Anticorruptionnz's Blog

29/11/2010

Do New Zealanders have a right to Justice?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:20 pm

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 5:02 p.m.
To: ‘Human Rights Commission Infoline’
Subject: Right to justice

Good afternoon

This morning I phoned the Human rights commission to see  some assistance to the  lack of observance of my rights to   Justice.

The web site states
Right to justice

If your rights may be affected by a decision of a tribunal or public authority you have the right to

  • a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker
  • apply for judicial review of that decision.

You have the right to bring civil proceedings against, and defend civil proceedings brought by the Crown in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals

I am now somewhat confused  as in  speaking  with Neil I was told that the right  to justice means that   I have  access to a lawyer.  This  somehow falls short of the standard set in the bill of rights.

A brief summary  is that   4 ½  years ago I raised questions  of public concern  to activities which the United Nations  describes as a corrupt practice.

To conceal the  practice and to silence  me  legal action was taken .

Part of that legal action was a defamation claim   all other claims were  withdrawn

The court burdened me with  some $19,000  cost  before any evidence was   heard    and as I had no independent access to funds ( I was a married woman with no independent cash reserves )  my defence was struck out

In the same directive the judge ordered the  Plaintiffs to file a new statement of claim which never occurred. ( as attached Unless order )

After some time of inactivity the plaintiffs  asked for the  mater to be determined on Quantum   on the original statement of claim.. there by ignoring the courts order.

Both parties were asked to  submit an affidavit   and I  submitted an affidavit  in accordance with section  30 of the defamation act

30 Misconduct of plaintiff in mitigation of damages

  • In any proceedings for defamation, the defendant may prove, in mitigation of damages, specific instances of misconduct by the plaintiff in order to establish that the plaintiff is a person whose reputation is generally bad in the aspect to which the proceedings relate.

At the  hearing  for quantum  before judge  Joyce,  a hearing for which the scope had not  been determined and  which  all parties believed to  be a hearing for quantum only  my affidavit  in mitigation of damages was used against me as evidence of continued defamation.

During the  hearing , the judge  briefly touched on formal proof    which was covered off my the plaintiff swearing to the best  of his knowledge that the Statement of claim was true  .No further comment was made to the substantive  issue and no determination was ever made that the statements in the statement of claim were defamatory  that is not the truth.

While the statement of claim was  determined , without comment,  to be true , my affidavit  ( a statement of truth )  was used  to prove continued  defamation .How can you  submit an affidavit showing the plaintiff  is of bad character by saying nice things?  Everything I said was backed up by evidence,

Every affidavit I have submitted to the court has been backed up with documentary evidence which the court has repeatedly dismissed and because of the bulk of this evidence ,now criticises me for.

While  I was  arbitrarily  found guilty of  defamation  I had the right  to submit  an affidavit   in mitigation of damages.

The court also has an interest  in not allowing itself to be used   for a corrupt purpose  and not once did the court consider the consequences is what I was saying was the truth, it was more important to find me guilty than to  question this corrupt use of public facilities and funds.

In  essence the court  is  being complicit in the   exercise of concealing corruption  which is against its fundamental role of acting in the public interest .

Truth is never defamatory.      IF  my  affidavit ,  a sworn statement , was defamatory then the statements mad in it  must be    lies  and  I should have been charged with  perjury .

The fact that this evidence was accepted as truth   and used against me  brings up the question of entrapment  brought  about through  legislation.

I have   appealed and asked for a judicial review, which was opposed  but no reasons given and  I found myself in a position where we had to give a reason for the  judicial review .

My lawyer  filed papers which  I had not seen and  also  which did not comply with my instructions to him.

I have now spent 4 ½ years   $200,000   and have lost my marriage and have seen my family broken up.  All in the quest  for justice. Justice should  not be this difficult to  obtain and   had I had the right to a fair trial    it would have been over a long  time ago. The plaintiff has been fighting me with  appears tobe a bottomess pit of charitable funds  which he has misappropriated to  secure silence and a  pay out for himself..  again this is true and I can show this through publicly available documents    but we don’t care about  corruption we condone it.

Had I been a  fraudster I would have served my time and  my costs would have been less, the chances are I would still have some   in the pocket profit from my criminal behaviour.  But I am  in essences a whistleblower who has no right to protection  and everyone including the court seems to stand by and condone the corrupt practices which I questioned.

All I ever wanted  was for  a hearing on the issues.. being that of the statement of claim  and  to be treated equally to the opposing party  who  were able to get away with  ignoring the direction of  Judge sharp  while it  was enforced against me.

I am disappointed that I was fobbed off  by the human rights commission this morning, there are many who will be  amazed by my story as it is the expectation that in New Zealand you can have  a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker .

My application to the  court for judicial review has been  turned down as the judge  relied  upon  case law to assume that  facts pleaded in the statement of claim are true.

The  case law  which is relied upon   was Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267 which is inconsistent with the  New Zealand bill of rights  27 (1) and cannot be appropriately used in a case of defamation  where the onus of proof to prove truth . Guilty until proven innocent  so how can you  be found innocent when you have no defence..  Yet the court  not once  determined that   what I said was true  and  when it accidently  brought out the fact that  what I had said was true the court resorted to making excused  for mr Wells  by saying that he got a head of himself.

It is therefore essential that a judicial review should be considered to see if this case law is applicable to   defamation. And consider the following

1.       That plaintiffs can succeed  without production of any evidence

2.        The strategic manoeuvrings which saw my defence struck out is equivalent to justice.

3.       That  one party can be held accountable to an order from the court   while the other parties failure to comply is   ignored.( filing a new statement of claim  and proceeding on the old one.)

4.       Allowing a party   to claim defamation without  showing  why the statement was untrue

5.       The maliciousness finding  was made without any prior notice to the court as required by legislation .

6.       That an affidavit in mitigation of damages  can  be used as evidence against the  party producing it.

7.       The obligations the court has to  the public in  ensuring that the court is not used to conceal corruption .. Ok   I know  no one cares about this. We are the least corrupt and  long may the pretence last.

The   human rights  which we  believe  we have , ie the right to justice   needs to be upheld and enforced .  I therefore request that you  assist in bringing the right to justice for me and  all others like me  to the attention of  the judiciary  and to the public bodies  who continually slam the doors in the face of all those who have been the victims of corrupt practices.

Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: