Posted On: Tuesday, 22 November 2011
DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN
New Zealand's Highest Court Institutionalises Secret Rulings denying Due Process that were deemed Unlawful in 2003
22 November 2011
One of the most unsettling days in New Zealand jurisprudence must be when the Privy Council determined in the 2003
Taito appeal that New Zealand Court of Appeal judges (the nation's highest court at the time) had been systematically denying due process rights to appellants by preventing appeals. Demonstrating the value of that unique blend of cultural apathy and loyalty in the wake of the scandal, New Zealanders virtually woke up one day to find the British messenger had been shot, the NZ judges found breaking the law were promoted to the newly formed Supreme Court and an $80 million palace was built at taxpayer expense in their honour.
To prove things could get worse,
Bill Wilson was soon promoted to the bench, only to resign in disgrace over ruling in undisclosed conflicts of interest in favour of his bank, who he owed $1M on floating terms, and then his business partner to whom he owed money. His handsome annual payout to keep quiet about his fellow judges was followed by one of New Zealand's most notorious lawyers,
William Young, being appointed in his place. The sting that he was perhaps the most honest judge on the Supreme Court has never left Wilson.
It should come as no surprise then that the unlawful practices held so dear by the more honourable of this gang when their oath of office was fresh in their mind back in 2003 would become institutionalized soon after those pesky law lords of the Privy Council had been banished. And, as it was the court record that exposed the previous unlawful actions, it only follows the judges learned their lesson sufficient to keep their unlawful actions "off the books" today.
When it was recently exposed that the Court of Appeal admitted a "favoured son" had concocted evidence to support a ruling - at the same time the Court inexplicably refused to correct the recognised injustice - the partisan Supreme Court could only scratch their heads to say
"It is not clear to us what (
Justice Cooper) intended to convey" before it too dismissed the appeal of that ruling without hearing.
When a judgment recall was filed challenging the Supreme Court dismissal on grounds it was irrelevant what the judge was trying to convey, but the resultant fraud was relevant, the Supreme Court issued a recall judgment which stated
"It would not be right to re-open the application for leave to appeal to allow (the appellant) to advance an implausible argument which, if it were to be made at all, could and should have been advanced in his original submissions."
When proof was provided in a second application for recall that this excuse for not considering evidence of fraud was "patently false in fact",
Blanchard JJ purported to "dismiss" the application and conceal the evidence without providing the requisite judgment or legal reasons.
The result below and
here provides a glimpse into the unlawful and clandestine way NZ Supreme Court judges routinely act in their public role.