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Part of that legal action was a defamation claim all other claims were withdrawn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.
Anticorruptionnz's Blog 