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…

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.

International Day of the Disappeared 2011, August 31:

Today is the International Day of the Disappeared - where is the Panchen Lama of Tibet?  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, was kidnapped by the Chinese authorities at the age of six (!!), shortly after he was recognised as Panchen Lama by H.H. the Dalai Lama.  After the real Panchen Lama disappeared, the Chinese appointed their own Panchen Lama, a puppet of the government.

This is as good a spot as any to remember this letter to the Judicial Complaints Commissioner about Judge Adrienne Winklemann, and about freedom of speech and freedom of information, from Vince Seimer, who, like me, has "Disappeared" from time to time in the course of seeking justice and truth, the original, and the rest of the story, can be found at kiwisfirst.com, at least we reappeared eventually.  Spare a thought today for those who've disappeared, and write to the Chinese embassy and ask them where is the Panchen Lama?  Many thanks to all who rang and wrote asking "Where is Kate Raue?" when I disappeared, if we don't speak up for others, who's going to speak up for us?

- Read full story

HIGH COURT SUPPRESSES ORDER [**censored by the New Zealand Government**] IN "TERRORIST" RAIDS

17 September 2009 - Kiwisfirst.com
In a monumental Court decision, Judge Helen Winkelmann of the Auckland High Court last week [** CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]  authorised by the Court in the "Tuhoe Terrorist" raids in 2007.  The Judge ruled there was "No [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] for issue of [CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT]".  Winkelmann J also ruled the Police [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]to be on the various roads and track for the purpose of covert surveillance. 

Counter-intuitively the Judge ruled [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  The legal admissibility of the evidence collected in the [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] to be the subject of another hearing.

In an [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] -page judgment, Justice Winkelmann [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] to reach a conclusion [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] threatened New Zealand's clean-green image, and life itself.  Her ruling points the finger instead at the [CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT] of the Police raids and seizures which occurred with the [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] of some New Zealand Judges.

In a sour note to Justice Winkelmann's historic ruling, Her Honour ordered her findings suppressed from the media, seemingly to save embarrassment to the Police, as well as fellow High Court Justice Judith Potter - who was the judge [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].  In stark contrast to this current shroud of secrecy, the Police raids and massive arrests consumed "mainstream media" coverage for weeks in New Zealand when they occurred two years ago, as well as prompted breaking news bulletins around the world.   In 2007, Judge Winkelmann herself read out, in open Court and in front of national TV news cameras, the very worst evidence from the Police affidavits - before ordering the affidavits themselves concealed by judicial order from the public.

What started out as a prosecution under the Terrorist Suppression Act 2002 by Solicitor General David Collins in 2007 has now been diluted into an Arms Act 1983 prosecution.  In November 2007 S-G Collins backed down from the Terrorist charges after a month of mass protests brought attention to the lack of credible evidence being publicly released and resulted in increased suspicion concerning the NZ Court's blanket order suppressing the Police affidavits.

The 18 accused are represented by 14 barristers and countless solicitors, as well as Amicus Curiae Paul Dacre - an Auckland barrister who is the former Pitcairn Island Public Defender.  An 'Amicus Curiae' is a neutral 'friend of the court' appointed by the Judge to give an independent analysis of the facts and relevant legal position.  After several weeks of deposition hearings last year, 5 of the 18 defendants were additionally charged with participating in a gang under the Crimes Act.  The cost of all this to the Crown has already surpassed $8 million and could exceed $20 million.  Most of the defendants are on legal aid.

Preeminent defence barrister Rodney Harrison QC has been recognised by consent as lead counsel for the accused, with Maori rights lawyer Annette Sykes afforded distinct status by the Court in relation to the tikanga of Tuhoe and implied licence.

The written factual background laid out by the Judge in the substantive prosecution [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] but quite simply can be summed up as "[ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**], resulting in an intensive 13 month covert operation, 9 court-ordered land warrants, countless other search warrants and road blocks." 

Gone is the seditious language used when the story first gripped the nation that men in "paramilitary uniforms" were being trained in guerilla warfare by foreign terrorists and planned to use "napalm bombs" in coordinated attacks against State institutions.  In retrospect, it now seems odd that [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] on a Police affidavit that could not determine whether the number was closer to [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].  Perhaps they were too-well camouflaged for Police.  But then this is why it is the responsibility of the Judge to ask such pertinent questions before [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].

In Para. [55] of her judgment, Winkelmann J [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].

In oral submissions, Crown prosecutor Ross Burns argued that it was in the public interest for the Judge to allow the case to proceed unimpeded by legal technicalities.  He is being assisted in the prosecution by Meredith Connell employee Emma Finlayson-Davis.  In contrast, Mr Harrison QC for the defence provided the Court a dissertation on the relevant law, providing intricate details which gave rise to those laws in Parliament.  Harrison concluded his submissions by stating his own limitations relative to the specificities of each individual defendant, advising the Court may need to hear arguments from each defendant's counsel.  "The (evidence) exclusion issues can then be addressed by all counsel in a focused and hopefully helpful manner." 
The parties were again in the Auckland High Court on Tuesday for further arguments.
BACK TO FRONT PAGE                            - with kind permission from Vince Seimer, editor, Kiwisfirst.com