HRRT A Government Mechanism To Obstruct Justice In Breach Of Human Rights In New Zealand.
IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL HRRT 032/2023
I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA
UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993
BETWEEN TANYA DUNSTAN and Chief Executive Of Oranga Tamariki & ANOR
TRIBUNAL: Ms J Foster, Deputy Chairperson
REPRESENTATION:
Ms T Dunstan in person
Mr SM Kinsler and Ms HT Reid for defendants
DATE OF MINUTE: 20 August 2024
[1] By Minute dated 20 June 2024, timetabling directions were made in respect of the application made by the defendants to strike out Ms Dunstan’s amended statement of claim.
[2] The defendants’ submissions in support of their application to strike out the claim were filed on 19 July 2024. The defendants chose not to file any affidavit evidence in support of the application, as is their right.
[3] Ms Dunstan was required to file her submissions and any affidavit evidence in opposition to the application to strike out the claim by 16 August 2024. Ms Dunstan has not yet filed any such submissions.
[4] On 14 August 2024 Ms Dunstan filed submissions seeking a ruling in her favour because she says her amended claim is uncontested. Ms Dunstan submits that it is uncontested because the defendants have not filed a statement of reply to her amended statement of claim in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 (HRRT Regulations).
[5] The Tribunal will not be making a ruling as sought by Ms Dunstan as her amended claim is contested by the defendants – they have applied to strike out the amended claim. Regulation 15 of the HRRT Regulations does not apply to the amended claim as it has already been complied with when the defendants filed their statement of reply to Ms Dunstan’s original statement of claim.
[6] As Ms Dunstan has not yet filed her submissions and any affidavit evidence in opposition to the application to strike out the claim, she will be given further time to do so. Directions
[7] The following directions are made:
[7.1] Ms Dunstan is to file and serve her submissions and any affidavit evidence in opposition to the application to strike out this claim by Friday 30 August 2024.
[7.2] Leave is reserved for the parties to make further application should the need arise.
“Ms J Foster”
.................................................
Ms J Foster
Deputy Chairperson
Human Rights Review Tribunal
******************************************************************************************
Note what was ACTUALLY FILED ON 14 AUGUST 2024 IN OPPOSITION OF A STRIKE OUT APPLICATION STATED:
May it please the court,
1. I, Tanya Dunstan am a self-represented litigant and victim of discrimination and long standing abuse by the defendants Oranga Tamariki since 2018 to date, concealing child abuse of my two Australian children, the second and third applicants who had HUMAN RIGHTS as BIRTH RIGHTS, not something stripped of them until age 16 as per NZ legislation.
2. I have complied with HRRT requests to file an amended statement of claim which I did on 4 APRIL 2024.
3.To date NO OPPOSITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS OUTSIDE THE 21 DAY TIME FRAME RENDERING THIS CLAIM UNOPPOSED UNDER Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002, s15 (1)(a)
15 Filing and service of statement of reply
(1) A defendant who intends to defend the proceedings—
(a) must, within 22 working days after the day on which the notice of proceeding is served on the defendant, file with the Ministry of Justice a statement of reply to the plaintiff’s claim;
(b) must serve a copy of the statement of reply on the plaintiff and any other party.
4. The Human Rights Commission was unable to resolve the matters with the defendants opposing any mediation as per s14 form 207806/032/23 Dunstan v Oranga Tamariki confirming: “The respondent did not participate in mediation.”
5. Grounds of discrimination clearly state:
21(1)(g) ethnic or national origins (being a foreigner in New Zealand)
21(1)(h) disability suffering PTSD due to family violence, DV and court abuse
21(1)(l) family status
21(1)(b) marital status
6.The Chair person, HH Foster issued a minute dated 20 June 2023 addressing the amended statement of claim, attempting to limit the plaintiffs RIGHT to amend the claim, taking issue with the parties in para [1], of which no legislation was provided to justly this breach of rights under s27 NZBORA 1990. And directing strike out submissions to be filed by the respondents bt 19 July 2024, Para [7.1]
7. The direction confirmed that the Human Rights Commissioner failing their due diligence to complete the process of attempted mediation, was not grounds to inhibit the HRRTS jurisdiction to preside over this matter.
8. Conversely, the privacy Commissioner has also failed any remedy not even assigning an investigator to the OBVIOUS privacy breaches and defamatory reporting on the blaze incompetent basis “the police have said they have provided the information to you, so there’s nothing for us to investigate.”
9. Most recently Privacy Commissioner Solicitor and officer “Rikkie Jameison-Smyth” has refused to investigate any complaints of privacy breaches against Oranga Tamariki citing “it’s in breach of the childrens privacy, your privacy has not been breached"- disregarding the agencies apologies for breaching privacy on multiple occasions
10. Unfortunately the conflict of interest with Rikkie Jameison-Smyth being a solicitor presents a clear conflict of interest to protect other solicitors involved in the privacy breach issues including ex police officer come solicitor “Emma Gibbs” as well as Christina Riddell,
Paul Keegan, Murray Evans [police officer/ prosecutor before a JP at the “hearing” of 29 December 2018]
11. Despite the HRRT having no issue assuming jurisdiction when the HRC failed as per HRRT 33/2023 Dunstan v NZ police &Anor note several of these complaints are easily proven to be discriminatory against me based on recent HRRT cases the privacy commissioner HAS issued certificates for on IDENTICAL points/ grounds: [5 PEOPLE LISTED]
12. At the same time of the amended claim, a second claim for privacy breaches was filed, dated 4 April 2024, labelled “Part 2” the HRRT refused to make directions for the Privacy Commissioner to complete their role to release a certificate under Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 s16
16 Conduct of proceedings: power to give directions, etc
(1) Subject to decisions of the Tribunal, the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson may give any directions and do any other things—
(a) that are necessary or desirable for the proceedings to be heard, determined, or otherwise dealt with, as fairly, efficiently, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice; and
(b) that are not inconsistent with the Act or, as the case requires, the Privacy Act 2020 or the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, or with these regulations.
(2) For example, the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson may direct that separate proceedings be heard, determined, or otherwise dealt with, together, if—
(a) they are proceedings under provisions specified in different paragraphs of subclause
(3); and
(b) they relate to the same defendant (whether or not any or all of them also relate to any other person); and
(c) the right to relief in them is alleged to arise out of the same transaction or the same series of transactions.
13. Aside from the obvious fact that the amended statement has not been responded to let alone opposed, the matter is uncontested and must, therefore be ruled in favour of the plaintiff and no opposition to challenge the claims has been filed by the respondents.
14. Note the irony in the HRC 1993 discriminating against childrens rights with LEGALLY do not come into effect until age 16, yet the privacy commissioner and other agencies leverage a childs “rights” to privacy to withhold information from their guardians falsely stating “the childs “RIGHTS” to privacy” when they appear to have no other legally recognised rights in New Zealand, BY DESIGN!
15. No direction for complaisance of Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 s15 was given.
16. On 17 May 2024 counsel for the defendants, Hannah Reid and Sean Kinsler filed what they allege to be “ Defendants’ submissions in support of application to strike out the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim." Stating (without any evidence to support these baseless and defamatory allegations:
17. The plaintiff has filed several documents to substantiate the causes of action in each claim made including the email correspondence and files sent on 30th May 2024:
18. The HRRT process appears to have been designed to conceal systemic abuse and government agency/ official offending at the expense of human rights, exhausting victims with delayed proceedings that are easily struck out without ANY evidence supporting this tactic to obstruct justice.
20 To clearly address the grounds of prohibited discrimination under s21 HRA 1993 as per the form 14 from HRC, dated 17 November 2023 clearly states:
21(1)(g) ethnic or national origins (being a foreigner in New Zealand)
21(1)(h) disability suffering PTSD due to family violence, DV and court abuse
21(1)(l) family status
21(1)(b) marital status
21. Upon reviewing other instances of Oranga Tamarikis conduct with other victims versus how I have been discriminated against, further grounds of prohibited discrimination include:
S21 HRA 1993:
h) iv) intellectual or psychological disability or impairment suffering PTSD and severe stress discorded due to long standing abuse in NZ - primarily from solicitors, police, corrections, psychologists and social workers who all regulating bodies have failed to regulate for the general publics safety
k) employment status
ki) being unemployed (and therefore vulnerable)
l) ii) having no responsibility for the care of children or other dependants; as a result of court abuse making me again more vulnerable and "less credible" in the agencies eyes.
领英推荐
22. AND s66 HRC 1993:
66 Victimisation of whistle blower or person making use of rights prohibited
(1) It is unlawful for any person (A) to treat, or threaten to treat, another person (B) less favourably than A would treat other persons in the same or substantially similar circumstances because—
(a) B (or a relative or associate of B)—
(i) intends to make, or has made, use of their rights under this Act; or
(ii) has encouraged another person to make use of their rights, or has promoted the rights of another person, under this Act; or
(i) has given information in support of, or relating to, any complaint, investigation, or proceeding under this Act; or
(iv) has declined to do an act that would contravene this Act; or
(v) has otherwise done anything under or by reference to this Act; or
(b) A believes or suspects that B (or a relative or associate of B) intends to do, or has done, anything mentioned in paragraph (a).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if B knowingly made a false allegation or otherwise acted in bad faith.
(3) The following is unlawful under this Act:
(a) a breach of section 22(1) of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of
Whistleblowers) Act 2022:
23. As no evidence has been filed by the respondents to dispute the claims and no notice of opposition has been filed in the 22 day time frame expired from service on 4 April 2024, (22 working days expiring on: 6 May 2024) over 3 months ago, I request the HRRT make a summary judgement in my favour as the matter is unopposed.
24. I rely on Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 s20 for the HRRT to notify the Attorney General of a declaration of the HRRT to make a declaration regarding systemic breaches of
s27 NZBORA 1990 as a tactic of counsel to disregard s15 simply by filing a strike out to obstruct just handling of proceedings.
20 Attorney-General to be notified in certain cases if Tribunal considering granting declaration under section 92J of Act
(1) Subclause (2) applies when the Tribunal is considering granting a declaration under section 92J of the Act (which relates to the only remedy that may be granted by the Tribunal if it finds that an enactment is in breach of Part 1A) in proceedings—
(a) to which the Attorney-General is not a party; and
(b) in which he or she is not exercising his or her right, under section 92G of the Act, to appear and be heard.
(2) When this subclause applies in accordance with subclause (1), the Secretary must cause to be served promptly on the Attorney-General a notice—
(a) referring to the opportunity to make submissions that the Tribunal must, under section 108B(1) of the Act, give the Attorney-General; and
(b) inviting him or her to advise the Tribunal whether or not he or she intends to take up that opportunity.
25. I reserve my right to respond to any further submissions and remain waiting for the HRRT summary of all documents in this court file and the date of each filing.
26. I rely on the legislation pertaining to s19(4)(a) of hearings that the HRRT is bound by, to refuse to hear the defendants due to failure to respond to the statement of claim served on 4 April 2024, some 3 months prior.
19 Hearing
(1) At the hearing, the persons who have a right to appear, or who are allowed to appear, before the Tribunal must, subject to subclause (4), each be given an opportunity to be heard.
(2) The persons who have a right to appear, or who are allowed to appear, before the Tribunal may call evidence and may cross-examine any witness.
(3) If the plaintiff or the defendant or both fail to appear before the Tribunal at the time and place fixed, the Tribunal may nevertheless, on proof of service of notice of the hearing, proceed to determine the proceedings.
(4) The Tribunal may refuse to hear the defendant if, by the time of the hearing, the defendant
(a) has not filed a statement of reply within the time required by or under regulation 15(1) or (2), or in accordance with leave of the Tribunal granted under regulation 15(3);
27. The HRRT must acknowledge these filings were originally made in August 2023, and as such, I seek a declaration that delays in excess of 12 months in HRRT have breached my rights to justice under s27 NZBORA to be dealt with in a timely manner, still without any actual substantive hearing set down, but a strike out fixture immediately prioritised to dispose of these proceedings, as per [2022] NZHC 3389 Deliu v Auckland Court and Attorney General issued 13 December 2022 Justice Campbell- para [118]
“I make a declaration that, by taking 19 months to make a decision on the request in Mr Deliu’s 19 July 2020 memorandum, the District Court breached Mr Deliu’s right to natural justice in s 27 of the BORA.”
28. There MUST be a declaration that the privacy commissioners refusal to issue certificates MUST NOT cut across natural justice and a breach human rights for access to justice.
29. There must also be a safety measure to protect the general public from solicitors and members of NZ law society who leverage their title to mislead courts and tribunals who should be:
a) Referred to police prosecution by the Chair Person and
b) Referred to the solicitor general for independent review of their misconduct as per: Vandekolk:
19 December 2023 Media statement on behalf of Solicitor-General
SOLICITOR-GENERAL COMMENCES PALMERSTON NORTH CROWN
SOLICITOR REVIEW
“Former Judge of the Court of Appeal Hon Tony Randerson CNZM KC has been instructed by the Solicitor-General Una Jagose KC to conduct an independent assessment into the facts concerning issues of non-disclosure by the Palmerston North Crown Solicitor raised in a recent High Court decision. The decision of Justice Rebecca Ellis in R v Johnson & Brattle-Hemara Haena ordered costs against the Crown Solicitor at Palmerston North, Mr Ben Vanderkolk, in respect of failures to meet certain disclosure obligations. The Crown Law Office has previously confirmed that the matter required review as part of the Solicitor-General oversight function for Crown prosecutions. Mr Vanderkolk has been cooperating with Crown Law from the outset and confirmed that a review as a result of the judgment is appropriate and expected. The Solicitor-General, Una Jagose KC, confirms: “At the end of November, I instructed the Hon Tony Randerson CNZM KC, a former Judge of the Court of Appeal, to conduct an independent assessment into the facts concerning nondisclosure issues raised by Ellis J’s judgment leading to the costs award. Mr Randerson has worked with us to agree a process and will interview any person he considers necessary. He will provide me and the Deputy Solicitor-General Criminal, Madeleine Laracy, with a confidential report as to the facts, and as to the current criminal disclosure arrangements in the Crown Solicitor’s office.”
PNCS-Review-Update-19Dec20237672321.2.pdf
30. This is a matter of significant public importance as proven with media releases:
b) https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350186801/chief-ombudsman-makes-rare-call-overhaul-oranga-tamariki
d) https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350332020/chappie-te-kani-take-medical-leave-oranga-tamariki-boss
31. If the HRRT and other regulating bodies actually addressed serious human rights and privacy violations, countless other victims ((including children) would be spared. The HRRT is not an “elective role” it carries a great responsibility to uphold human rights and MANDATORY legislation ALL agencies and officials are bound by.
*********************************************************************************************
In response to the HRRT minute appears to obstruct justice on the misleading submissions of Crown Counsel : "Hannah Reid" and "Sean Kindlser":
"The chair person appears to be electively choosing to disregard my filing and requesting further submissions with additional delays of which I am opposed.
My filing remains of which I am relying to prevent the strike out of these proceedings with the legal basis stipulated in the filing.
Please have the chair person confirm when the hearing for this matter will be set down for me to speak to the claims before the tribunal with NO OPPOSITION filed by the defendants and no evidence by way of any affidavit.
Hannah and Sean, if your misleading submissions obstruct justice you are both culpable under s116 crimes act as well a an civilly for breaching your fidelity to the court under s13."
Duty of fidelity to court
13.1
A lawyer has an absolute duty of honesty to the court and must not mislead or deceive the court.
Protection of court processes
13.2
A lawyer must not act in a way that undermines the processes of the court or the dignity of the judiciary.
13.2.1
A lawyer must treat others involved in court processes with respect.
13.2.2
A lawyer must not discuss any case or matter before the court with any judicial officer involved in the proceeding either formally or informally outside of the rules of procedure that permit matters to be raised in the absence of the other party (such as in cases of urgency or where an ex parte application is justified). In cases of doubt, the lawyers for other parties (or if a party is not represented, then the party concerned) should be informed of any matters being brought before the court.
Masks company at NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
2 个月Good point!