Criminal Bar Association of NZ v Attorney General - legal aid laws found to be unlawful.

The policies of the New Zealand government regarding legal aid have been found to be unlawful. 

Paragraph 133 (page 44) of the Court of Appeal decision re Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General includes this wee gem, regarding access to justice in New Zealand - "But the issue is not what is desirable as a matter of sound public administration, but what is lawful."  Glad we cleared that up.  To hell with sound public administration and all that nonsense ;)  - I heard a Justice on the bench of the Supreme Court utter the words "We [he and his fellow Justices and Judges] rewrite the law not infrequently."  Watching the way words are used in Courts is a most interesting Occupation . . . more so than most of the fiction we're fed by the mass media . . .

CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND v ATTORNEY-GENERAL:

(CA606/2012) [2013] NZCA X.

"The Court of Appeal’s judgment holds that the Policy is unlawful in two respects. The first is that the Policy was made by the Secretary. By the Policy the Secretary effectively dictates to the Commissioner in respect of the grant of legal aid for most criminal cases. That is unlawful because the Legal Services Act makes it clear that the grant of legal aid in individual cases is the function of the Commissioner, and one which the Commissioner is to exercise independently. 

In this part of its judgment the Court emphasises the importance Parliament placed on the independent exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. The prosecution of crime is carried out by the Solicitor-General as an independent law officer of the Crown, to avoid any appearance of political decision making in relation to public prosecutions. Parliament considered it important that the granting of legal aid to those accused of crime be controlled by an independent person, as the Act provides. It is inappropriate that the Secretary dictate to the Commissioner how he should perform that independent function."

There are summaries discussing the implications of the decision on the Scoop website, and elsewhere.

This is a letter  received from Tony Ellis a couple of years ago, after asking him to assist me to do something about the continued - indisputable corruption of the IPCA and police and the blatant corruption which resulted in the Crown suddenly deciding it would offer no evidence against me after corruptly locking me in a mental asylum for criticising local police:

"In respect of complaining about the IPCA, there is no process I know of short of the High Court in litigation.

However a new Authority is about to be appointed Sir David Carruthers previously Parole Board Chairperson, and before that Chief District Court Judge.  

You could complain to him that his staff have not done their job, as a new broom he might be interested. 

Other matters
Given . . .  changes in Legal Aid funding I should advise you I am not going to be able to take your case on legal aid. 

I have been doing criminal legal aid files for some time, but with the introduction of fixed fees and the associated administrative burden now required for legal aid, in order to make a living I am forced to reduce the amount of legal aid cases I can do.
Partly as  result of this tightening in the year ended March 2011 , i.e. 12 months ago and that I had my worst year ever earning less than the average wage, $50,000, as a result I have been forced me to reconsider the number of cases on legal aid I can take. 

In the civil area, where your case falls, the paperwork required from the Legal Services Agency is onerous.

It is does not surprise me that of 4000 lawyers willing to take legal aid prior to 31 December 2011 now only about 2000 will.

I regret given the time delay and still not having all your files,  and the new legal aid regime that trying to take on your case requires more time than I have.
Regrettably the payment offered form civil legal aid (which you of course are likely to be required to repay) does not provide a fair reward for work done.
Whilst I do not like to reduce the decision to a financial one, I regret having to be more selective in taking legal aid cases, and have turned down 10 in the last month, your potential case is not even ready to be considered and in addition to financial considerations I regret I don't have the time.

I will return your files.

Tony Ellis."

It hardly seems to matter though, because when the government doesn't like the law, it just changes it.  I heard Justice Peter Blanchard say in the Supreme Court one day - "We change the law not infrequently."

And as lawyer Andrew Geddis said recently, we owe it to ourselves to be outraged.

More news reports about similar attempts to limit access to justice here and overseas at these links:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/opinion/8721359/Shedding-light-on-legal-aid-changes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/observer-editorial-legal-aid-cuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/06/crown-court-judges-oppose-legal-aid-reforms

The Secret Life of Information - Raue, Siemer and Misiuk:

After all the charges against me were thrown out last year when it became obvious that the Crown prosecutors and NZ police were LYING, I requested copies of the Court files.  A simple request you would think - well think again - this is the response - more on the recent trend for NZ Judges to issue "Minutes" instead of proper legal decisions at this link:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON CRI-2009-035-000805

NZ POLICE - Informant

v

KATHERINE RAUE - Defendant

Date: 1 February 2012

________________________________________

MINUTE OF JUDGE D R W BARRY

[Application by Mrs Raue for Information held by the District Court at Masterton and at Wellington]

_________________________________________

Application:

[1] By handwritten memorandum dated 21 September 2011 Katherine Raue wrote to the Wellington District Court Registry making the following request:

"I, Katherine Raue, DOB 28.7.1958 hereby request all information (or copies thereof) of all information held by the District Court at Masterton and at Wellington about me.
In particular I request all information regarding charges of perverting the course of jsutce and escaping lawful custody, and the six charges recently withdrawn in Masterton Court.  I require this information urgently in order to consult a lawyer regarding breaches of my rights etc, and take legal action against the police."

[2] Accompanying the letter is the first page of a standard form for requesting a copy of a criminal record under the Privacy Act 1993.  Below the words "I hereby request the Criminal Records Unit, Ministry of Justice, to provide me with the details of any criminal convictions I may have which are held on the computer systems administered by the Ministry of Justice" she has endorsed the following words in hand "All information about me held by Dept of Courts".

Discussion of legal position:

[3] Mrs Raue's letter does not specify the legal basis upon which she makes her request for information.  The most appropriate proceedure for obtaining information held by Courts is through the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009.

[4] Mrs Raue has the right to access the formal Court record kept in the Registry of a Court pursuant to Rule 6(1).  The formal Court record relevantly includes the Register of persons committed for trial or sentence, the return of prisoners tried and sentenced, the charges set out in any information or indictment, and judgements, orders and  minutes of the Court (Rule 3).

[5] As a defendant Mrs Raue would also be entitled, under the supervision of an Officer of the Court, to search and inspect the Court files or any documents relating to those proeedings, and to copy any part or parts of them (Rule 7(1).  The definition of "document" includes records made in electronic form (Rule 3), but records of proceedings made in electronic form may only be copied with the Court's permission Rule 7(2)).  Any such permission is to be obtained through a particularised application under Rule 13.

[6] The form of application under the Privacy Act 1993 contains only part of the first page of the Privacy Act request for a copy of Ms Raue's criminal record as noted above.  It is not possible to invoke the Privacy Act as a basis for obtaining the information Ms Raue seeks.  This is because the Court is not an "Agency" for the purposes of the Privacy Act (Section 2(1)).

[7] Any application for information in respect of "the six charges recently withdrawn in Masterton Court" (sic) must be made to that Court (not Wellington District Court).


Direction:

[8] Mrs Raue should be given access to the formal Court record and to Court files for the Wellington District Court cases she refers to in her application of 21 September 2011 in which she was the defendant in accordance with Rule 6 and 7.  If Mrs Raue wishes to make copies of electronic recordings of any proceedings she will need to make a particularised application under Rule 132.  If Mrs Raue does so the concerns expressed by the Court in Misiuk v Superintendant of a Penal Institution HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-6625 8 October 2010 Dobson J, and the Supreme Court & Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 116 will naturally be taken into account in considering the applications.  In particular I note the views of the Supreme Court in the latter case at paragraph [9]:

"There are obvious resource implications if Judges direct Court Registry's to provide parties with transcripts of hearings, of appeals and interlocutory matters generally on demand by litigants.  For that reason, Judges should always satisfy themselves that there is good reason in the interests of justice for giving such directions."

History of these matters to date:

[9]   I summarise, for the assistance of any other Judicial Officer later involved in this request, my understanding of the background to the matters Ms Raue seems to be requesting information about:
`
The Alleged Offending and Court Proceedings
1 On 8 April 2009 Katherine Raue made a complaint to Carterton Police alleging that she had been burgled by Michael Murphy, a former friend.  She claimed that Mr Murphy had stolen a computer disk containing evidence relating to another claim she had made in respect of him in relation to an incident on 2 February 2009 (sic).  Constable Rhymer took a written statement from Ms Raue, which was signed by Ms Raue as being true and correct.
        2      Later that day Constable Rhymer took a statement from Aaron Brook, who said that he had seen Mr Murphy leaving Ms Raue's property,  A short time later Mr Brook retracted that statement and claimed that Ms Raue had put him up to making the false statement.

- Let's just stop right there.  There are a number of factual errors contained in this "minute" - for one thing, the 'incident' relating to the disk - the violent home invasion - occurred NOT on 2 February 2009 - it occurred on 11 February 2009.  Evidence shows that police have a habit of covering up violent crime in the Wairarapa and are protection recidivist violent offenders, and that this pattern of behaviour is politically motivated corruption, according to several top NZ lawyers.

For another thing, the charges were thrown out because it was proven that Constable Rhymer was LYING about having taken these statements from Aaron Brook - who has NEVER retracted his evidence that he and his cousin saw Michael Murphy very near to my home at the time of the burglary.  Constable Rhymer was unable to explain to the Court why she took my statement in her notebook - but the statement she ALLEGES that she took from Aaron Brooks isn't in her notebook - and wasn't produced at all until very recently - it's conspicuous by it's absence in the Disclosure, and in the Depositions evidence, etc, she recently alleges that she took this statement from Brook on some pieces of A4 paper she just happened to have on her - YEAH, RIGHT!!!

The article at this link by Judge David Harvey discusses this matter of access to Court records.

This post will be updated shortly.

High Court Appeal successful - 18 December 2012

Today the High Court heard my appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of trespass at the Mobil garage in Carterton, Smith Hare and Christison.  The appeal was granted and the conviction quashed by Williams J:

The Crown submissions, which I didn't get to see until after the hearing had finished, was an orchestrated litany of lies, deliberately intended to mislead the Court and pervert the course of justice - at the taxpayer's expense - what a travesty of justice!

For example, the Crown submissions contain the following whoppers (after waffling on for three pages regarding various case precedents narrowing the options on technicalities, etc):

"The matter took almost a year to be heard, due in no small measure to the appellant failing to appear and warrants for her arrest being issued."  - What utter LIES!  The police prosecutor and deputy registrar in Masterton are a de facto couple and they like to have my matters set down for 9:15 instead of 10:00 - they know I don't have a car, rely on public transport and can't get there till ten o'clock, they just like to obtain the warrant because they know that if they can get a certain number of warrants it increases their opportunities to detain me for nothing in the future and inflict more of their sadistic unnecessary taxpayer funded cruelty, and make me look like some kind of criminal or something just because I'm reliant on public transport, so they set the matter down for 9:15 every time and then obtain the warrant purely in order to pervert the course of justice - knowing full well that I'll be there shortly after ten o'clock - except if they've moved the Court across town and not informed anyone!

The delays were caused by police failing to provide disclosure, etc, and the prosecutor's conflict of interest on the ACTUAL date of the first fixture, which was July 4th.  They regularly issue the warrant at 9:45 and I arrive at ten and the matter proceeds, they are just trying to establish a case against me for not turning up to Court and nothing could be further from the truth - it's the POLICE who fail to turn up - regularly!  - If I arrive at Court they either don't show up or try and get an adjournment in the hope that I won't turn up next time - because they only way they can get convictions against me is either have then set down before corrupt Judges, or hold the hearing in my absence!

There is a very long history of police failing to turn up to Court, and of them withdrawing charges, and of my being acquitted.  There is also a long history of local police LYING about me.

Then there's the matter of Judge Barry's "Minute" of 1 February 2012 which makes it quite clear that I was illegally imprisoned in February 2010 after Police and Court staff tried to conspire to manipulate the Court process but were caught out by Judge Behrens, and then corruptly obtained a warrant by lying to the Court, telling the Court that I failed to appear - when the fixture was a figment of their imagination and a purely a result of their own incompetence!  Back to Williams J, and the continuing, deliberate, misleading fiction from the Crown prosecutor, Mr Murray:

"The first fixture was set down for 16 July.  Ms Raue did not appear and the case was adjourned until 12 September 2012.  Again she did not appear and the matter proceeded by way of formal proof."  

What nonsense!  The matter was set down for a formal proof hearing on July 4th 2012 - NOT July 16th!

I arrived at the Court at the appointed time for the formal proof hearing on July 4th, Court was being held in the Frank Cody Lounge in Masterton, having previously been held in a variety of venues including a caravan.

The police prosecutor, Sgt Lawrence, disclosed a conflict of interest to Judge Hobbs, who adjourned the hearing accordingly.  So that was the fault of the police, not me, they should have sorted that out before the matter was called (which was about 11:30), they should have had another prosecutor available, but as usual, they couldn't organise a picnic in the park never mind a proper Court hearing - the manner in which the Masterton District Court operates is an insult to justice and an utter travesty.  Evidence of this point is contained in the Court record, which states (scan will be posted soon):

"04 July 2012 - P A H Hobbs, District Court Judge: RAL [remanded at large] to 16/7/2012 - 9:15 am nominal date to set new fixture date.  Sergeant Lawrence the prosecutor knows Mrs Raue - prosecutor feels uncomfortable in those circumstances.  Mrs Raue regards the prosecutor as a good friend and does not want her prosecuting in those circumstances.  No other prosecutor available.  - Mrs Raue's attendance excused on that date, Mr Hard to advise of new date."

Sgt Warwick Burr seems to be responsible for that particular debacle - he was present in the Court and appeared to be trying to bully Sgt Lawrence to proceed regardless of the conflict of interest and regardless of the fact that he knew perfectly well that the charge was corruptly laid and the information the prosecutor was being told to present to the Court was a litany of lies!  The Court record makes it clear that the delays were NOT caused by me they were caused by the police and the lawyers!

The Masterton Police have a habit of wasting Court time and taxpayers money on this sort of malicious vexatious vendetta, going right back to the charge of Bill Sticking they laid against me - police were forced to apologise to me for dragging the matter out for about two years and then not turning up in Court on the day of the hearing after it became obvious to everyone that they were never going to win the case and were likely to be pinned down in cross examination in a most incriminating manner regarding the fraud at the former Carterton Community Centre and the involvement of the local constable's girlfriend in the serious fraud going on there, and the refusal of the police to investigate those matters and others.

The decision of Williams J notes two points from my submissions, the first being that Mr Hard advised me of the new date and I advised him that I couldn't attend on that date because I was house sitting and managing two rental properties hundreds of miles away at that time.  There was also the fact that the Court moved on 14th August from the Frank Cody Lounge to the Shop Rite Supermarket site (I kid you not) - there was an armed 'stand off' the day they opened there, it is horrible and dangerous.  Nobody advised me - or any of the other defendants by the look of it - that the Court had moved.

The other point Williams J noted was that there was very strong and indisputable evidence which contradicted Constable Dallinger's claim that he served me with a trespass notice on 4th March as he claimed, and I explained to the honourable Williams J why I could prove beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of three different pieces of evidence - one of which was actually POLICE evidence, that Dallinger's claim was not true.

Dallinger corruptly refused to investigate the fraud that has been occuring on a regular basis at the local Mobil station, with certain staff taking customers' EFTPOS cards and then telling them that "the EFTPOS machine is out of order, we'll have to do a 'manual transaction'" - what the customers don't realise is that the staff involved are stealing the card details and using them to defraud their bank accounts.  Be warned, check your receipt AND your bank statement carefully if you do business at the Mobil station in Carterton, and keep checking the statements - the fraudulent transaction from my account occured several weeks after the card details were stolen.

I have a huge amount of other evidence and witnesses regarding this matter, the charge has been corruptly laid.  We will be cross examining Constable Dallinger about his malicious vendetta and how he and Constable Pope kicked in the bedroom door of a fourteen year old girl during another malicious incident of corrupt bullying, when he tried to charge me for theft of a bicycle which wasn't stolen, so he kicked in the door and arrested me for allegedly swearing at him.  I told Williams J that he is a rogue officer (they seem to gravitate toward the Wairarapa where they know corruption and incompetence are par for the course).

Decision of Judge Barry - Escaping from Custody - ACQUITTED.

A few days ago I received an email from Pearl Christian at the Wellington Court, telling me that I was meant to have appeared on the 2nd November in the Wellington Court for yet another hearing regarding the corruptly laid charges resulting from the attack on me in my home which the Wairarapa police are trying to pretend never took place, and charging me for perverting the course of justice because they allege I am a liar.  NZ tazpayers are funding gross and deliberate corruption being practised on a routine basis by the NZ police force, which is why staff refer to national headquarters as "Bullshit Castle".

On 11th February 2009 three independent witnesses rang 111 to report a home invasion type attack on me at my home in Carterton.  This attack was planned by ex Mayor Gary McPhee, who conspired with a woman called Tracy Feast and her friend Michael Murphy to commit the attack after I made allegations to the police of child abuse regarding Murphy and others.  The Mayoral Diary shows that McPhee was deeply involved in planning the attack, and text messages received from Murphy days before the attack say that him and McPhee are at my address trying to provoke another confrontation with me.  Corrupt librarian Ewen Hyde has tried to prevent me accessing the Mayoral Diary and other information by corruptly having me issued with a trespass notice from the library to prevent me accessing resources and information such as this and sharing it.  The information at this link shows clearly the conspiracy regarding the attack on the 11th February.

Police have corruptly refused to release the audio recording of a call to emergency services from two women, Clair Cook and Kelly Wilson, who were walking past my address at the time and saw the attack in progress, because they know that it contains evidence of Murphy's violently insane screaming and threats, and the sound of him smashing the door.

On the 8th April 2009 Murphy returned to my address to steal a computer disc containing 46 separate recordings of police radio calls, including another call to emergency services regarding the attack, made by one of my neighbours, evidence of the attack which police had corruptly denied existed.

When I caught Murphy red handed in the act of stealing the disk I immediately called police and made a statement, which was later corroborated by two witnesses who had also seen him very close to my address at the same time I had reported the break in and theft to police.

When I later went to make further complaints to police and enquire about the progress of earlier complaints, such as the original attack on me by Murphy, Constable Laura Rhymer refused to take any complaints and told me I was "going to be charged" with perverting the course of justice!  

Rhymer knew perfectly well that I was totally innocent of any such thing, and was not prepared to stake her own career on charging me with something she knew perfectly well I was innocent of, which is why she didn't arrest me herself.

The corrupt amicus curiae tried to make me sign an agreement that Rhymer not have to appear and be cross examined in Court and that we all just take her word for it that she "arrested" me, at the Depositions hearing.  I refused and made a formal complaint, which resulted in the hearing of an application by the Crown that Rhymer's written evidence be admitted unchallenged.  

The transcript of that hearing shows that responsibility for the application was assigned by prosecutor Jodi Ongley to prosecutor Andrea Ewing - because Ongley knew perfectly well that the charge was corruptly laid and the prosecution amounted to perjury!

The decision was received by me on 4th November 2010 - the ruling was apparently made on the 30th September 2010, but corrupt, arrogant Court officer Pearl Christian did not provide me with a copy of it until six weeks later!  Here it is - the decision is also available at this link:

Decision of Judge M J Behrens QC

This is the decision of Judge M J Behrens QC after he stopped the trial of the five charges laid by corrupt local police after they barged into a local community meeting like the Gestapo and dragged me out, took me to the police station in handcuffs, strip searched me and locked me up all night, to "teach me a lesson" as vindictive Detective Sue Mackle testified in Court - just before her 'evidence' was stopped by the Judge because it was inadmissable - as she knew perfectly well! She and other officers DELIBERATELY LIED in Court!

Judge Behrens stopped the trial after it became apparent that the police were trying to pervert the course of justice.

Police tried to withdraw three of the charges, but Judge Behrens refused their application to do so and acquitted me of the charges, totally rubbishing all the evidence of Georgina Beyer and all her mates on the Carterton District Council.

This case has taken some unusual turns" said Judge Behrens.
"There are many things I could say about these charges. I think the first thing I should say is that . . . . the prosecution attitude is that although the evidence from the officer in charge who was the one subject of the alleged resistance, the prosecution is happy for me to proceed to make a decision about these three charges now and I can see the reason for that." - The other police officer had just testified that he hadn't heard the senior officer arrest me as he claimed he had.

"Without going at length into the charges the police accept that the evidence in relation to them is tenuous and I must say that I agree. I could perhaps leave it at that on the basis that tenuous evidence is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt which is the standard the police must achieve if they are to get a conviction in respect of these three charges."

"I am concerned too about what appears to have been physical action taken against her by the police before she was arrested. I refer to evidence which shows that she was grabbed and told that she could not leave until police had sorted out what had happened. It seemed to me at that time that perhaps there was a difficulty there for the police, but I'm not taking that any further at this stage."

The trial was stopped during the evidence of the first of two police officers who attacked me at the Carterton Municipal Hall following a public meeting to try and talk the public into supporting the proposal of the group of criminals associated with the Carterton District Council who took over and closed the former Community Centre to cover up their fraud and misfeasance. The Secretary and Treasurer was punched in the face for speaking up about it, and the right respectable District Councillors and Council staff changed the locks on the building which had been gifted to the community. Then they illegally subdivided and sold the land the building was on, and two of the buildings on site, and the Borough Farm, and every other community asset they could think of, because nobody would give them any money for their 'Event Centre'. Nobody in their right mind would ever do so - read the unbelievably appalling Audit Office report highlights at the end of lawyer Michael Appleby's submission to the PCA, and the Great Cuisine School Disaster about how they lost over two million dollars!

Read the evidence of independent witnesses, with a first hand view, who were so outraged that they went home, wrote to the Prime Minister, went back to the meeting and remonstrated with Georgina Beyer, the police and Ewen Hyde (corrupt Council Librarian). The following day, these independent and very credible witnesses were still so outraged at what happened to me that they rang the Area Commander of the Police.

Read how corrupt local police have covered up crimes committed by Beyer and McPhee and their other mates.