WHY CAN SELF LITIGANTS NOT PLAY AT THE HIGH ROLLERS TABLES IN COURT WHEN THEY WIN?
In response to Justice Brewers decision [2024] NZHC 1706 issued 26 June 2024, failing to award costs to a self litigant in breach of s19 NZBORA 1990:
[4] In a minute dated 16 February 2024, van Bohemen J said it was apparent that the process under s 26(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) was not followed. Accordingly, Ms Dunstan had potentially been deprived of the opportunity to put her best evidence forward.
[5] I found that the Judge made an error of law by not complying with s 26 of the CPA and quashed the District Court decision.
[6] In my judgment, I concluded:
Ms Dunstan is entitled to be paid her reasonable disbursements, including costs she has reasonably incurred. Any memorandum from Ms Dunstan addressing this matter must be filed and served no later than 21 working days from the date of this judgment. The first respondent may, as necessary, file a response within a further 21 working days
[15] I accept the Crown’s submissions on the law. In the passage of my judgment quoted at [6], I gave effect to my view that Ms Dunstan, as a self-represented litigant who, for the second time, has had to appeal the same error in the District Court, should be entitled to reclaim the money she reasonably paid out doing so.
[16] I did not intend my decision to show “strong disapproval” of a judicial officer, let alone of the District Court. I thought it to be a matter of fairness in the circumstances of this case. I still do.
[17] The circumstances of this case are not dissimilar from Ms Dunstan’s previous experience in which s 26 of the CPA was not followed. She had to go to the Court of Appeal to have her right finally upheld. The Court of Appeal observed it is a “fundamental procedural error” not to make the directions required in s 26(1) before declining to accept documents.
[18] I decline to reverse my decision. I find this is an appropriate case to find a judicial institution liable for disbursements.
[19] Nevertheless, the Crown correctly points out (summarised at [14]) that most of the money sought by Ms Dunstan is not recoverable. I make specific reference to the $11,950 sought by Ms Dunstan for time spent preparing the application. This sum is not recoverable because Ms Dunstan is a self-represented litigant.
The appellant is filing this leave application for my “right” to justice under s27 NZBORA 1990 to be upheld.
The grounds of the appeal are:
a)????? It was an error of law to refuse to issue a declaration for an ongoing issue Justice Brewer acknowledged was ongoing and causing significant delays to me as a result of District Court Judges deliberately disregarding the CPA 2011 [REPEATEDLY.]
b)???? It was an error of law and a breach of natural justice to award costs in the appellants favour BUT then refuse to make a direction for costs alleging these were not recoverable as a self litigant" IGNORING the precedent provided from Court Of Appeal of a self litigant being awarded BAND A costs as the successful party.
c)????? It was an err of law to ignore the misconduct of the crown solicitors attempting to coerce a judge to make OBVIOUS errors of law to recall the decision after already sealed.
d)???? It was a breach of s19 NZBORA 1990 to not notify the Attorney General under s7 for parliament to be aware the “orthodox approach” of judges systemically discriminating against self litigants breaches s19 NZBORA 1990
e)???? It was in breach of the judicial code and natural law for Justice Brewer to ignore several other matters the appellant has been unjustly mistreated by other judges refusing to make any direction to address these miscarriages of justice or fairly compensate the appellant for ongoing breaches of human rights and unjust dealings of judges from the district court, high court and court of appeal. These matters should have justly been notified to the head judges and Attorney General for redress and efforts to resolve this to cease the compounding gravity of offending.
?
The compounding gravity of these judgements by Brewer J have the impact of:
a) Breaching the appellants human rights in several areas including: s9, s14, s19, s24, s25 and s27 NZBORA 1990
b) Eroding the publics' confidence in the judiciary with unregulated judges and solicitors.
c) Grounds of perceived conflict of interest by the courts and discrimination between solicitors and the rest of the public.
d) obstructing the appellants rights to justice in other proceedings such as CA62/2023 due to un affordable security costs imposed.
e) Inconsistent practice of solicitors not being regulated for obstruction of justice.
f) Inconsistent practice with Justice Grau : CIV 2024-443-13 on 7 March 2024notifying the head dc judge of judicial misconduct, but Justice Brewer failing to refer the matter to the AG, JCC or head judge of any court for further regulation and redress.
The appellant is filing this application in good faith for the Court of Appeal to address this matter urgently to prevent a further miscarriage of justice for an upcoming hearing set down in Wellington High Court on 19 July 2024 and obstruction of justice in other pending matters before the Court Of Appeal including CA62/2023 requiring large payments as “security costs.”
?The affidavit in support of the appeal application sworn 27 June 2024 contains:
a)????? costs decision of Brewer J dated 26 June 2024
b)???? Original decision in the appellants favour dated 15 May 2024
c)????? Sealed Orders dated 15 May 2024
领英推荐
d)???? Original Response to the costs decision outlining significant miscarriages of justice dated 17 May 2024
e)???? Memorandum from the crown outside a 20 day time frame for any appeal- filed 6 June 2024
f)?????? Response to Crown lawyers submissions by appellant dated 6 June 2024 seeking further directions to regulate the misconduct of 2 x crown solicitors.
Concerns exist regarding Justice Brewer ignoring the precedent for declarations of breach of natural justice
[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”- Justice Campbell
Another declaration for the same self represented, legally qualified litigant states:
?CIV 2016-404-2150 [2020] NZHC 2506 ?Deliu v New Zealand Police ??- Duffy J
[297] I make the following declaratory order:
The detention of Dr Frank C. Deliu at Level 7, 175 Queen Street, Auckland CBD, New Zealand on 31 August 2016 for a period of: 20 – 35 minutes was arbitrary and a breach of his human rights under s 22 of the NZBORA.
Further, the identical point of law of this matter of my rights to justice in private prosecution and fair costs and disbursements- UP TO THE DISCRETION OF ANY JUDGE- pertains to : CIV 2024-443-13 which was noted by Justice Grau as a matter of public importance in her minute granting leave on 7 March 2024 identifying mass district court judges misconduct to raise this with the chief district court judge for regulation.
[16] Finally, I would emphasise again that, although Judge Hikaka may well have been correct that Ms Dunstan is continuing to file proceedings in various Courts which amounts to an abuse of process, the process set out in s 26(1) of the CPA must be followed before such conclusion may be arrived at and charging documents are then rejected under s 26(3). This is now the third time since 2022 that Ms Dunstan’s charging documents appear to have been refused for filing without the procedure in s 26(1) being observed. On this basis, I also direct that a copy of this minute be relayed to the Chief District Court Judge.
It would be contemptuous for any other judge to dispute the “public importance” of any judicial officer being seen to openly disregard court rules or legislation or not remain consistent with the direction of declarations and costs which SHOULD comply with NZBORA 1990 not to discriminate against ANY litigant for any reason, least of all their education or occupation.
?It is unjust for any judge to ignore breach of natural justice and human rights and I reserve my right to be heard on the legal merit of the appeal and my right for fair costs AND disbursements deemed “just” in accordance with other litigants who have been awarded standard Band payments- as per: the precedent decision relied on:
?CA556/2016 [2017] NZCA 50 ?N v S Hearing: 27 February 2017 Court Of Appeal: Kós P, Wild and Brown JJ
[25] The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application for leave to appeal on a band A basis except for step 5 (because the respondent was self-represented at the hearing) and usual disbursements.
referring now to 13 JUNE 2024 Speech to the Law Association:
by the Attorney General @JudithCollins the ONLY person in New Zealand empowered to fire or in any way "regulate" or "redress" a judge in New Zealand:
"Comity between Executive and judiciary
I want to reflect on some of the other ways in which comity governs the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary. One of the most significant is the principle that the branches should not criticise one another publicly. For example, the courts should not comment adversely on the good faith or wisdom of the Executive’s policies. And the Executive should not comment adversely on the good faith or wisdom of individual decisions made by judges.?
That said, from time-to-time judgments can expose issues with our laws — that they are not functioning as Parliament intended, or are out of step with community expectations. It is legitimate for Ministers to express public views on the adequacy and efficacy of our laws. They are elected representatives of their communities. And as members of the Government, they have a unique ability to do something about them.
The Cabinet Manual guides Ministers on how to calibrate any public expressions of views about the work of the judicial branch, in a manner consistent with comity. It outlines the need to exercise judgement before commenting on individual decisions,? especially matters still before the courts. It also says Ministers should not express public views that could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the impartiality, personal views, or ability of a judge.
As Attorney-General, I have particular responsibilities for the administration of criminal law. But to avoid the reality or perception of political influence, my predecessors and I have continued the practice of leaving day-to-day administration of the criminal justice system to the apolitical Solicitor-General.
In particular, neither I nor my Ministerial colleagues involve ourselves in the investigation of offences, decisions as to whether particular people should be prosecuted, or whether a particular sentence should be appealed. Observing these principles is a further example of comity in practice."- Judith Collins
Clearly this "comity" is misplaced- somewhat of a tragic comedy- when judges are NOT making declarations nor notifying the AG of their ongoing misconduct and systemic breaching of human rights dismissed under the carpet as "orthodox" [NOT TO BE CONFUSED AS LAWFUL NOR LEGISLATIVELY COMPLIANT] and therein lies the "problem"- the system is not "broken" but designed to fail with no external TRULY impartial regulators- because while everyone at the high rollers table is getting a piece of the pie- there can be no justice from those outside these "tight" circles.
And so the appellants "rights" to justice are stayed indefinitely pending "leave of a High Court judge"- 73 leave applications were filed on 17 November 2023 across New Zealand- most ignored, to date only 2 matters "granted leave" everything else refused in breach of the law simply to "dispose of proceedings" COA now tasked to justify this mass human rights violation to prevent a "floodgate" of over 80 matters all un lawfully denied justice.
CA667/2023- with the chief presiding judge "Justice Courtney" facing criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice: CRI-2024-085-001124.
That Judge Rae of Wellington DC is trying to bury and somehow. . . for reasons unknown, was also able to "seize" private prosecution of the same applicant, from NORTHSHORE Court- without any recusal of Judge Fitzgibbon. . . CRI-2024-044-001732. Dunstan v 6 police officers and two solicitors at North Shore District Court.
[5] Pursuant to s 82(1)(b) the formal statement must contain or be accompanied by a declaration that the statement is true and that the particular witness made it with the knowledge that it may be used in Court proceedings. As far as I can see such a statement is not included in the witness statement provided by the Informant. Without it the formal statement does not comply with s 82. The matter is easily remedied by the Informant emailing the Court the required declaration and requesting that it be regarded as accompanying the witness statement she provided on 12 May 2024. Whether she is prepared to comply with s82 in that way is entirely a matter for her. In determining whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be accepted for filing the factual allegations must be contained in a formal statement as defined
WHAT HOPE CAN THE PUBLIC HAVE FOR ANY IMPARTIAL JUDICIAL OFFICERS WHEN THIS IS THE CONDUCT OF UNREGULATED JUDGES?
Victim of Family Courts and obstruction to Justice, Truth and Human Rights
8 个月Its a very mixed, roller coaster of emotions going through any court process. Ms Dunstan i take my hat off to you for standing strong, not giving up on your right to truth and justice. I will be following shortly continung my personal marathon too!