When Did The Cost Of Legislative Compliance Become Too High For The Judges Of New Zealand?
How is this "democratic" when Courts of New Zealand unilaterally decide what "daily rate" is "reasonable" for self litigants without ANY public imput?
"At its meeting of 28 November 2022, the Rules Committee agreed that $500 per day was an appropriate recovery rate for self-represented litigants and that the rules should allow this notwithstanding r 14.2(1)(f). The Committee agreed that the definition of self-represented litigants should not include those appearing in the context of a solicitor-client relationship, including Crown Law, but would include lawyers representing their own personal interests. Amendments to the High Court Rules 2016 began to be drafted."
Not withstanding the fact, even if a self litigant is successful in court proceedings, as demonstarted by Justice McHerrons judgement CIV-2024-443-013 Dunstan v New Plymouth District Court , the judges can still over rule any costs and conceal the facts of the case to deliberately deny justice and further delay rights to fair hearings and compensation for time: [2024] NZHC 2837 costs 1st October 2024:
FOR REASONS UNKNOWN THIS JUDGEMENT REMAINS NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, ALONG WITH TANYA DUNSTAN FROM PONSONBY CHAMBERS 28 OTHER WINS AS A SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT- instead the courts appear to be waging some defamation campaign to pick and choose what is shared, and how "extreme" their distortion of facts to discredit and defame her work and the legal merit of her cases.
Introduction [1] On 27 August 2024, I issued a judgment quashing a decision of a District Court Judge to decline to accept charges for filing in a private prosecution and remitting 21 charging documents back to the District Court at New Plymouth for another Judge to apply s 26(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 in relation to Ms Dunstan’s proposed private prosecution.
[2] Using the language of the Court of Appeal in D v Auckland District Court, I did so on the basis it is a “fundamental procedural error” not to make the directions required by s 26(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act before declining to accept documents for filing.
[3] In my judgment, I expressed the preliminary view that Ms Dunstan was entitled to be paid her reasonable disbursements. My preliminary view was guided by Dunstan v North Shore District Court, in which Brewer J awarded disbursements to Ms Dunstan in respect of a similar application for judicial review. I invited the parties to file submissions on costs and/or disbursements which I would determine on the papers.
[4] However, after further consideration, I have decided not to award Ms Dunstan any disbursements (or costs) in this matter. I explain my reasons below. Ms Dunstan’s submissions
[5] Ms Dunstan points to “the courts (sic) capacity to direct any costs and disbursements”, the right to not be discriminated against as a recipient of a benefit, and the general principle that costs follow the event. She also refers to the High Court Amendment Rules 2024, which provide for a party who is acting in person to claim costs at the appropriate daily recovery rate of $500 for all categories of proceedings.
[6] Ms Dunstan seeks costs of $33,460, along with special damages at the discretion of the Court. Ms Dunstan also seeks disbursements of $1,316, for: (a) Printing and ink: $88; (b) Flights: $750; (c) Accommodation: $200; (d) Meals in Wellington: $150
(e) Transport around Wellington: $80; and (f) Sealing of Brewer J’s order of 15 May 2024: $50.
Respondents’submissions Second respondent — Attorney-General [7] The Attorney-General submits that the threshold for an award of costs against the first respondent is not met on the facts of this case. Costs will only be awarded against judicial officers “in the rarest of circumstances” where a Judge has acted “perversely, oppressively or in bad faith”. With respect to disbursements, the Attorney-General submits such an award would be inconsistent with the general principles underlying the award of costs. An award of disbursements (or costs) against the second respondent would not be an outcome best meeting the interests of justice.
First respondent — New Plymouth District Court [8] The District Court repeats the submissions of the second respondent, suggesting the threshold described in Coroner’s Court v Newton was not reached. Analysis
[9] Costs and disbursements are at the discretion of the Court.
Appeal from Dunstan v North Shore District Court [10] As recorded in my substantive judgment: … at the hearing, Mr Gunn indicated that the Crown has filed a cross-appeal in relation to [Dunstan v North Shore District Court] and wished to have an opportunity to address me before I made any award of costs or disbursements. Ms Dunstan indicated that the underlying appeal in respect of which the crossappeal had been brought had itself been withdrawn. The parties were unable to take the matter further in terms of the implications of the Crown’s crossappeal.
[11] The parties’ costs memoranda provided did not clarify this point. However, the Court of Appeal Registry has advised both Ms Dunstan’s appeal and the cross-appeal are “still active”. As I have decided to depart from my preliminary view, this is a neutral factor.
Costs of a litigant in person [12] This proceeding was heard in July 2024. New rules providing for costs for litigants in person came into force on 1 September 2024. All of the relevant steps in this proceeding occurred prior to the commencement of these new rules. Therefore, Ms Dunstan is not entitled to recover any costs in respect of this proceeding.
Procedural history of this matter [13] As stated previously, this is now (at least) the third time Ms Dunstan has sought judicial review in respect of the same error by different District Court Judges concerning the application of s 26(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[14] At the first telephone conference for this matter, I offered Crown Counsel the opportunity to seek further instructions in relation to the respondents’ substantive response to Ms Dunstan’s application for review. Specifically, I asked whether it might be possible to simply remit the matter back to the District Court without the need for a hearing. As captured in my minute of 23 April 2024, this could have resolved the matter without the need for a hearing. [15] On 13 May 2024, Crown Counsel filed a memorandum on behalf of the second respondent consenting to remitting the decision back to the District Court for further determination. However, remitting the matter back to the District Court was not acceptable to Ms Dunstan. As recorded in La Hood J’s minute of 21 May 2024: …Ms Dunstan makes it clear that she does not consent to orders in the terms sought by the second respondent. She seeks a declaration that the District Court Judge breached natural justice by failing to follow the procedure in s 26(1)(b). She seeks other declarations to the effect that there has been “an obvious and extensive miscarriage of justice across all levels of the New Zealand judicial system against plaintiff, Ms Dunstan, and obstructing these proceedings since 2020 …”. She seeks a hearing of the substantive application for judicial review.
[16] Accordingly, it was Ms Dunstan’s opposition to the disposition proposed by the Court and consented to by the second respondent, that resulted in an in-person hearing being required.
[17] In my judgment of 27 August 2024, I made orders that were effectively the same as those the second respondent had consented to. Ms Dunstan had taken the opportunity to seek additional relief at the hearing. But measured against what the Court ultimately ordered in the proceeding, a hearing was entirely unnecessary. The Court’s and the parties’ resources could have been saved by simply making an order by consent as I had originally proposed at the telephone conference on 22 April 2024. Doing so would also have had the benefit of resolving the matter more quickly, in Ms Dunstan’s interests.
领英推荐
[18] Disbursements may only be awarded to the extent they are “reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding”. I find that none of Ms Dunstan’s claimed disbursements were necessary for the conduct of the proceeding, because the hearing itself was not necessary.
[sections 19- 26 pertain to Justice McHerron challenging the receipts recieved despite acknowledging payments made, blanket refusing to direct ANY repayment]
Conclusion [27] Ms Dunstan’s application for costs and disbursements is dismissed.
WHAT IS ASTOUNDING IS THAT FOR 4 YEARS OVER 13 JUDGES HAVE OBSTRUCTED THESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO CHILD ABDUCTION AGAINST COURT ORDERS ON 5-9/11/2020 WHICH THE REGISTRY ACCEPTED TWICE FOR FILING - MEANING OVER 13 JUDGES OVER 4 YEARS HAVE BREACHED THE BINDING LEGISLATION OF S26(1)(A) AND THE BINDING PRECEDENT DECISION OF JUSTICE DUNNINGHAM IN
[2020] NZHC 2956 GREENDRAKE V DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AND MCCONNOCHIE
Even now, after preventing a declaration of an obvious error of law, denying the FACT documents confirm charges of child abduction had been accepted by the registry in 2021 and 2023 for private prosecution. . . still no criminal hearing has been set down. Justice McHerron abused his position to aid and abet the offending, remitting the matter to Judge Rae, who since recused himself and now Judge Davidson appears also unable to simply comply with legislation and direct the private prosecution (likely due to the fact the offenders are a lawyer for child, police officer, social worker among 6 offenders- none of whom have sought name suppression.) LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THE JOB OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE OFFICERS- THEY ARE LITERALLY PAID TO PROSECUTE OFFENDERS. . . SO WHY DONT THEY?
In this case, a self litigants was facing 4 crown solicitors in a case that should have been determined in chambers on an identical point of law to Justice Brewers Binding Precedent of 15/05/2024- in that case, the self represented plaintiff was only paid $88 due to crown lawyers misleading Justice Brewer he could legally overrule his decision of "costs and disbursements" which was issued on 26 June 2024: AFTER THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS SEALED. (making this variation extra judicial and therfore unlawful.) The appeal at Court Of Appeal CA430/2024 obstructed by unaffordable costs - never to be corrected due to judicial obstruction of justice "by function of the court" and miscarriage of justice by Crown Lawyers generously rewarded to obstruct justice.
Courts of New Zealand THIS dictatorship like behaviour is exactly why people are raising concerns regarding judges over stepping their role as public servants paid to do a service to uphold NOT MAKE the law.
We suspect the sequel will include: "Goals V reality: who makes the law "lawfully" as it is clear Judges refuse to consult the Attorney General Judith Collins in accordance with s7 and s7A of NZBORA for inconsistencies being raised to parliament for legally sound legislation to be made, with judges "preferring" to simply take matters into their own hands. (extra judicially = unlawfully)
It is discriminatory to devalue someones time in proceedings simply because of their employment status/ occupation. If the courts intend to cap a daily recovery rate due to self litigants having to represent themselves, that same amount should be capped for crown solicitors - especially in light of recent OIA releases confirming the government spent $3.5 million dollars on legal fees to obstruct justice (does this amount to proceeds of crime to be siezed from @crownlaw and returned to the victims of abuse they have further harmed with these delays and psychological abuse?
COMPOUNDED BY ELICITING A FURTHER $2.67 million IN LEGAL FEES FOR THE VICTIMS!
"Crown to pay Lake Alice survivors back $2.67m for legal fees"
New Zealand Parliament This is inexcusable and unignorable. ACT!
Carmel Sepuloni MP please follow up the public regulation of the judiciary you presented on 12 June 2024.
Members of the public, keep a finger on the pulse regarding what is actually happening with the judiciary disregarding legislation and rights to safety, justice and freedom and demand your rights to seek and receive information
CNN if you can publish stories about hug times at Dunedin airports- surely you can run a story on something that actually matters to the poeple of New Zealand (and anyone visiting)
#ponsonbychambers #standup #speakout #justice #huamnrights #equality
Bird Lady Main Administrator of 'The Hearty Hardy Outlaw Party'
2 周Because the government is evil greedy and they kill. Yep I'm definitely a smartie pants. Definitely not crazy and need those people. We have no human rights we had no right to life the police are psychopaths and the government..sold. and the media just as greedy..evil. pray and try to let the good people know the day government FBI et cetera have let us we have nothing? They sold us to the rest of the world now spread the word to them because we are the terrorists it's hard to reach and make sure you're not targeted use text voice and sneakily get to those good people in other countries to make them protest their own government for the sadistic most worst crime in history a breach of human rights and FBI climbs and torture. Propaganda and no right to information. Screwed my people.