"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduciary accountability and transparency in public affairs we will continue to have human rights breached because the existing crown immunity and lack of any independent oversight invites corruption to flourish.

"Question authority, and think for yourself" - Timothy Leary

"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

"Information is the currency of democracy" - Thomas Jefferson

‎"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead

"The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself."

"I = m c 2 [squared] where "I" am information" - Timothy Leary

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen

"The internet is a TV that watches you"

Monday, April 24, 2017

At the going down of the sun and in the morning.

At marae throughout Aotearoa young men were mourned.  Some of our finest future leaders never came home from war.

Alister Te Ariki Campbell lived just up the road from us in Pukerua Bay, he wrote about war:

"The light of adventure that shone so brightly in our eyes when we set out was extinguished that day. Young men from the farms, the mines, the cities, the public schools, we died in a vast quagmire of blood and broken bodies. No one told us it would be like this."

Animals played a big part in the war.  As well as providing more practical service, they also provided emotional support and comfort.

Pte. T P Noonan, Auckland, with the mascot NZASC Bruno of the No 1 Platoon. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: PA1-q-305-0071. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22780140

Bess, one of only four horses of the 18,000 who went to WW1 who returned home after the war.

Over 18,000 New Zealand horses went to war.  Over 10,000 went to World War One alone, but just four returned home.  Bess was one of them.  The vast majority were acquired by the Ministry of Agriculture.

There's a great interview at this link about the four horses who returned, Bess, Beauty, Dolly, and the unfortunately named Nigger.  All belonged to officers, and Bess was the only horse who returned from the Middle East.  Bess led a parade of honour at the Carterton Agricultural and Pastoral Show wearing all the medals and ribbons of her much decorated partner, Colonel Guy Powles.

Add caption

Bess on the banks of the Jordan river in 1918

Moses, an Egyptian donkey, mascot of the NZ Service Company in France, 0n 20 April 1918

The Great War 1914-1918 - For the Fallen
Poem by Robert Laurence Binyon (1869-1943), published in The Times newspaper on 21st September 1914.

With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill: Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres.
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain,
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

An image of Christ on a war grave in Fricourt, 1916  Odette Carrez/Reuters

“If we really saw war, what war does to young minds and bodies, it would be impossible to embrace the myth of war. If we had to stand over the mangled corpses of schoolchildren killed in Afghanistan and listen to the wails of their parents, we would not be able to repeat clichés we use to justify war. This is why war is carefully sanitised. This is why we are given war's perverse and dark thrill but are spared from seeing war's consequences. The mythic visions of war keep it heroic and entertaining…

The wounded, the crippled, and the dead are, in this great charade, swiftly carted offstage. They are war's refuse. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they tell is too painful for us to hear. We prefer to celebrate ourselves and our nation by imbibing the myths of glory, honour, patriotism, and heroism, words that in combat become empty and meaningless.”

― Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Hekia Parata's legacy of shame- South End school update:

Continuing the saga of the dysfunction at the South End school in Carterton and the Ministry of Education.  Following the receipt of the slanderous and defamatory letter from the Board of Trustees complaints were made to the Board of Trustees, the Ministry of Education, the Minister, the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsmen, etc.

I have documented the manner in which the matter has been dealt with to evidence the dysfunction, which continues,almost eight years later.

It all started when I received this letter from the Board:

I have never been charged with an offence involving a child in my life, I had informed the Deputy Principal, referred to as "Dallas" in the emails below, of that fact several weeks prior to receivig the letter, and informed the school of that immediately on receipt of the letter.

The Board insisted that the NZ Police had informed them that I had been charged by Police with an offence involving a child, which is blatantly untrue, it is a complete lie.

I requested all information from the school and the Ministry, who both tried to evade the legislation and refused to provide the information.  Below is the letter from the Ministry showing their attempts to limit the information released.
On 7 August 2012 I sent this email to the school:

I am writing to again to request a meeting with the Board of Trustees and the IPCA regarding the orchestrated litany of lies being spread throughout the community, Courts, Privacy Commissioner's office, and far and wide, regarding me, by local police and their  mates - better work stories indeed!  I refer to a letter from the Board of Trustees of the South End School sacking me from my job at the school 
  1. This all began when Deputy Principal of the South End School Dallas Powell came and told me about the conversation she'd had with the Staff representative on the Board of Trustees regarding the notes of a Board meeting in early 2009 at which Rod O'Leary and Gavin Kennedy and others, including the police, had lied to the Board in telling them that I had been charged with "an offence involving a child".
  2. Dallas told me that a decision had been made at that meeting to send me the letter which I later received, sacking me over the false allegation.  Blatantly, dishonestly, corruptly.
  3. I told Dallas Powell that the allegation was untrue, and requested an immediate meeting with the Board.
  4. There was no response to that request for a meeting.  
  5. My protest that the allegation was untrue was completely ignored.
  6. I then received the letter containing the slanderous, libelous, allegation, in writing!
  7. I again requested a meeting with the Board, the request has been totally ignored completely, arrogantly, corruptly.
  8. i went to the school and told o'Leary I had never been charged with any such offence, and asked for an apology and reinstatement.
  9. O'Leary and Kennedy responded by issuing me with a trespass notice.
  10. I requested police recover all our property from the school, garden tools, plants and other equipment, etc, as the continued retention of it, and issuing of the trespass notice, was effectively theft.
  11. O'Leary and Kennedy lied to the Privacy Commissioner's office, regarding several issues, firstly claiming that no infomation existed about the source of the infomation because I told them I had recently been charged with such an offence and this was the first they had heard of it, when I told them - an obvious and blatant lie of enormous magnitude!
  12. O'Leary and Kennedy lied to the Privacy Commissioner's office, regarding several complaints from parents regarding the manner in which I have been treated by the Board, and certain staff members.


School secretary Elaine Scully and statutory manager Ken Wilson then sent the following emails - Scully is a liar - I DID have a job at the school, as evidenced by the letter from the Board, and correspondence from the Minister of Education Louise Upston, and as can be seen from my email, I did not call her ANY names under the sun - her allegations of abuse are LIES.  Like her allegations to police that I stole correspondence between the school and another sacked staff member from the letterbox of a Board member - Scully gave it to the wrong child to take home to mummy!  Elaine Scully is the main problem at the South End school, she is a liability, she should have been sacked long ago!

The Privacy Commissioner's tax payer funded 'investigator' Dawn Swan proved to be nothing but an overpaid liar, she insisted that I must have told the Board that I had recently been charged by Police with an offence involving a child, which defies belief.

I complained to the Ombudsmen.  They backed the Privacy Commissioner initially.

Local politician Kelvyn Alp then wrote to the Ombudsmen demanding that they reopen their so called investigation as it was clearly flawed.

The Ombudsmen capitulated and reopened the investigation, this time deciding that the Board had acquired the defamatory gossip on which they based their letter to me "via a local kindergarten" and other ridiculous statements which will never stand up in a Court of law in any way shape or form

So the latest procrastination from the Ministry of Education, in line with their evidence policy of delay, deny, defer, is the following letter received from the Ministry dated 22 February 2017.  This says that the Minister of Education Hekia Parata has asked Katrina Casey to reply to my concerns.  These include concerns about the Ministry I might add, as the Minister is well aware.

This letter says that the Ministry has conferred with the Board of Trustees, and they have confirmed that they would consider my latest correspondence under its formal complaints procedure at its meeting on 15 February and then communicate back to me.  It's now nearing the end of April, two months later and there has been no communication, as usual.

What makes the Ministry's response even more ridiculous is the fact that it is evident from a notice published in the Gazette that a Statutory Manager was appointed on 26 January 2017.  It can be seen from the notice that the Board would be acting ultra vires in considering my concerns, they should be dealt with by the Statutory Manager.

This is the second time in recent years that a Statutory Manager has been appointed to run the school, the first being Ken Wilson, author of the email above - another overpaid civil servant who should be charged with perverting the course of justice and failing in his fiduciary duties.

It is also clearly evident that representatives of the South End school have lied through their teeth from 2009 to the present day, including the information they provided to the Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioner.  The significant failings of the offices of the Ombudsmen and Privacy Commissioner are evident in the fact that the Ombudsmen were forced to reopen the investigation and the evidence which directly contradicts statements made in the reports.

This is the second time the Board have done this, they sacked another staff member while the previous Statutory Manager was supposed to be in control.

We are still trying to obtain legal assistance to apply for judicial review and will proceed to lodge an application without legal assistance if necessary.  An example of why we can't get legal assistance is illustrated below:
"In respect of complaining about the IPCA, there is no process I know of short of the High Court in litigation.
However a new Authority is about to be appointed Sir David Carruthers previously Parole Board Chairperson, and before that Chief District Court Judge.  (sic)
You could complain to him that his staff have not done their job, as a new broom he might be interested. 
Other matters
Given . . .  changes in Legal Aid funding I should advise you I am not going to be able to take your case on legal aid. 
I have been doing criminal legal aid files for some time, but with the introduction of fixed fees and the associated administrative burden now required for legal aid, in order to make a living I am forced to reduce the amount of legal aid cases I can do.
Partly as  result of this tightening in the year ended March 2011 , i.e. 12 months ago and that I had my worst year ever earning less than the average wage, $50,000, as a result I have been forced me to reconsider the number of cases on legal aid I can take. 
In the civil area, where your case falls, the paperwork required from the Legal Services Agency is onerous.
It is does not surprise me that of 4000 lawyers willing to take legal aid prior to 31 December 2011 now only about 2000 will.
I regret given the time delay and still not having all your files,  and the new legal aid regime that trying to take on your case requires more time than I have. 
Regrettably the payment offered form civil legal aid (which you of course are likely to be required to repay) does not provide a fair reward for work done.
Whilst I do not like to reduce the decision to a financial one, I regret having to be more selective in taking legal aid cases, and have turned down 10 in the last month, your potential case is not even ready to be considered and in addition to financial considerations I regret I don't have the time.
I will return your files.
Tony Ellis."

I wrote to several members of parliament about this matter, hardly any bothered to even reply, Andrew Little's pathetic response is below:


Thursday, March 30, 2017

Abuse of process by the Ministry of Social Development:

A recent Minute issued by the Social Security Appeals Authority is scathing in its criticism of the Ministry of Social Development.  In fact, it is so scathing that it is hard to imagine a more damning indictment of a government department.

In addition to the recent reported criticisms regarding the numerous breaches of privacy of their clients, a recent Minute from the Social Security Appeals Authority shows that the Ministry has recently been severely criticised by the SSAA regarding its habit of using fake names for its Benefit Review Committee members since at least 2015.

The Minute from the Authority further castigates the Ministry for a "memo" which the Ministry sent "In confidence" to the Authority regarding current proceedings.  Such memorandum are required to be sent to all the parties, in the interests of open justice.  The Authority has demanded that a copy of the memo be provided to the plaintiff and a copy of the Minute be served on the Chief Executive personally.

Likewise, the principles of open and natural justice require judges to be real people and use real names, and the idea of secret court processes and secret judges is entirely repugnant, and demonstrates a damning lack of integrity, and most concerning arrogance by the Ministry in this blatant abuse of process.

The Social Security Appeals authority has described it as an abuse of process in their Minute, and ordered the Ministry to provide the 'memo' which was sent "in confidence" to the Authority to be provided to the plaintiff, and be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive.

The actions of the Ministry are outrageous, as the Minute from the Authority confirms, and that the arrogance which is evident in Mr Van Ooyens actions is most concerning in light of the fact that the Ministry was warned against the practise over two years ago.

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights forbids the use of secret courts and faceless judges.

"In confidence" seems to stand for the fact that the Ministry is confident it can get away with this sort of blatant abuse of process on a regular basis, particularly as they were warned against it over two years ago, simply ignored the warning and continued in confidence that the warning didn't apply to them for some reason" says Mrs Raue.  "It would appear that all clients who have unwittingly been judged by Benefit Review Committee members using fake names are entitled to a rehearing and the NZ Beneficiaries and Unemployed Workers Union and Transparency NZ are writing to the Minister and the Chief Executive to ensure that those people are identified, notified, and facilitated.

We also commend the work done by Mr Graham Howell of the Wellington Benefit Rights Service for assisting the client in this case, and the new Chairman of the Social Security Appeals Authority."
Transparency New Zealand is writing to the United Nations about this matter and will assist the plaintiff in taking further action regarding the actions of the Ministry.

The plaintiff has been the victim of a campaign of bullying by Ministry of Social Development spanning many years, and has suffered extreme hardship as a result.  This Minute vindicates her and confirms what she has been saying all along.

This matter also raises a number of questions about access to justice and human rights, and the implications are wide ranging, including the questions about how many other MSD Remote Client Unit review decisions include false names of the committee members.  It seems every one of them is entitled to a rehearing.

Here is the Minute.  The name of the appellant has been redacted - but only for the time being.  Click on the images to view, and click "ctrl" key and "+" key simultaneously to enlarge the images, a direct link to the pdf file can be accessed here.

Here's where it starts getting really interesting.  "It is difficult to imagine a more effective way of undermining public confidence in the independence of the Authority than for it to acquiesce in the Chief Executive's delegate's actions."  Indeed it is.

Watch this space.
Tigger, our very diligent local correspondent

Monday, November 14, 2016

Application for recall of decision - Minute of Kos P November 2016:

 In late October 2016 Dun Mihaka's Maori Agent applied for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds that fresh evidence has become available and there was indisputable evidence of a substantial miscarriage of justice: 
"We wish to urgently apply for recall of the decision of the Court of Appeal on the grounds that fresh evidence has recently been obtained which is evidence that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, and it has been confirmed that Mr Mihaka never received any Disclosure according to the Criminal Disclosure Act.
Judge Hastings recommended an amicus be appointed but the trial Judge (Kelly) decided not to do so - Mr Mihaka was a self represented litigant forced to represent himself because he couldn't afford to pay back a legal aid loan for something he was innocent of, he conducted his hearing in Te Reo, he was NOT properly warned of the consequences of giving evidence himself, or the fact that he didn't need to and at the end of the case for the prosecution the Judge should have realised that the evidence given on oath did not stack up against the Summary of Facts or the complainant's statement to Police, which are both attached.  The only agreed fact is that the complainant inappropriately touched Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep - twice according to the information provided by Police recently.
Judge Kelly shut Mr Mihaka down repeatedly as he tried to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and this was recognised by France J in his decision - if he had been allowed to cross examine adequately and provided with Disclosure these discrepancies might have been addressed!

I refer to paragraph 5 of this decision which states that the alleged incident occurred in the morning just after the complainant woke up and made coffee as described in the first four lines of para 5.  Attached is the statement of the complainant to Police and the Police Summary of Facts, both of which directly contradict the assertion in para 5 of the decision.  Both these documents state that the alleged incident occured at night as the complainant was going to bed - not in the morning when he got up - and on two different dates - as well as the date in the Police officer's notebook which is different again!
There is strong evidence of collusion between Housing New Zealand Corporation and Police regarding this matter, which is also currently before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, who have recently suggested sending it back to the District Court, and Mr Mihaka's lawyer has written to Police regarding defamation and slander after Housing New Zealand Corporation claims that they received information from Police regarding this matter which led them to evict Mr Mihaka - it is clear that the source of information was the complainant, not Police, and Police now DENY HNZC's claims - it is indisputable from an examination of the attached documents that this conviction is unsound, and that if Mr Mihaka had been provided with Disclosure as he was entitled, and properly warned about the consequences of giving evidence himself, he would have been in a position to cross examine the complainant effectively during the case for the prosecution, and ask for the charge to be dismissed prior to presenting ANY defence!
Finally, Maori have a tradition of oral information, not written, and we request the opportunity to present our case in person, orally, to the Court.  Mr Mihaka is seventy five years old and not able to write his entire claim down and we should not have to - both appeal lawyers should have realised that he had never received the Disclosure, and the discrepancies therein should have been addressed at the earlier appeals!  Both Mr Mihaka and I have very limited resources available to us, adding further difficulties to the requirement that we put our entire case in writing - this matter is currently before the HRRT and is URGENT.  We respectfully request a hearing, and a recall of this decision - France J was unaware of these documents and so was Mr Mihaka.
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka."

The Crown opposed our application for recall, their memorandum is at this link.

We recently received the Minute of Kos P of the Court of Appeal.


Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The war on drugs - Department of Corrections:

Here is the decision regarding the matter of the Department of Corrections and their medical treatment and record keeping, which is a damning indictment on the care of prisoners in this country, and the outrageous incompetence of prison staff regarding this man's medication and treatment and the standard of information recording, which was described by an expert witness as demonstrating "a level of incompetence to a standard that is professionally embarrassing", and not only did it fall below acceptable standards, but that "the nursing care in relation to safe medical administration was a severe departure from the expected standards."  That's putting it mildly.

The decision can also be read at this link in a clearer format than the embedded file below.

Paragraph 17 states that prison custodial staff are permitted to issue prisoners with over the counter (OTC) medication such as Ibuprofen and Paracetamol, but paragraph 18 states "At Auckland Prison custodial staff are reluctant to administer (OTC) medication."  No explanation is offered for this statement, but it has been established that this is based on prison policy, a policy amounting to breach of human rights, and torture.

Under the heading "Documentation", paragraphs 21 to 23 list the requirements for recording information regarding the administration of medication to prisoners.  These requirements are clear, explicit and extensive.

Paragraphs 24 and 25 show that these requirements were apparently ignored:

From paragraph 26 onwards this report from the Human Rights Review Tribunal is harrowing reading.  The level of carelessness regarding the administration and recording of the medication prescribed for "Mr E" is truly shocking.  The Department of Corrections has a duty of care to prisoners, the 'care' afforded "Mr E" and other prisoners is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Roger Brooking is one of the few people documenting this, raising awareness of it and calling for change - this affects everyone.  His website documents a litany of similar damning information and provides a particularly thorough investigation of other cases of similar treatment.

Prisoners are released every day after they've been "corrected" by the Department of Corrections, they return to our communities and live among us, their children go to school and play with ours.  The Department of Corrections has a duty of care, and a duty to correct.  Treating people like this doesn't foster empathy, and no doubt contributes to the unacceptably high child abuse statistics in 'New Zealand'.  It's callous, negligent, careless, and it demonstrates very well just how badly our prisons are being run, and it also indicates that the system is broken - the fact that Mr E had to go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal indicates that he first had to jump through hoops at the Privacy Commission and/or the Health and Disability Commission, Human Rights Commission, etc.  Lucky he had a lawyer - the vast majority of people in his position don't, Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General makes it perfectly clear that lawyers avoid doing work for legally-aided clients or the poor.

The decision regarding Mr E, the Department of Corrections and their medical treatment and record keeping is a damning indictment on the Department, and the standard of governance in general.

The outrageous incompetence of prison staff regarding this man's medication and treatment and the standard of information recording was described by an expert witness, at paragraph 28, as demonstrating "a level of incompetence to a standard that is professionally embarrassing", and not only did it fall below acceptable standards, but that "the nursing care in relation to safe medical administration was a severe departure from the expected standards."

Read more at Roger Brooking's Brookingblog.

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Email exchange with Acting Registrar regarding application for recall of France J's decision:

 24 August 2016
To the Registrar, High Court, Wellington
Attached is an urgent application for recall of the judgment of France J on the grounds that new evidence has become available which clearly establishes reasonable doubt regarding the evidence of the complainant and Police, the application includes a request for waiver of filing fee.
This decision is vitally relevant to proceedings currently before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, for this reason we request it be dealt with URGENTLY as a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, it is clear that the Court discriminated unfairly against Mr Mihaka and that his previous lawyers acted negligently in not bringing these matters to the attention of the Court during the previous appeals.
Mr Mihaka and I lack the necessary resources to copy and attach the attachments referred to in the application, they can be viewed at this link.


7 September 2016:
To the Registrar of the High Court at Wellington:

I emailed an urgent application for recall of a judgment of Simon France J in the matter of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka v Police, including an application for waiver of any applicable fee, to the High Court at Wellington on 25th August 2016 but have not had any response to the application or acknowledgment of receipt, and am writing to confirm that it has been received and is being actioned.

Please acknowledge receipt of the application urgently - this matter is the subject of imminent hearing in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and it is vital that the application for recall is acknowledged prior to this hearing.  There has been a serious, substantial miscarriage of justice, there is fresh evidence, and this application is URGENT.

9 September 2016
Hello Katherine
I refer to the Application for Recall of Decision referred to in your email below.
Please advise the legislation you rely on to file the application and have the judgment of Simon France J recalled as I have not been able to find any reference in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which allows the filing of this application some 14 months after the decision was made.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
to Sheena
Alternatively, 2.3 -
"the miscarriage of justice is serious and the information was not made available within 5 working days - the application was made as soon as the information was made available by the other party."

Both rule references relate to Appeals and Reviews in the Civil jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Criminal jurisdiction, which is what your appeal relates to.  The criminal appeal process is governed by the Criminal Procedure Act not the Judicature Act.  I am therefore unable to accept the Application for Recall.

I respectfully suggest seek legal advice as to what other options might be available to you to have Mr Mihaka's conviction readdressed in the Courts.

Kind regards
Tena koe Sheena,
We refer to para 61 and others in the attached Law Commission report.
Na Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka
22 September 2016:

Hello Katherine,

I acknowledge receipt of your email.  I have forwarded these emails (dated 20/9/16) and the Application for Recall that was attached to your first email (dated 24/8/16) to the civil manager, Jay Fealofani.  I will speak with him regarding our previous correspondence and discuss a way forward.

Kind regards

Hello Katherine,

I have spoken to my colleague Jay Fealofani in the civil jurisdiction regarding your original attachment 'Application for Recall of Judgment' - he also has a number of years' experience in the criminal jurisdiction in the District Court. 

I understand that the grounds for the recall are due to a miscarriage of justice because fresh evidence has become available which was not previously considered by the Court.  Your Application then goes on to describe the miscarriage.

Mr Mihaka's Appeal original appeal to this court was in relation to a Judge alone trial held before Her Honour Judge Kelly in the District Court in April 2015.  His first right of appeal against his conviction and sentence was to this Court.  This court heard the appeal on 2 June 2015 and gave its decision on 11 June 2015.  As discussed previously there is no avenue in the Criminal Procedure Act for Mr Mihaka to recall the decision of this court.

In accordance with the Act Mr Mihaka has a second right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.  To commence a second appeal Mr Mihaka needed to file an Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeal within 20 working days after this Court's decision.

He is now in a position where the Application for Recall cannot be accepted for filing in this court and the time to appeal to the Court of Appeal has expired.  I can see no action available to him through the criminal jurisdiction and this Application will not be progressed any further.

As to whether Mr Mihaka has the option to file a Judicial Review in the civil jurisdiction, that I don't know however Mr Mihaka cannot expect to continue relitigating matters based on further evidence he has found.  He needs to seek legal advice around what his options are if he wishes to progress these matters.

Kind regards


Sheena Spiers
Criminal Manager (Acting) | High Court, Wellington 
Phone: +64 4 914 3619 | Ext: 53619


So, we have a stalemate.  The Crown makes all the rules of this game, and changes them to suit - retrospectively if so desired.  If you don't get your act together within 20 days you simply miss out - regardless of the magnitude of the injustice.

And all the time the colonial Crown government have been screwing down 'omnibus' changes to the  legislation regarding criminal and civil Court procedure, to limit the avalanche of claims resulting from the devolving of the system and the privatising of the justice system (along with everything else that's not nailed down), they've been limiting access to legal aid more and more to the point where it's just become an absolute joke - a black joke, a sick joke - a joke on people like Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka and all the other tangata whenua who clog up the 'justice system' and fill the jails, their lives in tatters and their reputations in ruins because of gossip and whispers.

Agent Raue will be framing a further plea to the Court applying sections 237 - 240 of the Criminal Procedure Act, this report will be updated shortly with the further plea.  We also have Plans C, D, E and FU up our sleeves and can come up with more plans if none of those work too.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Warnings about omnibus tax law changes:

Accountants are sounding the alarm about the government's new 'omnibus' tax law changes, claiming they are a get out of jail free card - looks like they based the changes on the Australian GST Act!

The Australian Goods and Services Tax Act 1999 is a hefty piece of legislation to try and make your way through, but it's well worth it when you arrive at section 165.55, which states the following example of creative use of the Queen's English:

[The] "Commissioner may disregard scheme in making declarations. 
         For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: 
                     (a)  treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and 
                     (b)  treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as: 
                              (i)  having happened at a particular time; and
                             (ii)  having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
                     (c)  treat a particular event that actually happened as: 
                              (i)  having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
                             (ii)  having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."
This is not unlike the recent decision of the NZ Court of Appeal in the matter of Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General in which the Honourable Judge uttered this:
"But the issue is not what is desirable as a matter of sound public administration, but what is lawful."