HISTORY IN THE MAKING FOR JUSTICE WORLD WIDE, WITH A SELF REPRESENTED TRAIL BLAZER FROM AUSTRALIA MAKING HER MARK IN NEW ZEALAND.
A Female, Australian, Tanya Dunstan, representing herself in New Zealand court wins her 25th case in New Zealand on 15 May 2024 with Justice Brewer sealing an order:?
Traditionally judges don’t award costs to self litigants. This is not legislatively compliant under NZBORA or HRA 1993 s21k) in effect discriminating against someone due to their employment status.?
If self litigants can be charged costs if they lose a case, rationally they should be awarded costs (for their time) when they win their cases. It is not for judges to make up their own rules regarding this “orthodox approach” to discriminate against self litigants- this MUST be determined by the policy makers in parliament under s7 for the Attorney General, Judith Collins to raise for the house to vote on.
*Note: these private prosecutions against 6 police officers and 2 solicitors, conspiring to breach natural justice and bring 2 false arrests against a victim of court abuse remain pending at Northshore court. (6 years after the offending of the “alleged” offenders.)
CRI-2024-044-001732. Dunstan v 6 police officers and two solicitors at North Shore District Court
---- On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:10:15 +1200 dc, northshore <[email protected]> wrote ---
Your file is no longer with Judge Fitzgibbon, it is with Judge Rea as per the decision I sent you the other week.
Judge Rea has made the judicial direction outlined in the decision attached.
Please respond with the further evidence attached to THIS email thread so I can forward to Judge.
Kind regards,
Emily
The extreme lengths judges go to in order to delay and deny justice is remarkable. (Technically making them accomplices to the offending for aiding and abetting the offenders, a criminal act under s66 Crimes Act 1961, of which there is NO “immunity from suit” any judge can lawfully rely on to justify this offending.)
Curiously, not one of Ms Dunstans successful cases is publicly available: Amounting to an act of defamation by Ministry of Justice NZ and Courts of New Zealand | Ngā Kōti o Aotearoa concealing the legal merit of her cases and strong litigation skills as a self represented litigant.?
Of the 97 decisions pertaining to Ms Dunstan or reference to her cases at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/decisions/jdo
Not one is in her favour. More concerning, the s166 order imposed without a hearing (in breach of s27 NZBORA 1990 right to justice to be heard) still under appeal CA667/2023 pending a decision from the hearing on 16 May 2024, of which the decision of Brewer J on 15 May 2024 was concealed from Ms Dunstan but provided to Crown Law who did not raise this with the court during the hearing, or since.)
CIV-2023-404-002332
[2023] NZHC 3176
Falsely claims Ms Dunstan is a vexatious litigant whos' cases are "completely without merit"
[9] I have reviewed the cases I identified in my Minute at [7] therein in light of Ms Dunstan’s comments. I applied the meaning of “totally without merit” approved by the Court of Appeal in Mawhinney v Auckland Council: 17 However, we agree with English jurisprudence and the parties in this case that a proceeding is totally without merit if it is bound to fail.
Only "bound to fail" due to misconduct or prejudicial bias of the judiciary refusing to uphold natural justice and comply with legislation- in this case CPA 2011, s26(1)(a)
*The first 2 cases relied on by Brewer J include cases on the identical point of Law he has ruled in her favour in this decision of 15 May 2024.
THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN BREACH OF THE PUBLICS' RIGHTS TO SEEK AND RECEIVE INFORMATION (s14 NZBORA 1990)?
Contact your local court in New Zealand to request the case law relevant to you!
**The following are exclusive case law as they are deliberately concealed from the public.?**
?[2020] FAM2018092000058 TPO dismissed (approved without notice 8 days after an IPO was made and unheard for 2 years and 3 months on recommendation of LFC C. Riddell) , shared parenting 24/08/2020 judge Adams- with an apology of the judge: [para 65]
"It is apparent what has happened to Ms D has been unfair and unfairly prolonged..." ".... and for that, I am sorry." - Judge Adams 24 August 2020
[2022] NZCA477- 12 Oct 2022 (17.5 case win)
[2023] NZCA15 14 Feb 2023
[2022] NZHC 3308 ?justice Lang 12 ?December 2022
[2023] NZHC 2742 ?Justice Anderson 29 September 2023
CIV-2024-404-300 Justice Brewer 15 May 2024
CIV 2024-404-13, Justice Grau 7 March 2024
2 x false arrests by NZ Police (on the instructions of Emma Gibbs and Christina Riddell- 2 x solicitors, the latter LFC at the time- no longer involved in the family court proceedings.)
CRI 2018 043 00 2111 DISMISSED WITHOUT CONVICTION- JUDGE JOHNS 3 MAY 2019
CRI 2019 092 00 6687 DISMISSED JUDGE FIELDING 14 JAN 2020
Why isn’t the media reporting on this? If the self litigant was a New Zealand national man, would these cases be published and publicised by MSM? (Such as Daniel Bonds cases?)
领英推荐
In response to concerns regarding this concealment of case law the ministry of justice responded:
Kia ora,
Judicial Decisions Online only publishes decisions that we receive from the court for publishing. There are some limitations to what is published on Judicial Decisions Online. The following decisions are NOT published:
To help us answer your question could you please provide us with any further information such as file numbers or MNC numbers for the 24 decisions you have referenced?
[2023] NZCA 15 is unable to be published as it has not been provided in a form that complies with publication restrictions.
In reference to the minute of Justice Grau dated 07/03/2024, minutes from Judges are not published on JDO. We have attached previous correspondence relating to this.
Ngā mihi
Ministry of Justice | Tahu o te Ture
SX10088 | Thorndon | Wellington | New Zealand
P: 04 918 8800 | F: 04 918 8820
*********This was responded to accordingly:**********
The cases I have won to date:
[2022]NZCA477- 12 Oct 2022
[2023]NZCA15 14 Feb 2023
[2022] NZHC 3308? justice Lang 12? December 2022
[2023] NZHC 2742 ?justice Anderson 29 September 2023
CIV-2024-404-300 Justice Brewer 15 May 2024
JUSTICE GRAU 7 MARCH 2024-
CRI 2018 043 00 2111 DISMISSED WITHOUT CONVICTION- JUDGE JOHNS 3 MAY 2019
CRI 2019 092 00 6687 DISMISSED JUDGE FIELDING 14 JAN 2020
PREVIOUSLY I WAS ADVISED INTERIM DECISIONS WOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED (SUCH AS JUSTICE GRAUS IN MY FAVOUR)
HOWEVER I SEE MULTIPLE INTERIM DECISION OF CHURCHMAN J HAVE BEEN UPLOADED AGAINST ME WITHOUT ANY SIMILAR CONCERNS:
[2024] NZHC 1694
[2024] NZHC 1586
[2024] NZHC 1606
How are these not "Administrative minutes" ? It seems as though when decisions are against me- they are published and when minutes are in my favour- they are concealed from the public.
Please advise:
1. How many of my decisions are publicly available?
2. How many of those decisions are granted in my favour?
3. How the decisions listed of my successful cases need to be "presented" in order to be published?
4. Who is responsible for the concealment of ALL of my successful cases?
Regards,
CURRENT PETITIONS TO TRY AND REGULATE THE UNREGULATED INCLUDE: