewing the other materials, I do not think Ms Raue has a mental illness, particularly I do not believe that she has a psychotic illness characterised by the development of persecutory delusions." He also says "I would further observe the litigious quality to her presentation means that she has an exaggerated intellectual understanding of court process and would be well capable of following legal process and both entering a plea and instructing a lawyer."   (Dr Barry-Walsh 19 November 2010)

"Ms Raue presented as pleasant, polite, well groomed and looked physically quite healthy and relaxed." "Her manner was pleasant and quite relaxed throughout the interview and she showed no evidence of any pressure in her thinking. Her speech, while a little speeded at times, was not noticeably pressured and her thought processes were logical and rational throughout the period of the interview. We spent some time discussing the issues of the court, the charges and her intended defence. She was able to explain clearly and rationally the way in which she intends to defend herself against the charge and remained focused on this throughout, without introducing any extraneous or irrelevant material and without displaying any paranoid thought processes in relation to the charges.  Her understanding of the legal issues is very good and she has the ability to formulate and enter a plea and to follow all the matters pertinent to the court." "Overall my impression is that she will be able to interact successfully with the court for the purpose of conducting her defence. In my opinion she is fit to stand trial."  (Dr N Judson 13 June 2011)

How naive of me to have expected any actual justice.  In some sort of Kafka-esque joke, the Crown Solicitor Grant Burston has come up with this insult to justice, and insult to the intelligence - I was entitled to a trial!



IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON                     CRI 2009-035-0805

THE QUEEN v KATHERINE RAUE

MEMORANDUM OF THE CROWN:

Presented for filing by GJ Burston, Crown Solicitor

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

1.      Katherine Raue is charged with one count of attempting to pervert
the course of justice.  The offending is alleged to have occurred in
April 2009.

2.      A trial is set to proceed on 5 July 2011.

ALLEGED FACTS (sic)

3.      It is alleged that Ms Raue went to her neighbours and told them to
tell police that she had seen a man by the name of Michael Murphy
outside the front of her house.  Ms Raue then rang police and made a
statement to police saying that her house had been burgled.  Ms Raue
advised police that her neighbours had seen Michael Murphy outside the
front of her house at the time of the alleged burglary.

KR: No, FIRST I rang police and reported the burglary by Michael Francis Murphy, who broke into my home to remove evidence of his earlier crime at that address, a violent home invasion (- which was witnessed and reported to Police by no less than three other people), some days later the neighbours from across the road came over and told me that they had seen Murphy driving his car outside my house at the same time that I had reported him leaving my house with the property he had stolen.  I was correct in advising police that the neighbours had seen Murphy outside the front of my house at the time of the alleged burglary.  The neighbours have consistently stated that fact.

4.      Police spoke to Ms Raue's neighbours, they gave a statement to
police and shortly after that they retracted their statement.  The
neighbours claimed that they had not seen Michael Murphy outside the
front of Ms Raue's house, instead they told police that they had on
instruction from Ms Raue told police that they had.

KR: The neighbours have consistently told police that they saw Murphy driving his car in the near vicinity of the front of my house at the date and time I had earlier reported the burglary.  There are alsoseveral serious discrepancies in the "evidence" presented by Police regarding the alleged statements of the neighbour, discrepancies that amount to perjury by Constable Rhymer.

5.      Ms Raue was charged with attempting to pervert the course of
justice on the basis of the false statement she made to police.

KR: I was falsely, deliberately, corruptly, charged on the basis of corruptly formulated "evidence" which was never going to stand up to scrutiny in the first place, which is why the Crown are now advising the Court they do not intend to produce any evidence at trial.

CURRENT SITUATION

Ms Raue's mental health

6.      On 23 November 2010, pursuant to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally
Impaired Persons) Act 2003 ("CP(MIP) Act") the Court ordered two
assessment reports be provided to the Court by 22 March 2011 to assist
in determining whether Ms Raue was fit to stand trial and/or whether
she was insane.

7.      Ms Raue failed to answer her requisite appointments with psychiatrists.

KR: I certainly did attend appointments, Dr Barry-Walsh wrote a report dated November 2009 after one such appointment which I went to considerable trouble to attend, having to bicycle from Carterton to Masterton in the rain to attend.  In this report, Dr Barry-Walsh wrote: "Ms Raue displayed marked distress, reported low mood and appeared depressed.  She was pressured on interview and gave a digressive and detailed account of herself.  She was emotional.  Her account included a number of persecutory ideas  However on balance considering her ideas and reviewing the other materials, I do not think Ms Raue has a mental illness, particularly I do not believe that she has a psychotic illness characterised by the development of persecutory delusions."  He also says "I would further observe the litigious quality to her presentation means that she has an exaggerated intellectual understanding of court process and would be well capable of following legal process and both entering a plea and instructing a lawyer."

8.      On 8 March 2011, Judge Davidson ordered that Ms Raue be detained
pursuant to section 38 (2) (c) (ii) of the CP(MIP) Act.  He directed
that two reports be provided to the Court by 22 March 2011 to
determine whether Ms Raue was fit to stand trial and/or whether she
was insane.

9.      Ms Raue was admitted to the Rangipapa Unit on Tuesday 8 March 2011.

KR: On the 4th March 2011 Dr Barry-Walsh, who had previously written"I do not think Ms Raue has a mental illness, particularly I do not believe that she has a psychotic illness characterised by the development of persecutory delusions" wrote: "I could find no evidence on an albeit brief assessment that there had been any change in her underlying psychiatric state from my previous assessment."

10.     On 12 March 2011, while committed to hospital pursuant to the
CP(MIP) Act, Ms Raue's mental health declined.  She was provided with
compulsory assessment and treatment pursuant to section 13 of the
Mental Health Act (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1932
("Mental Health Act").

KR: My mental health declined - yes, I became unhappy and depressed after being denied a phone call to a lawyer after seven or eight days.  When I began to cry after about twelve days of outrageous treatment, it was claimed that this normal reaction was evidence of some alleged disorder and I was prescribed strong antipsychotic medications, including Aripiprazole, Risperidone, Olanzapine (Zyprexa), Clonazepam and others.  This was an outrageous breach of human rights!  Not to mention tax payer funded corruption.

11.     Ms Raue has remained in hospital subject to assessment and
treatment under the Mental Health Act, section 30 (Compulsory
In-patient Order) which was made on 4 May 2011.  This Order continues
until 3 November 2011.

KR: I was discharged from the hospital on 17th June 2011.

12.     The District Court has received several reports from Ms Raue's
treating physicians pursuant to the CP(MIP) Act.  They address Ms
Raue's fitness to stand trial and/or whether she is insane, within the
meaning of the legislation.

13.     The report writers note that "Ms Raue is currently being treated
for mood disorders and for beliefs which have from time to time
reached delusional intensity".  Her treating physicians report that
the beliefs are related to events in the Wairarapa community and have
now extended to conspiracy beliefs around the police, courts and
mental health authorities.

KR: On the 4th March 2011 Dr Barry-Walsh, who had previously written"I do not think Ms Raue has a mental illness, particularly I do not believe that she has a psychotic illness characterised by the development of persecutory delusions" wrote: "I could find no evidence on an albeit brief assessment that there had been any change in her underlying psychiatric state from my previous assessment."

14.     Her treating physicians have made it clear that she cannot
represent herself without assistance from a lawyer and that her mental
health is aggravated by the court process.

KR: Dr Judson's report of 13 June 2011 says: "Ms Raue presented as pleasant, polite, well groomed and looked physically quite healthy and relaxed."  "Her manner was pleasant and quite relaxed throughout the interview and she showed no evidence of any pressure in her thinking.Her speech, while a little speeded at times, was not noticeably pressured and her thought processes were logical and rational throughout the period of the interview.  We spent some time discussing the issues of the court, the charges and her intended defence.  She was able to explain clearly and rationally the way in which she intends to defend herself against the charge and remained focussed on this throughout, without introducing any extraneous or irrelevant material and without displaying any paranoid thought processes inrelation to the charges."  "Her understanding of the legal issues is very good and she has the ability to formulate and enter a plea and to follow all the matters pertinent to the court."  "Overall my impression is that the degree of improvement that we are now seeing suggests that she will be able to interact successfully with the court for the purpose of conducting her defence.  In my opinion she is now fit to stand trial."

15.     Ms Raue does not have a defence of insanity open to her.  She
appears capable of understanding the nature and quality of the alleged
offence.

16.     Ms Raue's physicians have advised that upon her release Ms Raue
will continue to be monitored and treated by Mental Health Services in
the community.

REVIEW OF CHARGE - PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

17.     It is clear that Ms Raue is currently significantly unwell.  She
is detained in hospital.  It is likely that her mental condition
influenced her offending.  Continuation of the Court process has
potential to fuel Ms Raue's delusions and paranoia.  It may delay or
prevent her recovery.

KR: What rubbish!  Dr Judson's report of 13 June 2011 - two days before this application was written - says: "Ms Raue presented as pleasant, polite, well groomed and looked physically quite healthy and relaxed."  "Her manner was pleasant and quite relaxed throughout the interview and she showed no evidence of any pressure in her thinking.Her speech, while a little speeded at times, was not noticeably pressured and her thought processes were logical and rational throughout the period of the interview.  We spent some time discussing the issues of the court, the charges and her intended defence.  She was able to explain clearly and rationally the way in which she intends to defend herself against the charge and remained focussed on this throughout, without introducing any extraneous or irrelevant material and without displaying any paranoid thought processes in relation to the charges."  "Her understanding of the legal issues is very good and she has the ability to formulate and enter a plea and to follow all the matters pertinent to the court."  "Overall my impression is that the degree of improvement that we are now seeing suggests that she will be able to interact successfully with the court for the purpose of conducting her defence.  In my opinion she is now fit to stand trial."  On the 4th March 2011 Dr Barry-Walsh, who had previously written "I do not think Ms Raue has a mental illness,particularly I do not believe that she has a psychotic illness characterised by the development of persecutory delusions" wrote: "I could find no evidence on an albeit brief assessment that there had been any change in her underlying psychiatric state from my previous assessment."  Two days after this was written I was allowed to go home.

18      In these circumstances it is considered that continued prosecution
of the charge against the accused is not required in the public
interest.  Subject to any directions from the Court, the Crown intends
to offer no evidence in relation to this matter.

KR: The Crown was never going to offer any evidence on this charge anyway because there never was any evidence!   Certain parties to these proceedings have strung the matter out deliberately, knowing perfectly well that there has never been any evidence in support of the charges, which have been laid in bad faith in order to pervert the course of justice.  There have been false declarations made to the Court  deliberately - there has been perjury and deliberate conspiracy to pervert the course of justice!  It is in the public interest and in the interests of justice that this matter is investigated by judicial inquiry without further delay!

Dated at Wellington this 15th day of June 2011
G J Burstyn
Crown Solicitor

And co-incidentally, 15 June 2011 is the same day that the application for reinstatement of the judicial inquiry process was filed in the Court by Pamela Harvey, as instructed by me, after I finally found out that it had been "discontinued" three weeks earlier, and shortly after a petition was launched, two applications of Habeus Corpus were filed and protests increased outside the mental health unit where I was being unlawfully detained and the Courts where the matters were being heard.  The petition calls for a judicial inquiry and there must be one!  Unfortunately, access to justice is now out of the reach of the average person, justice is only for those able to pay big bills from lawyers, or corrupt local Police.

Wairarapa Police Pervert the Course of Justice with Michael Murphy & Tracy Feast:

The "evidence" on the Perverting the Course of Justice and Escaping Custody charges  (which can be read at this link, just click on the highlighted text) would be funny if it wasn't such a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice by the corrupt Wairarapa police, Gary McPhee, and their mates.  Have hardly had a chance to look at it myself, just read the Depositions Evidence, and it's like something out of Monty Python - honestly!  Page 7 of the Depositions Evidence in particular, the star witness for the police is asked

"So what was the question that you recall Mrs Raue saying to you about that, can you remember the words she asked you?"  Star witness for the prosecution says "Not particularly, because I've got a short term memory."

"What's that?" the greasy amicus curiae (Brian Yeoman) asks, lifting his snout out of the trough momentarily, "I've got adhd, I forget things." says the star witness, Aaron Brook.

Greasy amicus curiae asks him: "What was the question, then, that Mrs Raue asked you, or what statement did she say to you on this occasion?"  This being the whole point of the case - what did she actually say to you?

Star police witness answers: "She goes to me, she says, - I don't know, it's gone."  - Before confirming that he did indeed see Murphy in the near vicinity of my house at the time I told police he had been there (before I had even spoken to the star witness myself), thereby independently corroborating my evidence, not that of the prosecution.   This witness said in the first place that he had seen Murphy near my house at the time I had previously reported the burglary and the witness has never retracted that, despite the police trying to make out that somehow I'm lying, and concocting this absolutely unbelievable orchestrated litany of lies. - Honestly -  Monty Python stuff!

Serious questions need to be asked about how this so called evidence ever made it past a Depositions hearing!  These two Justices of the Peace are perverting the course of justice by pretending the evidence is up to the standard required to commit the matter to trial and are deliberately attempting to pervert the course of justice by pretending it did!  Read the actual Depositions transcript at this link and leave a comment below if you thing "I can't remember" "I've got ADHD" and "I forget things" is up to the standard required!

Michael Murphy's statements all conveniently ignore - deny - the fact that he repeatedly harassed and threatened me, coming to my home repeatedly, threatening and abusing me.  On 1 May 09 he states that he didn't have much to do with me after January 2009.  At Depositions on 20 November 2009 he states, when questioned about being at my address on "previous occasions": "prior to Christmas and one or two occasions after Christmas, I did go to Kate Raue's address.  This was when we were friends."  

The statements from him, and Clare Cook, and the other completely independent witnesses to his violent attack on me in my home, which were made to police on 12 February 2009, and the recordings of the phone call from another witness,  make it indisputably evident that he came to my home with deliberate, calculated, malicious intent to attack me on 11th February, and that he deliberately incited others to attack me too, by deliberately making up enormous whoppers.  Friends indeed!

He sent me text messages on about the 6th February 2009 saying "We're at your house with the cops and Gary McPhee", "You smell like Satan", etc.  Oh, that's friendly all right, isn't it?

There were a number of other incidents of Murphy coming to my place and carrying on, for no reason at all apart from the fact that he is a complete and utter nutter, which is indisputably confirmed by the attack on the 11th February 2009, which is the subject of the phone calls to emergency services from a neighbour, and also from two women walking their dog at the time the attack was taking place, two of these women called 111 and the third, Clare Cook, intervened (with her dog).  They described it as "a huge fight going on" "some men have turned up in a car and are smashing up my neighbours house", "smashing down the door", etc.  This incident arose after Murphy and his friend, a very jealous woman called Tracy Feast, made up a story about how I left a 5 year old child alone in the supermarket, and after the cctv footage showed this to be utter rubbish, the story changed to another whopper about how I allegedly took said 5 year old to the supermarket without her mother's permission - as if this is any sort of excuse for a violent home invasion and assault even if it had been true - which it was not!

The police "Offence Report" of the attack on 11th February 2009 is like something out of Monty Python, an orchestrated litany of lies.  Police deny that any attack took place.  The statement of one of the witnesses, Clare Cook or Kelly Wilson, refers to Murphy shouting "Get out of the way Kana, and I'll smash down the door."  Oh, friendly all right.. 

Police corruptly refuse to release the tape of this call, clearly overpaid Manager of the Police Communication Centre, Inspector Wayne Ewers, claiming that "According to the Privacy Act you are not entitled to any information that has been created by other people." - Yeah, right.  What section of the Privacy Act says that?  What rubbish!  - What outright corruption!


The local police, however, in response to the same request, provided me with a disc with 46 tracks of police radio calls, including one from my neighbour, which I was previously unaware of, containing the words quoted above.  


Not included in any of the 46 tracks was the call from the two women who intervened, OR the call I made myself.


Police did however, provide me with written information regarding my own call though, and very interesting it is too.  It says:  "Caller extremely rude and abusive" and other rubbish, which is totally contradicted by the audio recording the police provided after I complained to the Privacy Commissioner with four tracks including the call I made, but NOT the one from Clare Cook and Kelly Wilson.


Here is the transcript of the "extremely rude and abusive" call:

The audio recording of the call makes it clear that I am NOT shouting.


I went out briefly on 8th April in the afternoon and returned at 4:45 pm to see Murphy leaving my address with a satchel that had been on the dining room table.  I immediately advised police of the burglary.


Later that evening two boys who lived over the road came to my house and volunteered the information that they had seen Murphy drive out of Brooklyn Road and into High Street at the same time I had previously told police that he had done so.  They have never retracted that, or wavered in their certainty about seeing Michael Murphy in the same place at the same time as I had reported to the police.


Murphy came and took the disc because it was evidence of his violent attack.  Police are saying there was no attack and I am just a mad woman who is making it all up.


Police didn't even interview Murphy, after the burglary on 8th April, until 1st of May, and still refuse to release the audiotape of the phone call to emergency services from Clare Cook and Kelly Wilson on 11 February 2009, because Murphy can be heard screaming threats at me in the background of the audiotape, as noted in Clare Cook's statement.  Despite all the evidence of violence in the Wairarapa, police are still getting away with this outright, blatant corruption, protecting repeat violent offenders like Murphy, and violent lunatic Gary McPhee.

This corruption has been going on for years, and getting worse all the time.  It is the reason for the completely unacceptable rates of crime, suicide, child abuse, etc.  Tracy Feast has played her part in the suicide rates in the Wairarapa, already the cause of at least one suicide, not content with leaving one little girl without a mother, Tracy Feast continues to cause trouble with her manipulative lies.  She incited the attack on me on 11th February, along with Michael Murphy.

Murphy threatened me in the local supermarket on about the 15th November 2009, approaching me in front of a woman I was speaking with, after he had been warned not to come near me after the attack on the 11th February 2009, he said "You better make sure you turn up to Court on the 8th [December 2009] and don't waste everyone's time by not turning up or you'll be sent to prison."

Predictably, it was the police officer in charge of the case, Constable Laura Rhymer, who didn't turn up, wasting everyone's time, tax payer's money, police resources, Court resources, Crown resources, public resources, finite, limited resources.  - Local police have been recently damned and shamed by headlines regarding revelations that there are hundreds of uninvestigated child abuse allegations being ignored by the very police who have been harassing me with a campaign of malicious and vexatious prosecutions, mainly unsuccessful because they are based on corrupt evidence, or more usually, no evidence.

Rhymer applied for leave two working days before the defended hearing set down for the 8th December 2009 when police realised that Judge Behrens would be hearing the case.  Judge Behrens QC had previously recognised in his written Judgement that the police had used force against me and not arrested me and acted completely unlawfully at the public meeting at which Georgina Beyer the Liar delivered her vicious, nasty, personal attack on me.

That Judgement begins:  "This case has taken some unusual turns. . . . ."  And so it had.  I'll put the transcript of the evidence up soon, including that of Georgina Beyer, Carterton Destruct Councillors Elaine Brazendale and Jill Greathead, Ewen Hyde (Council librarian and general nuisance in these matters) and the Wairarapa Police - not a single member of the community, or the public, apart from those associated with the Council or the Police, would give evidence for the prosecution - this was a public meeting to discuss a community facility!

I was the last legally elected Secretary and Finance Officer of the former Carterton Community Centre, the group trying to get the six million dollars are the same people who took over the Community Centre by violence and deceit.

The evidence clearly shows that the local police acted like the Gestapo in storming into the meeting and attacking me as I was trying to leave, after having committed no crime whatsoever, because I had told the audience, as I had every right to, that the affairs of the Carterton Community Centre regarding the allegations made in 2001, had not been audited as Beyer alleged they had, and that the same 'group' associated with the Carterton District Council who had been committing gross misfeasance and fraud regarding the affairs of the Community Centre, were the ones trying to get a mandate to another six million dollars to build another "Community Facility" which nobody was in favour of.  Ii wasn't trespassing, or disorderly, as the statements made by independent witnesses prove.  Police corruptly refused to interview the witnesses, and the local APN owned "news" - (ha!) paper lied about it like they lied about McPhee's other drunken home invasions and violent attacks.  This link also has a reference to the posters displayed on Friday October the 5th 2007, days before the last local body election at which I was a candidate, regarding the corrupt - not to mention ultimately unsuccessful - AGAIN - prosecution of me by police for charges regarding another false allegation, and that matter ALSO was thrown out because THE PROSECUTION HAD NO EVIDENCE TO OFFER THE COURT AND HAD BEEN WASTING THE TIME OF THE COURT ALL THE TIME.  AGAIN.