Elaine Crozier/Winchester - unqualified social worker - WARNING:

On the 3rd of June 2011 I was illegally incarcerated in Te Whare Ahuru after being transferred from Rangipapa in an attempt to corruptly move me from the jurisdiction of the Capital Coast Health Board to the Hutt Valley District Health Board and corruptly invalidate my application to the Court for a Judicial Inquiry into my corrupt and illegal detention in a mental health facility in response to revelations regarding corruption, bullying and incompetence which is rife in the Wairarapa, involving police and other 'community leaders'.  Friends had started a petition and were actively trying to have me freed by taking whatever steps they could to end the gross injustice and corruption.

Friends had contacted a social service organisation receiving government funding called "Atareira", which was linked with another organisation called "Oasis", and asked for assistance, specifically asking that a staff member go to Te Whare Ahuru and assist me.

So in due course, on 3rd June 2011, a woman was ushered in by staff at Te Whare Ahuru who introduced her to me as "Elaine Winchester" - I took one look at her and said "You're Elaine Crozier, and I know you from the Carterton Community Centre."  The woman denied this repeatedly, saying she was NOT Elaine Crozier and had never seen me before.  She was LYING - deliberately!  She knew perfectly well that I had been Secretary and Finance Officer of the committee who had very briefly employed her, and that I had queried her appointment and the process of appointing her and the fact that she had provided no curriculum vitae or references.  Elaine Crozier/Winchester's employment at the Carterton Community Centre was short lived because she colluded with the corrupt and incompetent group of District Councillors and disgraced former MP Beyer the Liar who had been involved for years in ripping off the funding of the Centre and it's dozen or so bank accounts, all funded by charities, our taxes, etc.  The victims of these rip offs were the poor, the disadvantaged, which makes the frauds even more despicable.

Five months later, on the 11th or 12th November 2011, I realised exactly who she was after she posted extremely insensitive and offensive material on her facebook page following the death of Ceridwen Allom, aged 15.  Elaine Crozier/Winchester first posted a music video with the words "posted for youthful Ceridwen, suicided this week aged 15 of Masterton special daughter of close friends of my son Hugh we have lights guiding us"

I was shocked to discover that the woman I had challenged was indeed the same person who had repeatedly denied that she was Elaine Crozier.  I wrote to the organisation who had sent her to Te Whare Ahuru and made a formal complaint regarding her deliberately dishonest denial of the facts regarding her identity and a request for all information held by the organisation about myself - I was in for an even bigger shock.  It's important that incompetent and corrupt people such as Elaine Winchester/Crozier and prevented from working with vulnerable people because this is why we have such high rates of suicide in this country, because incompetent and corrupt liars like this are being moved from one job to the next without ever being held accountable for a long string of unprofessional, dishonest, corrupt, cruel treatment heaped on one person after another - it's like moving the parish priest to another parish after they rape a few kids - it doesn't solve the problem it makes it WORSE!

Shortly after posting the incredibly insensitive comments on facebook about the suicide - well before half of Ceridwen Allom's friends would have been informed of her death and certainly well before the Coroner had decided the cause of death - Crozier/Winchester then posted the following facebook entry: "Y'all gon get your minds blown the fuck outta this world", "This is by far the best thing I've ever seen on the net and y'all know I've posted some crazy ass shit, right?" - making a mockery of the reference to the deceased in the opinion of many people and showing gross insensitivity and lack of empathy and respect.

In due course I received Elaine Crozier/Wakefield's "notes" - made regarding her visit to Te Whare Ahuru during which she lied to my face about her identity - this is what she wrote about me:

Elaine "managed IHC adult service" as she puts it, for a VERY short time after it was revealed that she had lied regarding her Curriculum Vitae and references.  I was the Acting Manager prior to her appointment, and I was Secretary and Finance Officer of the committee of the Carterton Community Centre, which interviewed her and which was her employer.  

Repeated requests to Atareira for any evidence of any qualifications or relevant experience for the role of "social worker" or "family support worker" have been refused or ignored.

There IS no "Town Community Council" in Carterton and there is NO evidence of "her psychosis" because no such psychosis existed!  Elaine Crozier/Winchester is a deliberate liar who saw an opportunity to slander me out of revenge for exposing her lies about her CV!

New Zealanders deserve better than this - and it's high time this evil lying witch got her snout out of the trough of taxpayer funded "social services" - this post will be updated shortly!

NZ Police Constable Serena Holroyd's suicide, her family's petition:

(A picture of the writer, not Serena Holroyd)

Probationary police officer Serena Holroyd is believed to have committed suicide in March 1996 as a result of being subjected to the kind of cruel, sadistic, misogynist, bullying, incompetence and corruption as I've received from the New Zealand police since I arrived in Carterton.

Reading the information received from the Coroner's Office, and the other information that can be found by those who care to look, is harrowing, and profoundly moving.  It tells the story of a Constable who tried to do her job to the best of her (obviously considerable) ability, with a particular interest in helping the victims of domestic violence, who was bullied, lied to, harassed, mocked and abused for not joining in the obligatory "jug sessions" in the police bar after work, and then let down by a senior officer who failed to support her as he'd promised and corrupt and incompetent colleagues in the Counties Manakau police district.

Here is her parents petition to parliament, and parliament's insulting response.  To optimise viewing, click  the < symbol in the top left hand corner, then use the scroll bars, or view the petition and related documents at this link:

It is disgraceful, and an insult to democracy, that Parliament have redesigned their website so that petitions are almost impossible to locate now, and all that can be found by researchers is the insulting dismissal at this link.  Once at that link readers can click on the link in the right hand sidebar titled "As reported by the Law and order Committee" but that will only lead to the response, not the actual petition.  Because of that we have reproduced the petition here on this site.

"Petition/submission 2008/118, to the law and order committee
Serena Holroyd

In 1993, my daughter Serena Holroyd joined the Police as a mature successful woman. 

In March 1996, after three years in the Police, she took her own life.
My family and I believe that the police were directly responsible for her death, and we have evidence to support this claim.  

Summary of actions my family and I have taken, and the result of these actions:
Shortly after Serena's death, my husband and I wrote to the Police, outlining 13 points of concern. (EncI, item 1) 

The Police responded to this letter by conducting an internal inquiry by two non−sworn staff members, Jenny Prentice and Alison Gracey. 

This inquiry was very critical of Police management and practice. We understood that Police management accepted the findings. 

A second inquiry was conducted by the Police, this time by two sworn members, Detective Superintendent P Marshall and Senior Sergeant G Gibson. 

My family and I were not informed that this inquiry was to take place. 

The Police arrived at our home, and asked for personal details about my daughter, which we innocently handed over.   

We believed the two Police officers were engaged in an objective inquiry. 

It was only much later that we discovered that the Police officers were intent on destroying the first inquiry's credibility, and digging up any possible unfavourable issues associated with Serena, ( They even investigated her father) I am angry that Serena, her father and myself have been treated with such little respect by the Police. To say the last inquiry was bankrupt is an understatement. 

My family and I have evidence that the Police went to extraordinary lengths to destroy my daughter's career, including the setting of objectives that no other Police officer has had to do in police history. 

When my family and I tried to lay a complaint with the Police Complaints Commissioner, we were unsuccessful because they do not look at employment issues. We discovered that junior Police officers and their families have no independent path of complaint. They are the only government employees without this. 

The Police Act and the States Services Act require the Police to be good employers at all times. In Serena's case, they have failed badly. 

My family and spent a great deal of time making a submission to the Bazley inquiry into Police conduct. She refused to look at 95% of our evidence. We were very disappointed with the results of the inquiry, because no−one was held to account in our case.. The law was not changed. Junior Police officers still have very little protection. 

After a long delay, we finally got hold of the 1000+ pages of internal Police documents. These documents revealed many interesting issues, for example, the dispute that a Mr B Hartley, District Commander, Counties−Manukau. He was angry about the findings of the Prentice−Gracey report. Mr Hartley was Serena's employer, and a very bad employer, in our opinion. He believed that the Police had not, by conducting this inquiry been a good employer. We have evidence that District Commander Hartley obtained confidential details contained in the Prentice−Gracey report, and set out to destroy its credibility. 

• At our expense, my family and I employed a Barrister to review the evidence and write a report. (Encl. Item 3)  We have gone to the Ombudsman, the State Services Commission, and the Human Rights Commission, all without any success. They are unable or unwilling to help us. 

• Since 2003, the Police have refused to answer any of our letters. (Encl. Item 4) 

All our letters have been met by massive delays by the police. It has taken 15 years, and we have still not resolved this issue. Delay and Obstruction Appears to be standard Police procedure. Many Officers who engaged in this Practice have risen to Senior Positions in the Police. 

Summary:
As stated at the beginning of this letter, my family and I want an independent inquiry into the events surrounding my daughter's death. No one has been held accountable for the appalling treatment my Serena received as a Police Officer, or their treatment of my family since her death.
Enclosed:
1.
Orig
2.
Prer
3.
Our
4.
Polii
Original letter of Complaint. 27 March 1996
Prentice ,Gracey Report. 29 August 1996
Our Barristers review of the case. Grant Millar. 13 June 2002
Police refusal to reply letter. 16 December 2003. W Annan
C M Holroyd

C/47−6 Newhaven st,
Ellerslie,
Auckland 5.
27.3.96.
z
The Hon J Luxton MP.
Minister of Police.
clo Parliament House,
Wellington.

Dear Mr Luxton,

We are writing to you regarding the recent death by suicide of our daughter Serena Holroyd, probationary police officer number F 489.

We believe her death was directly attributed to the very poor treatment she received during her employment with the N.Z. Police.

It is the duty of every employer to look after their employees, and the police seem to have totally failed in this respect.

We have specific concerns focusing upon the following issues:

1.Continued refusal to grant Serena her permanent appointment despite her completing and exceeding all her work and examination requirements.

2. The lack of a stable work environment, 4 police stations and 20 different sergeants in a period of 28 months.

3.A near total lack of administrative support to enable ajunior police officer to come to terms with the job requirements.

4.Relentless overwork, always having to complete paper work in her own time.

5.Discriminatory refusal to be granted examination leave.

6.Expected to take on a large work load and to train others while still a probationary officer.

7.Repeated absence of a duty sergeant for back−up while on front line duty.

8. Acute on−going under staffing at the Mangere Station.

9. Working on her own at night attending violent domestic disputes and walking the beat in central Auckland.

10. An unresolved sexual harassment incident.

11.Little or no training in the skills needed to be a shift worker,

12. Serena was given a hard time for refusing to take part in "JUG" sessions after work and drive home drunk.

13 .Just how impartial are performance appraisals? It would seem personal prejudices influence assessments.  Information has been given to us from several sources and it is our considered view
that a full ministerial investigation be implemented, with some degree of urgency into this very serious matter. While nothing can be done to bring our precious daughter back, changes must be made to help prevent other young police officers from being placed in such an
untenable situation.

yours faithfully

D.M.Holroyd. C.M.Holroyd.
______________________

Here's the submissions of the NZ Police and the insulting response from parliament:

"The Law and Order Committee has considered Petition 2008/118 of Coral Holroyd, that

the House of Representatives conduct an inquiry into the treatment of Police Officer
Serena Holroyd and the Police’s conduct after her death. 

We sought and received submissions from the petitioner, the New Zealand Police, and the Independent Police Conduct Authority. We have considered the material provided to us by the petitioner with much sympathy, and we appreciate the distress that resulted from Ms Holroyd’s untimely death in 1996. However, we note that there have been several inquiries into Ms Holroyd’s death, and our consideration of the petition and other related material has not revealed sufficient grounds or new avenues for re-opening the case to examination. 

The committee has no matters to bring to the attention of the House. We recommend that the House take note of our report."  

What a damning indictment of our corrupt, rotten, taxpayer funded Police force.


What an utter, utter insult to the family and friends of  Serena Holroyd.

What an insult to Jenny Prentice and Alison Gracey, the investigators who had the courage to speak up and tell the truth for Serena Holroyd and her family.


What an irony that when a young woman complained to the Police that a foreign diplomat assaulted her, she is attacked so savagely by a howling, witch hunting mob.  They all seem to miss the point, she has not to my knowledge said one single word about the incident which is the subject of her Police complaint.  Toby Manhire got it right, except that the bloke with the big tie from Winston First he was referring to, Curwen Ares Rollison is not to be trusted one little bit - talk is all he's good at, like slithery old Ron Mark. 

I feel deeply for the family and friends of Serena Holroyd, and for Serena herself.  Silent now, but not forgotten.  I hope by writing about what happened to Serena here it will help her rest more peacefully, and comfort her family, knowing that the truth hasn't gone unnoticed.  Further information can be obtained regarding the death of Serena Holroyd, by writing to Coronial Services at Coronial.Information@justice.govt.nz and requesting it. 

Why has this matter not been reported in any New Zealand 'news' media - and why has this family  - like so many other people - been silenced with this 'slap in the face and shut up' response from our government?!

We pay taxes to enable our government to govern our communities and our country effectively, that money is being ripped off by incompetent and corrupt individuals every day and the more they get away with it the more the problem grows like a poisonous cancer, infecting more and more new recruits as it's allowed to fester unhindered.

This is the price of ignoring and enabling Police corruption, and ignoring it IS enabling it.  The proverbial thirty pieces of silver, and people like Peter Marshall and Senior Sergeant G Gibson who thirst for the baubles of office and are so easily corrupted - the National Business Review found that there is an "alarming amount of bribery in New Zealand."  Nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders (73%) felt corruption had increased in this country in the last three years and political parties were rated the most corrupt group, followed by Parliament and the private sector, and that article was published four years ago.  Transparency International claims to report the perception of corruption, Transparency NZ actually does something about corruption, something worthwhile and constructive.

A lot of petitions circulate on the internet, most of them are never even presented to anyone.  Of the ones that are presented in New Zealand, many of them are rejected for lack of form or compliance with parliament's standing orders.  This can be avoided by reading the relevant rules, which can be found at this link.  Once at the link, readers need to then click on the links in the right hand sidebar to access the .pdf document in Chapter 27.  Petitioners need to find a sitting MP prepared to present the petition to parliament too.

Writing letters - the art of communication:

By far the most traffic to this site is through internet searches for "how to write a letter . . .".  People are looking for information on how to write letters of complaint, how to write an affidavit in support of someone, how to write a letter requesting information, etc.  So in response to these enquiries we will be focussing on how to write effective letters - although no matter how professional your letter is, government departments, the Police and other organisations are increasingly acting in bad faith regarding these requests, and in some cases you'll have to consider getting a Court order for the information, as I had to do recently.

Firstly, if anyone has the misfortune to be charged with an offence by the Police, particularly if it's a serious charge, they should instruct their lawyer to write a copy of the letter below to the Police Prosecutor - write it yourself if your lawyer won't - and deliver it to the Police station marked "Attention - Prosecution section".  The letter should be addressed to the relevant police station, this one was addressed to:

The Officer in Charge
Prosecution Section
Masterton Police
P O Box 443
Masterton

 Re:  CRN number [insert Court file number, and full name of relevant person (person charged)]

Please provide to the writer the following details and information in accordance with the Official Information Act 1982 as set out in Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman (1988) 1 NZLR 385 and information pursuant to your Common Law Duties as set out in R v Mason (1976) 2 NZLR 122 and R v Wickliffe (1987) NZLR 55:  

1.   All Police job sheets completed by any Police Officer in connection with this case. 

2.   Briefs of evidence of all prosecution witnesses. 

3. All statements made to the Police by potential prosecution witnesses including copies of any video interviews or any other recordings whatsoever. 

4. All statements or utterances made by the Defendant whether recorded or committed to memory or otherwise preserved whether or not signed or acknowledged by the defendant, and including copies of all video interviews made with the Defendant. 

5. The names and addresses of all witnesses to be called against the Defendant. 

6. The names and addresses of all people interviewed by the Police who can give evidence upon matters that may be helpful to the defence whether the Prosecutor considers such person or persons credit-worthy or not. 

7. Details of previous convictions of prosecution witnesses including any other matters that may impeach their characters. 

8. Details of any physical exhibits including those to be produced at the preliminary hearing and those not to be produced. 

9. Details of all expert reports including reports of technicians, laboratory assistants and all material relevant to forensic enquiries carried out at the behest of the prosecution. 

10.   Copies of any documentary exhibits which may be produced at the hearing including copies of all video recorded interviews of the defendant and any other person interviewed concerning the matter presently at issue. 

11. The name and address of each identification witness known to the Prosecutor whether or not the Prosecutor intends to call that witness to give evidence at the hearing. 

12. A statement of any description of the offender given by each such witness to the Police or the Prosecutor. 

13. A copy of any identikit picture or other drawing made by any such witness or from information supplied by them. 

14. Any other matters that appear to be in the interests of justice.

This request is a continuing one so that if any information comes to your attention in any of the categories listed above after your receipt of this letter than such information should be disclosed as if it had been on your file when this request was initially made.

If you are not prepared to disclose any information to us, could you please indicate what that information is and why it is not being disclosed.

Yours faithfully, etc - be sure to provide details of the address you want the information delivered to.

To request information under either the Privacy Act or the Official Information Act, start by actually reading these Acts, particularly who they apply to, what agencies, how to complain etc.  (Part 8 of the Privacy Act for example).  Read about who the Act applies to, how to make a request and the reasons why the request might lawfully be refused, and word your request accordingly.

You should receive a response within ten days, and the information within 21 (working days).

If you have a problem that needs dealing with, or a dispute of any kind it's always advisable to look at the relevant governing legislation, who administers that Act or Regulation or Rule, (central or local government, the Ombudsmen, various Ministers, Auditor General, 

At this link, you can find the response to my request to the Court for access to my Court file, the response is quite interesting.

At this link you can find the dishonest response from the Court Registrar, Mark Elliott, to my request for a Court "Minute" - and links to further information from there about these "Minutes" - CHECK EVERYTHING and don't just take people's word for things - the Court Registrar knew perfectly well that Judge Barry sat in whatever passes for the Masterton Court these days on that date!

More examples of letter writing are all over this site, some of the letters from lawyers are well worth using as templates and guides, in particular the letters of lawyers Ken Daniels (who wrote the letter above,) and Michael Appleby.

Information regarding a new service offering free legal advice is at this link.

This site, FYI, is a very useful resource for anyone considering making Official Information requests, with many examples of letters, and the responses, Transparency NZ strongly encourages people to use this site when making requests for information, and share the request and the response for all to see, following the instructions at the site to maintain your confidentiality if required.

It's often a good idea when dealing with a government agency (or other applicable 'agent') to make a request for all information about yourself or a particular matter under the Privacy Act, or the Official Information Act.  First, read the Acts and check that the agent is specified as being under the jurisdiction of the Act (who the Act applies to), then read reasons why information can be legitimately declined and word your request carefully and simply and make it public on the site at the link in the paragraph above if possible so that all can see how it is responded to, and consider making a blog and documenting the correspondence, and the evidence of how people in powerful positions will blatantly lie and say a file does not exist or the extraordinarily delusional allegations of the previous Principal of the school, Rodney O'Leary, that the police had charged me with an offence involving a child - these are blatant and deliberate lies, and they demonstrate that the recipients of our letters know no shame, and are prepared to lie through their teeth in the face of the evidence - and commit perjury, as O'Leary did, and so many others in the Wairarapa - NZ Police refer to head office as "Bullshit Castle", and local Wairarapa police are the most despised in New Zealand - referred to as the withering arm of the Wellington policing region.  It's important to realise just how dysfunctional some of these organisations really are.

"Last week, PricewaterhouseCoopers released a progress report on whether police were changing their culture after the 2007 commission of inquiry into police conduct, which was led by Dame Margaret Bazley.   

The report found there was little confidence among police that "concerning" staff behaviour would be detected, and no action was being taken over poor-performing senior staff at police headquarters. 

"The commissioner and all his inspector mates in bullshit castle at headquarters should get back on the street and get a reality check," one officer told PricewaterhouseCoopers."

              -The Dominion Post (NZ),  29 January 2011

The most common mistake people make is assuming that their request will be dealt with in good faith. Experience shows that invariably correspondents are fobbed off with one of a list of common excuses.  It's worse if you deal with matters over the telephone, get everything in writing, and use the Privacy Act to get it if necessary.   If possible, make your request through the FYI site, do NOT give up - that's what they count on, you giving up because it's too hard to carry on.  Unite with FYI and Transparency NZ and publicise the pathetic excuses and damning information.

MAF's attempted cover up of gross incompetence (the sale of four horses infected with a disease which MAF scientists at the National Centre for Disease Investigation had classified as "an unknown organism with the potential to cause major international trade disruption" to a local meat works, which was an agent for another meat works which exported a considerable amount of horse meat to Europe for human consumption - right before the outbreak of FMD in England in 2001, is a classic example:

"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."

"She rang Rhoda today (Thursday). 

Having talked with Vicki Bee, George Capes, Hugh and Grant, I told Rhonda to try and fob her off "

"Unfortunately she threatened to go to the papers, so I spoke to her" 

This is the idea behind Gary McPhee's 'petition' to get an "unsworn" police staff member at the Carterton station, a glorified bit of fluff to laugh at the local corrupt officers' jokes and make them cups of coffee and spin bull shite like this to anyone asking questions or trying to make a complaint.

Then there's the manager of the police communications centre, Wayne Ewers, who, when I asked for the recording of the call to 111 made by two witnesses to a violent home invasion attack on me in my home (after corrupt local Constable Peter Cunningham lied and said no attack had taken place) - Ewers actually wrote to me and said:

"According to the Privacy Act you are not entitled to information created by other people."   

- Which is a deliberate and blatant LIE.  The manager of the police communications centre knows perfectly well what the Privacy Act  says - and it doesn't say that at all!  That's why you should always read the legislation (all the laws and regulations etc are at that link).

This is how your taxes are being spent, and that's why I established Transparency NZ, to show people who didn't believe me.  The Hansard report shows more absolute lies, while the records of the experiment - BOTH sets, the forged set and the original set - show indisputably that the horses MAF sold to the meat works were infected and displaying symptoms of the "unidentified disease with the potential to cause major international trade disruption".

Then there's the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE of the deliberately corrupt responses of senior Police to the allegations regarding the fraud and gross malfeasance at the Carterton District Council:

"RE: CARTERTON COMMUNITY CENTRE ASSETS 

I refer to your letter dated 23 July 2003 seeking Police intervention to prevent the disposal of assets.The issue around the election of officers and the administration of the Carterton Community Centre has been addressed in previous correspondence. 

The New Zealand Police are not the authority charged with the responsibility of regulating the activities of Community Committees. 

I am aware that the Carterton District Council members, the Carterton Mayor and MP Georgina Beyer have recently discussed issues around the closing of the centre. 

In such circumstances the actions of the 'elected' officers of the centre are highly unlikely to have breached any Criminal Law. 

The Police have no authority to intervene as you request. 

(Signed) R T Drew,Area Commander Wairarapa"

- This wasn't just a complaint about disposal of assets!  This was a number of complaints regarding serious criminal offences including assault and fraud!  Compared to the letter from Sgt Reid at that link it's obvious that this is politically motivated police corruption, as noted by lawyers such as Ken Daniels and Michael Appleby.   Note the semi literate rubbish - the capitalisation of "Community Committees" - the complaint was regarding an Incorporated Society (and District Council) as well as specific named named individuals who had committed specific individual criminal offences! -  and "Criminal Law" - this is exactly like the lies told by Inspector Wayne Ewers - "According to the Privacy Act you are not entitled to information created by other people" - what utter rubbish!   These are blatant lies - these senior public servants know full well that they are deliberate lies - and it appears that the more you're prepared to lie to the public, the taxpayers, and the more corrupt you are, the better your chance of promotion in the NZ public service these days.

The key is unity, and constructive action - join the FOCKCers, Friends of Caring Kiwi Communities, incorporating Transparency NZ and Let's Get Growing NZ, establishing community resource centres and community gardens and a strong and enduring community network to withstand any political climate.  Reporting the local news fairly, sharing information constructively, exposing taxpayer funded incompetence and corruption.

The Secret Life of Information - Outrageous conduct of British media:

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers, which are cited to justify it."

President John F. Kennedy

Address to newspaper publishers, April 27, 1961

 The Privacy Act has special provisions dealing with the 'news medium' and 'news activity'.  Journalists are subject only to the jurisdiction of the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority, both are a bit of a joke, and good examples of the failure of self regulation and lack of ethical or moral standards in what passes for 'journalism' today.

This has been demonstrated by the recent scandal involving Rupert Murdoch,Rebecca Brooks, David Cameron and several other British politicians (who enjoyed 'riding' and other activities with Ms Brooks) - hacking the phones of teenage murder victims among other things - perverting the course of justice.

Here in NZ we've got John Key acting against legal advice (again)  and 'giving' the media a big handout right around the time of the last election which - surprise, surprise, he won after his controversial 'radio show' which was the subject of formal complaints shortly before the last election.

On the morning of 7 December the body of Jacintha Saldahna was found, news reports indicate she committed suicide, after two Australian radio station hosts made a "prank call" to King Edward VII hospital where Jacintha Saldahna worked.  She left two little children, and grieving family and friends.

WCC - Irony, hypocrisy, or both?

Today it was announced that Wellington City Council has paid over a million dollars towards the hype leading up to the premier of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit - well J R R Tolkein's Hobbit actually, but you'd be forgiven for thinking Peter Jackson was the creator.  It's no problem to close streets for the erection of the Weta sculptures in the city, a twelve metre high sculpture of Gollum has been installed at the airport and silhouettes of Hobbits dominate the skyline in Wellington these days, but isn't it funny how times change . . .

It wasn't long ago that the Wellington City Council waged war on another Peter Jackson, for erecting a sculpture of Albert Einstein in Courtenay Place (- at his own expense):
From the Dominion Post, August 2005:

"BEAUTY, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder -- a lesson being learned the hard way by Wellington bar owner Peter Jackson.
He has been embroiled in a David and Goliath-type battle with Wellington City Council over a polystyrene Albert Einstein sculpture he commissioned to hang outside The Lab in Dixon St.
The council claims the artwork is an eyesore and has refused to grant resource consent. But the defiant publican is refusing to remove it.
He said he was prepared to cop a fine for his stand and was even considering an Environment Court appeal.
The 2.5-metre sculpture cost $2000. It was attached to the outside of the Hope Gibbons Building last year.
But the council demanded Mr Jackson apply for consent, claiming it was a sign because it featured the bar's name and breached planning regulations.
He duly applied, but council officers declined consent in June, ruling that Einstein was a visual affront, damaging the architectural and heritage values of a protected heritage building.
Down but not out, Mr Jackson objected and the matter went to a hearing last month.
Facing off against a team of council officials, he said there were countless signs down Courtenay Place. But the council last week dismissed Mr Jackson's objection and upheld the decision to deny him consent. It said the sign was inappropriate and detracted from the building's visual amenity.
"It just seems ridiculous," Mr Jackson said yesterday.
He had no intention of removing the sign as it could affect his business.
Council planning group manager Jane Davis said Mr Jackson had 15 working days to lodge an appeal before the sign had to be removed.
If he refused, the council could issue an abatement notice before seeking a court order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child abuse: "It's a Maori problem" - Christine Rankin:

I made a formal complaint to TVNZ and the Broadcasting Standards Authority after Chrisine Rankin claimed on national television that "child abuse is a Maori problem and it's time Maori faced up to it.  The complaint was not upheld on the grounds that "not many people would have been offended by the comments".  This one's for you Christine, and all the other know it all's who claim to "represent abused kids" - while exploiting the system for their own profit, it's time people faced up to THIS:

From the Native School Teachers Log Books, this one from Karioi Native School, for the WAI262 report, 2000. All Log Books held at the National Archives:

After a large amount of forbearance I have to resort to the ‘stick’ in earnest. Fred Rameka and Richard Mau on being ‘stood out’ for talking, played and laughed and generally made a ‘good joke’ of it. I gave them each 2 sharp strokes…
B Hawkins, 18 February 1898

Te Pohi a new boy came to school. He was inclined to be impudent & one day I told him to go into the cupboard for doing what he had been told not to do. He was sulky & refused so obstinately that it was necessary to cane him. Since then on Nov 4th (1899) Paora was caned for disobedience.
Agnes Grant, c November 1899

On 5th April (1900) I was obliged to cane Taupiri again for deliberate disobedience
& sulkiness.

On Wednesday 4th July (1900) I caned Taupiri for sulking & she has since been very amiable. Agnes Grant.

On April 16th (1900) Riwaru a very small boy who had only been a short time at school refused to go into the cupboard when I told him to go. He had no idea of obedience in school & I thought the stick would be less lightly to frighten him than the cupboard & so gave it instead. Agnes Grant, c April 1900

On Feb 13th (1901) I caned Iwi for impudent & deliberate
disobedience…On Feb 22nd (1901) I was obliged to cane Iwi again for insubordination. She has been better since.
Agnes Grant, c February 1901

In the case of the little girl who is partly a negress I have to my regret been obliged to make an entire exception to my usual methods of management. I have tried with the this child special kindness, special rewards, speaking to her alone, laughing at her, putting her in the corner, giving her impositions, keeping her in till nearly dark, shutting her up alone, expelling her for a week & caning her, & the last seems to be the only thing which really appeals to her & makes her try to do better.
Agnes Grant, c December 1902

Both Matenga and Te Aonui preferred the cane to the strap & we decided that in future I should try if one hit was sufficient & only give more when it proved quite necessary. I explained to them that my reason for caning on the calf of the leg was that I had heard of the bones of the hand being injured by caning. Grant 1902

I had much trouble with carelessness in pen & ink writing & Arthur & Waru were punished for this offence: the result was a marked improvement in their written work.
Agnes Grant, c April 1904

I also had to give Ema the strap. Ema is the child with negro blood who has always been such a difficult child to manage. Agnes Grant, c July 1903

Punished Sam French (4 cuts in back) for scratching a desk with a piece of glass also 2 cuts his sister for doing same.
D Hamilton, 9 July 1895

Gave Hone 5 on each hand with strap, for his absence yesterday.
W Leach, 31 August 1903

Okoha 1900–1904 (BAAA 1003/2k) William Hemi received corporal punishment for using bad language, followed by disobedience & defiance leading to a ‘scene’.
Bertha Baigent, 24 October 1900

Punished Willie Walker & Edwin Hemi for want of application. Both these boys are bright & intelligent but have become somewhat lazy over their work & do not use their brains sufficiently.
Bertha Baigent, 14 March 1901

Gave Rowney, W Waha & M A Murray a hand each for running away from school in the afternoon to eat peaches.
Teacher, 19 March 1890

Gave Tutere a good cut across the back for rank disobedience.
Teacher, 11 November 1890

Marella Rider asserts she was caned but that is not correct. The cane came in contact with her because of her various movements.
Alexander Mackenzie, 23 November 1897

The Committee wish only English to be spoken in school and playground.
Alexander Mackenzie, 1 July 1899

Papawai 1898–1903 (BAAA 1003/4a)
Percy Tilson recd 4 strokes of the cane for idleness.
P H Clemance, 10 February 1898

Basil Burch for coming to school with extremely dirty hands received 2 strokes with the cane. P H Clemance, 5 June 1899

Have expelled Edward Noble for impertinence. I left the room for a minute & when I returned I found him calling out to the teacher Miss Porter and would not be quiet. I boxed his head & he was then impudent to me & when told to be quiet refused & I then said that I would punish him more. He said he would like to see me try. I expected if I hit him again he would hit me so I told him to leave the school. The expulsion is of course subject to Committee consent.
Alfred Walsh, 6 June 1901 (pencil note by Harry Kirk in log book with comment dangerous practise above reference to boxing pupil’s head)

Hine, Mango, Ane and Miriana for persistent telling, copying, and trifling, each received one stripe on shoulders.
A Wilson, 21 June 1900

Ane and Powhiri caned on shoulders for persistent trifling.
A Wilson, 7 August 1900

Powhiri, for persistent talking, caned on shoulders.
A Wilson, 13 August 1900

Te Oke I light stroke with the cane for persistent disobedience. She is only about 8 years old.
A Wilson, 27 August 1900

Had to cane Tiini Wetere for persistent telling.

Ane Wiremu kept in for persistent telling, refused to answer for the space of half an hour – one stripe on each hand. After an interval still refused to answer or to hold out hand – caned on shoulders. Then made answer.
A Wilson, 20 September 1900

Caned Ngaha, Hautana, Tumate and Whati also Honai during morning
school for persistent whispering. A Wilson, 25 October 1900

In afternoon Hine Tarawhiti, being offended because her little sister was not allowed to sit next to her, declined to work. After a considerable interval I spoke to her and she declined to answer, finally answered insolently. Caned her across shoulders and sent a note to her mother asking her to come over. Father is unfortunately away. After sobbing a lot she left her seat declaring she would take her sister away. I had to give her two more cuts before she
would return to her seat.
A Wilson, 21 May 1901

On Thursday Sept 15th (1900) I caned Paora Matenga for sulks. I had been
having a great deal of trouble with sulks, so I caned him in front of the school in hopes the others would take a warning. It made a great impression
& all the girls wept aloud in sympathy for him. I find sulks very difficult to
deal with.
Agnes Grant, c September 1900

I have read several this morning, hundreds of incidents of child abuse by Pakeha teachers at Native Maori Schools from 1880 - 1930.

Today Maori are blaimed everywhere for abusing their children, they have had wonderful role models in the Pakeha have they not?!! I am incensed at the cruelty these stories record, and in the handwriting of the teachers who have done this!!