[First of a two part series]
Absolute power may be absolutely corrupting but power that knows no boundaries and allows silencing
and imprisoning ones critics at home and abroad is something Vladimir Putin can only dream about.
No such boundaries exist for New Zealand judges – this according to them in at least two recent High Court rulings which assert powers to make orders binding upon other nations’ citizens and organisations. And there is a strong move afoot to criminally charge persons and organisations who criticise NZ judges. List MP Chris Finlayson is well on his way to pushing the euphemistically-titled Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill into law. The Parliamentary website perhaps ominously states its purpose as, “It will allow judgments and court orders to be enforced and ensure the judiciary is protected as far as is practicable from false attacks which undermine public confidence in the system.”
There appears no check against the danger by the fourth estate. The local media is so sheepish that a recent front page New Zealand Herald story headlined that Google is thumbing its nose at our judges trying to maintain justice and order, citing Google’s refusal to censor web content of a 2015 judicial bungle which created a ‘miscarriage of justice’ and compelled a 2017 retrial of double murderer Zarn Tarapata.
Mr Tarapata – found not guilty by reason of insanity in his retrial after his 17 year sentence was reversed on appeal – is typical of the ubiquitous use of court suppression orders in New Zealand. A judge ordered nobody could publish information concerning Tarapata’s first trial, and then demanded Google act as the court’s policeman. If Google was inclined to subscribe to such nonsense the company would likely spend most of its profits disconnecting New Zealand news from the world wide web. Court suppression orders in New Zealand are so pervasive that Chief High Court Justice Helen Winkelmann in 2009 gave as her reasoning for ordering suppression of her pretrial order denying the Urewera 18 defendants trial by jury that she was acting according to standard practice. Winkelmann J stated in support of her request the Solicitor-General prosecute violators of her suppression orders, “(the criminally accused contemptor) is correct no reasons are given in the judgment for making the suppression orders. Suppression orders, and in this particular form, are made on a daily basis in the Courts throughout New Zealand, in the context of the determination of pre-trial hearings, or in the determination of appeals where a retrial is likely.”
Where court suppression is so habitual that judges insist they need not give reasons for it, why would Google - or any respectable news outlet for that matter – acquiesce to such censorship orders? No sheep in the local news flock has put forth this question. Intrepid reporting has been replaced by a chorus of baa’s.
Not surprisingly NZ judges consider their orders are binding on the world in cases where their best mate is going through a contentious divorce, the rich benefactor who provides their overseas holiday is coming under litigation scrutiny for their financial dealings or one of their own is guilty of attempted rape. They claim it is all about fair trial rights, privacy and “the overarching interests of justice”.
But, for many who follow the courts, it is a system reminiscent of the Star Chamber court of 16th century England, a court where secrecy became the standard for ensuring justice but which became synonymous with powerful people evading the law and public scrutiny.
Secrecy also routinely affords cover for judicial actions which are unlawful. This danger surfaced when High Court Justice Palmer (pictured) issued a partially redacted ruling last month wherein His Honour ordered a slew of overseas companies and generically named entities to disclose bank accounts, business transactions and their business relationships in an alleged $4.9 million dollar investment intrigue. That is correct; no issue of national security or child trafficking. This learned New Zealand High Court Justice, former Deputy Solicitor-General and former Deputy Secretary of Justice ordered, without lawful authority or claimed support in law, the world and its enterprises submit to his whim over a relatively small alleged civil deceit affecting 15 plaintiffs.
Unfettered entitlement to power unfounded in law routinely is accompanied by a reckless brazenness and ineptitude among New Zealand jurists. Refer to paragraph 23 of Palmer J’s order where the judge makes “an order requiring each of Tasman FX, HIFX, OFX, Cash Passport and Western Union to disclose (multiple transactions and bank account information).”
In addition to no law allowing such an extra-territorial judicial order, there is no legal entity by the name of ‘Cash Passport’, among others. Separately, the broad if not ambiguous judicial order against the world was not issued to enforce a court order or statute but to assist plaintiffs in formulation of a civil claim.
The shock to thinking persons is this is not simply the norm for NZ judges but this ruling will likely be upheld up the NZ court hierarchy if appealed because most New Zealand judges believe they are equally entitled to such powers despite them not being prescribed by law.
Coming Up in Part Two: Former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s current push to pass a law criminalising criticism of New Zealand judges is accompanied by attacks against vocal lawyers by Police, Legal Services Agency and the Law Society.
