Human Rights Review Tribunal- Tassked to Obstruct Justice and Breach Human Rights To Keep The High Courts Clear.
Ponsonby C.
Human Rights Activist, Mental Health Advocate, Victor in waiting. Founder and chief executive officer of Ponsonby Chambers
HHRT 32/2023:
The plaintiff has complied with HRRT requests to file an amended statement of claim which was done on 4 APRIL 2024 against the NZ police and other respondents:
To date NO OPPOSITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS [ New Zealand Police and crown Counsel: Hannah Reid and Sean Kinsler] OUTSIDE THE 22 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.
The Human Rights Commission deliberately failed to even refer the matter to the defendants for any attempt of resolution. Thus the s14 Form is partially complete. Reference: 214549/033/23 Dunstan v New Zealand Police
Grounds of discrimination clearly state:
21(1)(l) family status
21(1)(f) race
The Chair person, HH Goodwin issued a minute dated 9 July 2023 addressing the amended statement of claim, attempting to limit the plaintiffs RIGHT to amend the claim, taking issue with the parties, of which no legislation was provided to justly this breach of rights under s27 NZBORA 1990.
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.
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.”
Most recently Privacy Commissioner Solicitor and officer “Rikkie Jameison-Smyth” has refused to investigate any complaints of privacy breaches against the police falsely claiming: “That is a matter for the IPCA” – Of who the IPCA have confirmed “This is a matter for the Privacy Commissioner.”
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]
Despite the HRRT having no issue assuming jurisdiction when the HRC failed
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: [2024] NZHRRT 22 decision against NZ Police"
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.
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.
In the minute of Chair person Goodwin issued 9 July 2024 the chairperson extended the proceedings awarding counsel for the respondents to file a strike out by 9 August 2024.
Para [14.1]
?No direction for complaisance of Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 s15 was given.
?On 9 August 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:
4.14 The plaintiff has made serious allegations of bad faith against various individuals in the amended claim. For example, the plaintiff alleges:
(a) First cause of action: the defendants fraudulently concealed her children’s allegations of “abuse”.
(b) Second cause of action: the defendants fraudulently backdated charging documents.
(c) Third cause of action: the defendants arbitrarily detained the plaintiff. This allegedly resulted following a hearing where Police were represented by a police prosecutor that took place without the plaintiff’s knowledge or instruction.
(d) Fourth cause of action: the defendants conspired with her legal counsel to “coerce” a false guilty plea in order to conceal that they had “unlawfully” arrested and detained the plaintiff. The plaintiff also alleges that her warrant for detention was obtained fraudulently.
(e) Fifth cause of action: the defendants arbitrarily detained the plaintiff.
(f) Sixth cause of action: the defendants concealed evidence of medical neglect.
(g) Seventh cause of action: the defendants concealed evidence of medical neglect.
(h) Eighth cause of action: the defendants concealed evidence of medical neglect.
(i) Ninth cause of action: the defendants have included a note on her file to ensure that all police officers are hostile towards her.
(j) Tenth cause of action: the defendants gave her knowingly incorrect information to “distress and defame” her.
4.15 There is no factual foundation for any of these allegations.
The plaintiff has filed 2 affidavits to substantiate the causes of action in each claim made including:
a) Affidavit of plaintiff sworn 10 June 2024 159 pages
b) Affidavit of Plaintiff sworn 8 July 2024 139 pages
?The response of the registrar for the HRRT on 12 August 2024 stated:
“On 9 August 2024 the defendants complied with that direction. ?Accordingly, the next step was for you to file and serve your ?submissions and any affidavit evidence in opposition to the application to strike out this claim, by?Friday 30 August 2024.?
In your email of?Friday, 9 August 2024 timed at 13:08?you said that you?rely on 2 attached ?affidavits as your response the strike out submissions filed?by the Police and the other named defendants.? It is noted again that those affidavits do not appear to relate to these proceedings.? As requested by you, the Tribunal will, however determine the strike out application on the basis that you wish these affidavits to comprise your opposition to the application to strike out your claim.
Kind Regards
Adam Ballett”
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.
To clearly address the grounds of prohibited discrimination under s21 HRA 1993 as per the dorm 14 from HRC clearly states:
S21
b) iv) separated from a spouse or civil union partner
f) race: (Australian/ a foreigner in NZ)
Upon reviewing other instances of Polices 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
(i)?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.
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—
领英推荐
(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
(ii)nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; 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:
??On 9 August 2024 at 11:37 the plaintiff emailed the following to counsel for the defendants:
"Good morning,
I am unable to locate any AFFIDAVIT supporting these allegations to obstruct justice.
As such, my understanding is there is no EVIDENCE on the file the tribunal can rely on to make the direction you have sought.
Please confirm who will be providing a sworn or affirmed affidavit to obstruct these proceedings? (and why you have deliberately omitted the FACTS as substantiated with several affidavits with sworn attachments proving the causes of action?)
Regards,
The registrar Adam confirmed NO AFFIDAVITS or any evidence has been filed by the respondents or their counsel in these proceedings.
Without response at 1:07pm the plaintiff filed an additional email stating:
"HRRT,
In response *to the submissions filed today by Hannah Reid and Sean Kinsler I rely on 2 x affidavits attached.
To be clear,
One sworn affidavit dated 10 June 2024 contains 159 pages including concealment of documents, coercion to change my plea and police misconduct with false charges (from a K3 to a K9 due to Emma Gibbs call to Sergeant Vickers on 21 December 2018 as documented in the NIA records released on 23 June 2021)
I also attach a more recent affidavit sworn 8 July 2024 substantiating the unlawful warrant and false arrests.
Hannah, if you and Sean can respond with a formal affidavit to actually contest these SWORN FACTS the HRRT is bound to consider- that would be for the best."
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, ?the plaintiff requests the HRRT make a summary judgement in her favour as the matter is unopposed.
The plaintiff relies 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.
The plaintiff reserves her 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.
The Plaintiff relies 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); and
?
?The HRRT must acknowledge these filings were originally made in August 2023, and as such, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that delays in excess of 12 months in HRRT have breached her 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.”
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.
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.”
https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Media-Statements/Media-Statement-PNCS-Review-Update-19Dec20237672321.2.pdf