That's hardly surprising considering what the decision actually says.
The decision is embedded below but can also be accessed at this link for easier viewing.
The New Zealand government is held in contempt overseas as well as on home ground for the manner in which they have manipulated the miners and their families, the money, the propaganda, and everything that's gone with it, toying with the baubles of office, telling tall stories, playing with so many lives.
This is a dangerous precedent and can not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Worksafe prosecuted Peter Whittall, not the Crown Prosecutor, 'Worksafe' - the former Department of Labour - the very people who should have been standing in the dock alongside Peter Whittall. The real reason the charges were dropped, as we all know, is because it was clearly apparent that Whittall's evidence was going to incriminate the prosecutor - Worksafe.
Para 31 looks at whether the prosecution decision was reviewable and talks about whether prosecutorial discretion was exercised or not - but crucially, not whether it was exercised PROPERLY, or fairly, or in an ethical manner.
This is why there is so much injustice and why the Ombudsmen and other agencies dealing with complaints are swamped with them, because the so called justice system is seriously dysfunctional and one of the main reasons for that is the difficulty in having prosecutorial decisions judicially reviewed.
The decision refers to precedents which established that prosecutorial decisions should only be subject to judicial review if they are in regard to abuse of process. This case certainly seems to fit the bill in that department . . .
In paragraph 42 Brown J states "I do not consider that the impugned process is of such gravity that the high level of restraint should be relaxed and judicial review permitted." Twenty nine men are dead. What exactly does constitute "gravity" in his book I wonder?
The simple fact is this, if the Police or the Crown Prosecutors make the decision to prosecute they should get it right BEFORE they lay the charge, not after, and certainly not after making some dirty little back room Pontius Pilate deal like this one. Otherwise, they should be subject to judicial review - especially after they lay a charge and then withdraw it or offer no evidence.
|And have a look at the ladder - the emergency exit - what a joke! The shaft collapsed during construction, the whole mine was an utter death trap and a catastrophe just waiting to happen.|
Related links are here.
Recommended reading - Rebecca Macfie's book - Tragedy at Pike River Mine
At this link is an unrelated example of a seriously flawed and blatantly and indisputably corrupt prosecutorial decision of similar magnitude, which also shows how even the threat of judicial review was enough to make the prosecutor think again, suddenly announce they intend offering no evidence and run for the hills. In order for there to be justice and transparency in New Zealand prosecutorial decisions must be subject to review. This site's full of such examples - must make a new label - never enough hours in the day - this post will be updated, but is being published now due to public interest in the decision.