Stop Work Notice issued effective immediately:

The Far North District Council has issued Julian Batchelor with a stop work notice (Abatement Notice ordering him to stop all work immediately).

The notice can be viewed at this link.

Application for Stop Work Notice.

Te komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua me Araaka me Hauai have requested that the Far North District Council issue Julian Batchelor with a Stop Work Notice and Abatement Notice and ensure that he ceases the works and developments he is carrying out on the property at 147 Rawhiti Road at Hauai because of serious damage to the surrounding environment and the effect of this damage on the local people, as well as breaches of Far North District Council bylaws.

Above is an image on Mr Julian Batchelor's slick website, this is one example of the scope of Mr Batchelor's plans for not only the land he occupies, which is under Treaty claim and should have been returned to iwi by the former occupier as Mr Batchelor is well aware, but his plans to control access to and exclusive use of everything in sight including the track to Rakaumangamanga which currently under Department of Conservation management.  Mr Julian Batchelor has also taken the liberty of renaming everything in sight too, including our maunga tapu Rakaumangamanga (which he and others refer to as "Cape Brett"), our moana, Opourua, which he (and others) have renamed "Oke Bay", among other taonga and cultural heritage.  Not only is this disrespectful in the extreme, it would seem to be illegal.  The recent earthworks certainly are.

More on Julian Batchelor's retaining wall:

This photo shows the damage to the trees and vegetation, Batchelor chopped down the historic pohutukawa tree and has erected a garish 'Christmas tree' instead.

The original retaining wall Mr Batchelor erected, which soon collapsed.  The shoddy standard of work is clearly apparent

The wall collapsed, taking the land with it.  At the same time, the road in front of the property collapsed, falling onto the beach.

Here is the link to Julian Batchelor's application for resource consent to "construct a retaining wall within the road and boundary set up." (sic)

Note Mr Batchelor only lists a Post Office box and writes "NA" - not applicable in the space where he is required to provide another address.

The Far North District Council gave "verbal consent" to Mr Batchelor, whereupon Mr Batchelor took the liberty of carrying out a considerable amount of vandalism and destruction, which was done without consent - the "verbal consent" applied to unspecified minor repairs, not the large scale earthworks which were actually carried out.

Here is the link to the letter the Council sent him requiring him to provide more information, specific information, by the 4th December 2015, according to section 92 of the Resource Management Act.  Mr Batchelor hasn't provided any of it, showing a further blatant disregard for due process or the law, and Council are now saying that that they are "trying to get hold of Mr Batchelor and speak with him but are unable to get hold of him."

Formal requests have been made to Council to issue a Stop Work Notice immediately pending further consultation with tangata whenua and local hapu and further investigation by Council and independent engineers into the damage done to the land and surrounding areas and the significant environmental and cultural effects.

Formal application for stop work notice to be served on Julian Batchelor:

Te komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua me Araaka me Hauai have requested that the Far North District Council issue Julian Batchelor with a Stop Work Notice and Abatement Notice and ensure that he ceases the works and developments he is carrying out on the property at 147 Rawhiti Road at Hauai because of serious damage to the surrounding environment and the effect of this damage on the local people, as well as breaches of Far North District Council bylaws.

Above is an image on Mr Julian Batchelor's slick website, this is one example of the scope of Mr Batchelor's plans for not only the land he occupies, which is under Treaty claim and should have been returned to iwi by the former occupier as Mr Batchelor is well aware, but his plans to control access to and exclusive use of everything in sight including the track to Rakaumangamanga which currently under Department of Conservation management.  Mr Julian Batchelor has also taken the liberty of renaming everything in sight too, including our maunga tapu Rakaumangamanga (which he and others refer to as "Cape Brett"), our moana, Opourua, which he (and others) have renamed "Oke Bay", among other taonga and cultural heritage.  Not only is this disrespectful in the extreme, it would seem to be illegal.  The recent earthworks certainly are.

REQUEST TO FNDC FOR INFORMATION REGARDING BATCHELOR'S UNCONSENTED WORKS:

Far North District Council

6 December 2015

Tena koutou katoa,

This is to confirm our request made verbally to Kyra earlier this afternoon for all information regarding resource consent application number 2160177-RMALUC for147 Rawhiti Rd by Julian Batchelor, and all information regarding all other applications for resource consent applications for this property and any of Mr Batchelor's other properties at Rawhiti. 

In particular, and with urgency, we request all information which Mr Batchelor was required to provide to the Far North District Council by 4th December 2015 regarding the application referred to above, and clarification as to whether or not Mr Batchelor actually had proper consent or not when he went ahead with recent major earthworks etc on the property.

Would you please confirm today whether or not Mr Batchelor provided all the information required by the due date, and provide it and the other information as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Katherine Raue
Te Komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua

Justice system - what justice system?

The decision of Brown J is still not on the Ministry's website despite the public interest in the decision.

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. 

Poor wee Joseph.  Look at him, full of hope for the future, all he wanted was a job, full of trust, we should be demanding accountability for Joseph and the other men - look at this young man - barely more than a child, and killed inside a mine that everyone knew was a time bomb!

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.

A salutory lesson on the perils of public advocacy:

The Taranaki Regional Council's attempt to seek costs against a group challenging the Council on its attitude to repeated pollution of the Waitara River is simply vindictive an bullying.  However it illustrates the ease with which taxpayer and ratepayer funded Council legal department staff have in exploiting the naive.

Last month, Fiona Clark, along with Andrea Moore and Robert Taylor - who are all Friends of the Waitara River (FOWR) members -  appealed to the High Court against a District Court ruling that the group had to pay the Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) for an independent resource consent hearing held in 2011, along with interest and court costs.

In a judgement released this week Justice Robert Dobson dismissed the trio's appeal but decided not to impose any further costs on the group.

Regardless the group will have to pay $22,598.40.

The High Court judgment is the latest development in a four-year long legal dispute between FOWR and the TRC that has cost the council thousands in legal fees.

In July 2011, the New Plymouth District Council applied for a resource consent to discharge waste water into the Waitara river. FOWR opposed this move and asked the TRC for an independent hearing to be held.

Following the independent commission hearing in October 2011, the resource consent was granted. The hearing cost $12,256.70.

An initial request by FOWR to have the hearing charge waived was declined by the TRC and in December 2014, the council applied for the costs to be paid, a claim that was upheld by the District Court in March this year.

Fiona Clark said while FOWR were happy no extra costs had been added by Dobson, the TRC's actions were tantamount to "bullying."

"The TRC are vindictive in pursuing us, Clark said.

But TRC director corporate services Mike Nield said the District Court and High Court rulings had found the group responsible for the payment.

"As with any debt owed by any person, they have a responsibility to pay it. The council is adamant that regional ratepayers should not foot this responsibility," Nield said.

He said the group knew about the cost involved in the hearing from the outset and the ball was now in the trio's court to pay the money.

During the October 19 appeal hearing in the High Court at New Plymouth, FOWR lawyer Alex Hope said as the issue related to a matter of public interest, it was unfair to expect the trio - who lacked the financial means - to pay up.

But TRC's lawyer John Shackleton said Clark, Taylor and Moore were aware from the outset they were responsible for any costs related to the process.

Justice Dobson ruled in the TRC's favour and said there were no errors in law made regarding the District Court's decision to impose costs on the group.

Along with the $12,256.70, which related to independent hearing, Dobson also upheld court costs of $9,222.50 and disbursements of $1,119.20.

In his ruling, Dobson said it was highly likely the money spent by TRC in pursuing payment from FOWR "would have substantially exceeded the sum in issue" but neither party could be criticised for acting on their respective principles.

Clark said the court decision will be discussed at the next FOWR meeting but the group were resigned to the court outcome.

"We'll have to pay and it means the community has to pay," she said.