2014 Judge Survey Score (1-10): not included Ranking (out of 64): n/a
|Postion & Titles:||Former Deputy Solicitor General|
|Judge of:||High Court, Christchurch, appointed December 2013|
|Specializations and Professional Interests:|
|Professional Comments:||Former Crown lawyer Cameron Mander was appointed a High Court Judge by the Attorney General while under active complaint before the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO288/2013). The evidence of that complaint is Attorney General Chris Finlayson delegated authority under section 9(C)1 Constitution Act 1986 for Mr Mander to stay, under s 159 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, a judge-approved criminal prosecution of him for committing a criminal violation under the Crimes Act 1961 for filing false documents as Crown Prosecutor in a criminal trial. The upshot is Mr Mander was spared a criminal trial only through the exercise of this executive power. Mander’s judicial appointment, therefore, appears to evade not only his own criminal prosecution but AG Finlayson’s complicity in perverting the course of justice in Mander’s alleged criminal offending.Serious questions of this relationship between Mander and Finlayson run deeper. While at Crown Law, Justice Mander also acted on delegated authority from Attorney General Finlayson to advise the U.S. Government in relation to its rights and courses in pursuing internet tycoon Kim Dotcom in New Zealand, an ill-fated partnership which exposed Mr Mander’s ignorance of intellectual property law and his desperate determination to conduct the raid and seizure on Dotcom’s mansion despite notification the warrant was, as Potter J later put it, “null and void”. Having seized Dotcom’s property and accounts on an unlawful warrant, the NZ government was forced to give an indemnity to the Court in order to retain the seized property pending court determination of the charges. The prosecution soon encountered huge legal obstacles which generally pose no problem to court judgments in New Zealand. In this case, however, Dotcom had a public profile and press savvy to match. He has been able to expose the unlawfulness of many of Mander’s actions. As a result, the taxpayers were reminded by several legal publications that they may end up footing a huge bill for Cameron Mander’s faux pas. Recent figures put the exposure at $6.5 million alone in alterations made to the mansion if seizure of Dotcom’s account cause him to forfeit these improvements. Now that Mander has been appointed a judge, there is little doubt his fellow judges will do whatever is required to cover up his offending.|
|Background / Education:||Justice Cameron Mander graduated with an LLB from Victoria University in 1985 and went straight into politics, initially employed at Parliamentary Services, in the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives.The following year, Mander J joinied Wellington firm Luke Cunningham and Clere as a staff solicitor. In 1989 Cameron Mander travelled to London where he was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors of England and Wales and employed as a litigation solicitor by Clifford Chance. While in England, he obtained an LLM (Hons) from Cambridge University. In 1992 he returned to New Zealand and rejoined Luke Cunningham and Clere as a partner, practising as a senior crown prosecutor and litigator in support of both the Crown Solicitor and the firm’s private practice.
In 2007 Mr Mander joined the Crown Law Office as a Deputy Solicitor-General where he was responsible for the work and litigation practices of both Criminal and, until recently, Human Rights Teams.As Deputy Solicitor-General, he led the oversight and supervision of the Crown Solicitors Network, was a member of the Chief Justice’s Criminal Practice Committee and the sub-committee of the Rules Committee drafting the rules for the Criminal Procedure Act 2012, and was responsible for the Crown’s representation before the Royal Commission into the Pike River Mine Tragedy in 2011.
Justice Mander co-authored ‘Abbott & Thompson District Courts Practice – Criminal” along with Lynn Hughes and Graham Wardell, a guide to criminal practice covering the elementary requirements of pre-trial disclosure up to the most current commentary on relevant legislation.
|Degrees:|| LLB Victoria University, 1985
LLM (Hons) Cambridge University, 1992
|Admitted to the Bar:||1985|
|Interesting Relationships and Coincidences:||from Whangarei|
LawFuel.co.nz – New Zealand Legal News – The New Zealand government has exposed itself to what may be an unlimited indemnity in favour of Kim Dotcom, the man the US government is seeking to have extradicted on criminal copyright and related charges from New Zealand.The Megaupload boss had his business closed when New Zealand police raided his mansion in Auckland on 20 January. Since then a string of victories achieved by the Dotcom legal team have revealed that the original restraining order upon which the police operated was “null and void”.The New Zealand High Court, under an order from Justice Potter, required the government to provide an undertaking as to damages that is almost certainly unlimited.According to the National Business Review legal columnist and LawFuel publisher John Bowie the provision of the undertaking could result in the New Zealand taxpayer being on the wrong end of a damages claim running into hundreds of millions of dollars. “Dotcom lawyers Willie Akel and Greg Towers at Simpson Grierson will not make public comment regarding the current issues, although they are very clear about their continued, vigorous defence of the current charges against their client,” the NBR reported. “Kim Dotcom, as majority owner of Megaupload, is believed to have received over $US40 million in dividends from his company during the 2010 financial year. It’s precise value is therefore high, certainly in the hundreds of millions and maybe more. “In chump change terms, Kim Dotcom’s liable for $6.5 million in respect of alterations to the mansion, should he be unable to complete purchase. The money would be forfeited to the current owners. But that figure is dwarfed by a potential claim for hundreds of millions of dollars under an indemnity that, so far as I am aware, is unlimited and probably unprecedented in its nature. “When Crown lawyer Madeleine Laracy acknowledged that Crown Law had “overlooked” the issue of giving Dotcom notice of the raid, Justice Potter required that the indemnity be given. The Crown became panicky. They either provided the required indemnity and undertaking to the Court or they gave everything back to Kim Dotcom. The government were in the odious position of being between Dotcom’s rock and a fiscal hard place. Doubtless the issue arrived not only before Cabinet but also on the desk of Finance Minister Bill English who needed to find someone to put their hand up. The hand they found was Police Commissioner Peter Marshall’s. Apart from the Commissioner’s involvement in the matter there was the then Solicitor-General David Collins and in particular his deputy Cameron Mander. “Cameron Mander, acting on delegated authority from Attorney General Chris Finlayson, was busy advising the US government, the FBI and everyone else stateside who want to get their hands on Mr Dotcom, about their legal rights and obligations in New Zealand. As one lawyer commented, the complex copyright issues upon which the extradition case depended should have seen Crown Law seek advice from a senior intellectual property lawyer, of whom there are several in New Zealand of international repute.”Instead, Crown Law proceeded and eventually found their indemnity. The question of whether they also obtained a corresponding US government indemnity is open, but almost certainly they did not but rather acted in the spirit of mutual reciprocity and assistance, for which the US government has been so openly grateful. Establishing Crown liability for those carrying out law enforcement obligations is generally not achievable other than in cases of bad faith. Extensive immunities exist, as senior Auckland Law School lecturer and former Crown lawyer Hanna Wilberg told me. However, there is also the tort of “misfeasance in a public office” which requires malice to be proved and the NZ Bill of Rights, which provides for compensation in respect of an unlawful police search, although there are limits to that remedy, she said.
Crown lawyers knew Dotcom order unlawful
5:30 AM Friday May 4, 2012
Kim Dotcom. Photo / Brett Phibbs
Crown lawyers acting for the United States knew before seizing Kim Dotcom’s fortune and property that they were using an unlawful court order.
The High Court file has revealed Crown prosecutor Anne Toohey realised there was a paperwork problem on the morning of the January raid.
The Solicitor-General at the time, David Collins, was alerted to the error but told the mistake didn’t alter the lawful nature of the order allowing the seizure of Dotcom’s wealth.
The advice was wrong – Justice Judith Potter later ruled the restraining order “null and void” and having “no legal effect”.
The result left Dotcom without the chance to have his day in court or the money to fund a fight against claims he was behind as international criminal conspiracy in copyright infringement.
The financial seizure was part of a multi-pronged attack after orders issued in US courts led to the arrest of Dotcom and three business colleagues.
The Crown Law office went to court with the orders to have them enforced here and told judges they were “without notice” – meaning Dotcom’s team did not need to be warned. But newly obtained documents from the court file show Ms Toohey realised on the day of the raid that they were meant to give notice.
Crown Law criminal team leader Madeleine Laracy, in an affidavit to the court, said: “This issue had been overlooked prior to that point.”
She said she talked about the realisation with Dr Collins and his deputy, Cameron Mander, and the decision was made to forge ahead with the seizure.
Ms Laracy said it was decided Crown Law would tell Dotcom’s lawyers the restraining notice was only temporary until there was a court hearing.
She said US authorities then sent a second request to the Crown Law Office to have more of Dotcom’s belongings seized.
Ms Toohey was on the verge of having a fresh hearing over the new restraining order, at which time the error over the original order would have been raised.
Ms Laracy said Mr Mander realised the error was more serious and ordered the court be alerted.
Ten days after the raid, the court was told and a court process was allowed to give Dotcom the chance to object.
Justice Potter upheld the restraining order although she said Dotcom could sue over Crown Law’s mistake. Dotcom has been given $20,000 a month to live on.
Abbott & Thompson District Courts Practice – Criminal.
Work contains Summary Proceedings Act and related legislation with commentary for practitioners in the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court. This allows quick access to essential legislation in an affordable, portable form making daily research easy.
Authors are experienced practitioners and experts in criminal litigation. This means practitioners can be confident that the guidance provided by the commentary is current and accurate.
For less experienced practitioners, there are helpful appendices on pre-trial disclosure and defending a summary prosecution. This means less experienced practitioners receive guidance so that they can save time and focus on their clients.