JUDITH WANTS TO STAB OUR EYES OUT

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7719245/Collins-appalled-by-Scott-Guy-TV-coverage

And so it continues: the erosion of our democratic rights. The continual right-wing spin chips away, trying to push our democratic status back to that of the industrial revolution. And we, as a result of the structure of our democracy, are letting them do it. For many years, the establishment in this country - dutifully represented by the National Party - fought tooth and nail to prevent cameras in court. Now, Minister of Justice Judith Collins (pictured right) claims that it has become a media circus.

And you know what? She’s right.

But don’t faint at me agreeing with a right-wing hatchet-girl, because here’s her spin. Sick of the media’s selective clips, Judith Collins says she wants to prevent court being turned into reality TV. She wants to take away the only eyes in court we have, when we can't attend actual cases. It has become a drama, but I don't think that’s her real motivation. As my article last year expressed, right-wing governments will try their utmost to erode the democratic rights we’ve fought for. And public access into our courts is one of our democratic rights, isn't it? And so, I would say that access to other recordings of proceedings is a democratic right as well. Let’s face it, who pays for the damn court system? IT’S US, THE TAXPAYER, THAT FOOTS THE BILL! Read these articles:

• "Judges go Under the Microscope" [Stuff.co.nz]
• "Jetting Judges Fly at Taxpayer Expense" [Stuff.co.nz]

So, considering the exorbitant wage and expenses bill of the judiciary, isn't it fair that there should be taxpayer accountability? So, isn’t it fair that we should have intimate knowledge of our courts working, as part of that accountability? You’d think so.

However, when my wife and I went to court to seek a restraining order against our next door neighbour, we were appalled at what information is NOT released into the public domain. For example, what many of us don’t know is that court staff produce a document called “Notes of Evidence” after proceedings. Court staff call it a transcript, but it’s nothing of the sort. Why? Because it doesn’t contain HALF of what is said during the proceedings. We were flabbergasted that some key things were seemingly omitted. This included, what we thought, were some flippant and sarcastic comments from “our” judge Michael J Crosbie:

• Sarcastic comments such as, “Yes, I’m beginning to wonder who exactly the applicant is,” were omitted.
• Comments illustrating the judge’s apparent indolence were omitted, such as, ”I’ve got enough cases hanging over me.”
• His summing up, including confirmation that we had suffered distress, was completely omitted.
• His comments, that he agreed with our transcript of abusive comments from our harassing neighbour, were omitted.

And these were but a few examples. Remember, we pay these civil servants in excess of $360,000 a year to be patient and objective. It took us a lot of courage to take our harasser to court, but do you think Michael Crosbie was able to to be patient and objective after hearing THIS case the very same day?

We didn’t think so. We also think he simply couldn't be bothered with our case.

If you go to court - and I encourage you to sit in the public gallery of any court room - you'll be surprised. You’ll be surprised at the time-wasting. You’ll be surprised by the inefficiencies. You’ll be surprised by some of the comments from the judge, as we were. In the research for my complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission, I was flabbergasted by the sheer contempt of judges and the court system for its paymasters – us, the taxpaying public. There is an entire regime dedicated to NOT releasing information - in a supposedly free society. This regime of arrogance exists because not enough of us know that such contempt exists. It exists, because there are no apparent target outputs or key performance indicators for the judiciary or court system. In other words, this contempt exists because there is no accountability to the public.

And this is the real reason why Judith Collins and the rest of the establishment can’t abide cameras in court – because they show up the true farce that is our legal system. The legal system is not for you and I. It is for the rich, for big business to resolve disputes and to put away criminals who threaten property. Everything else involving us, the public, is a protracted mockery. Our legal system, based on the English system, is not designed to protect us, but those to protect those who rule us.

My belief is that judges have become so resistant to any kind of accountability, that they will push and push and push to avoid it. Jonathon Temm, Law Society president, has cynically used this opportunity to call for cameras in court to be removed. And I think his comments vindicate my take on the self-importance of the legal profession elite. I suspect they have been lobbying Collins for some time for the removal of cameras, or any kind of recording that lets us into the true minds of our deeply arrogant and flawed judges, and our deeply flawed legal system. For example, we tried to have the tape recording of our court hearing released, but the judge wasn’t having any of it. Crosbie had the power to release the tape, but I think he knew there were many things on there that he said during the hearing, which shouldn’t have been said – otherwise they would have been on the “Notes of Evidence.”

Yes, judges make mistakes. We all do. Yes, judges are flawed. We all are flawed. However, unlike judges we have to be ACCOUNTABLE for the things we say and do. Despite the Judicial Conduct Commission, I don’t think judges are accountable, at all, for the things they say and do.

So let’s get back to Collins and her transparently fake disgust. If you were that bothered by edited, dramatic segments of the trial being shown, Judith, why not show the whole trial? Put the video of the trial online as a public document. Have the guts to follow up on your convictions. Oh hang on, I can hear it now: “We can’t show the whole trial, because we want to protect the privacy of individuals involved in the trial." Oh, please. If you read between the lines, you’ll see that Judith Collins’ comments aren’t those of someone wishing to protect the privacy of individuals. Let’s be blunt, after Paula Bennet’s outings, this government has lost its opportunity to say it respects the privacy of individuals.

No, I think Judith Collins’ comments are those of someone who wishes to protect the failings, secrecy, and machinations of our farcical court system - and the contemptuous judges who lord over us.

Further reading:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/09/27/message-to-media-jump-or-be-pushed/
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/442/heralds-take-on-temms-cameras-in-courts-comments
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/440/cameras-in-court-and-on-the-princess-what-judge-neave-might-do
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/7728853/Editorial-No-reason-to-remove-TV-cameras
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14949530/support-grows-for-cameras-in-court-ban/

WHY DO JUDGES SHRUG OFF THE PRESS? BECAUSE THEY CAN

Now here’s an interesting article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4267918/Jetting-judges-fly-at-taxpayer-expense

Yes, I know, jet-setting civil servants is not a new story. For me, the bit that’s really interesting, is this bit:

“Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias attended five trips in that period [the past two years], costing $74,490. On two of them, to Melbourne and London, she took along her husband, Hugh Fletcher...The Sunday Star-Times twice requested an interview with Elias to discuss the judiciary travel bill. Her spokesman, Neil Billington, said: 'I am sure you will get a response as soon as she is free to consider your request.'"

Weeeeeelllll, if that had been a politician, that politician would be running to the interview, to justify his position!! He’d then apologise to the people for the “possible” excessive spending and promise to be more prudent in the future. Or, he’d fall on his sword. If this was any other civil servant, he would be stating a very diplomatic case through a spokesperson, and having a private justification with his superior. Every employee in the private sector has to account to his paymaster for business expenses. But Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias (pictured right) is able to shrug off the press with contempt and arrogance: “When I’ve got time, I’ll think about it,” is effectively what she’s saying through her spokesperson.

So why don’t judges have to answer for their expenses? Because judges have no accountability to the people who pay those expenses – us, the taxpayer.

This leads us to the discussion about an “independent judiciary, free from political interference”. I accept that many political and social commentators believe that this is a fundamental principle and part of our democratic society. However, I’m not sure I agree with this principle, although I do believe in the democratic state. I had this topical discussion and debate on judicial independence with a police sergeant, who expressed that “we didn’t want to get to a Stalinist state.” Once I’d thought past the crassness of his black-white thinking, I realized that, indeed, there are the two ends of the spectrum when you debate judicial accountability: independent judges versus appointed puppets.

Of course, virtually no-one in a democracy wants our judges to be at the whim and mercy of our politically-motivated representatives in government, whose sole aim is merely to stay in power for the next three years. However, the “Independent Judges” principle only works as long as the judges are conducting themselves with dignity, fairness, humility, integrity, and freedom from corruption. And, frankly, that ain’t workin’ right now.

I believe that you can not have completely free judges in a democratic state, where the taxpayer pays for such excessive salaries and expenses – especially in times of recession. My personal experience, and from reading increasingly regular articles in the media, is that judges are far from perfect. And their behaviour is not improving. There are no checks and balances. There are no KPIs, no assigned objectives to meet, no feedback loop. That means, in the accountability debate, we need to place judges somewhere in the middle of the two extremes I described above.

The Judicial Conduct Commission is a start, but it is still “crumbs from the rich man’s table.” [Luke 16:19-31]. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, seems to lack the courage, will, or (this year, he says) “resources” to push his task to its assigned purpose – to bring accountability to the judiciary. Since its formation in August 2005, no judge has ever been officially or publicly impeached, cautioned, disciplined, sanctioned, dismissed or fired. As a result, poorly performing judges won’t change their behaviour – there is absolutely no reason or incentive. They will still be arrogant, contemptuous, excessive, or corrupt.

So, what can you do to bring more judicial accountability to the people?

• If you have had a court case and experienced judicial sarcasm, disdain, pre-determination, apathy or worse, submit a complaint to the JCC. Ensure the court audio recording is secured quickly, then keep asking for progress on your complaint.
• If you wish to submit a complaint against a judge, make sure you go EXACTLY through the process, or your case will be dismissed out-of-hand: www.jcc.govt.nz/PDF/JCC-booklet.pdf
• If you haven’t submitted a complaint, write to Sir David Gascoigne at judicialconduct@jcc.govt.nz. Ask him why the “unfinalised” cases from the year are merely rolled over to the next year. Ask him why no judge has ever been disciplined.
• Write to your MP and tell him what you’ve learnt. Ask your MP what they would intend to do about making judges more accountable to you, the taxpayer. Continue that dialogue and maintain the pressure.
• Write to Simon Power, our current Minister of Justice (Hah! There’s a contradiction in terms!). Ask him why he continually ignores the issues here and is doing nothing about it. Read this article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2429188/Judges-go-under-microscope

Good luck, and God be with you.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES ARE ON THE RISE

I note with interest this article 4 October 2010, “Complaints about judges rise.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4194630/Complaints-about-judges-rise

Now if you look at THIS article (12 October 2009), they look remarkably similar:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2956259/More-complaints-against-judges

In fact, you might think that the editor or journalist just has to pull out the previous year’s article and change the numbers. I am continually stunned, every year, by the fact that no journalist seems to ask the hard questions. Perhaps, and I don’t blame ‘em, they’re afraid.

With the increasing profile of his office, plus the increased questions about Judicial Accountability, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (JCC), Sir David Gascoigne (pictured right), would appear to have the weight of a democratic nation on his shoulders. He tells us that "present resources are not adequate for the task in hand.” Hence, what is different about this year is that Sir David is asking for more money.

With the request for more “resources” now perhaps we’ll have some answers, because therein lies the obvious hard questions the country needs to ask him:

* What exactly is the Judicial Commissioner’s “task at hand”?
* What real outputs have come from the Office of the Judicial Commissioner since its formation, other than cases merely being dimissed out-of-hand?
* How many cases have been cleared?
* How many judges have been cautioned, disciplined, or (God forbid) fired?

If you go to court - and I encourage you to sit in the public gallery of any court room - you'll be surprised. You’ll be surprised at the time-wasting. You’ll be surprised by the inefficiencies. You’ll be surprised by some of the comments from the judge - which will NOT subsequently appear in the so-called transcript, “Notes of Evidence.” In the research for my complaint, I was flabbergasted by the sheer contempt of judges and the court system for its paymasters – us, the taxpaying public. There is an entire regime dedicated to NOT releasing information - in a supposedly free society. This regime of arrogance exists because not enough of us know that such contempt exists. It exists, because there are no apparent target outputs or key performance indicators for the judiciary or court system. In other words, this contempt exists because there is no accountability to the public.

Thankfully, our awareness is increasing, even though the formation of the Office of the Judicial Commissioner is still “crumbs off the rich man’s table” [Luke 16:19-31]. Unfortunately, the Judicial Commissioner uses that awareness as a reason for his increased workload – more complaints. Clearly, it can’t be that judges have done anything wrong, could it? So, again, the Judicial Commissioner will use that increased-workload as an excuse for not "clearing" any cases (such as disciplining any judge!)

Well, here are some facts relating to complaints against judges and the Office of the Judicial Commissioner:

* On 11 February 2010, Chris Finlayson MP, expressed that the JCC office “provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process.”
* In making a formal complaint to the JCC, the complainant will not have access to the judge’s written reply prior to the JCC's decision, or to the audio recording of the court case which invariably generates the complaint.
* Court documents, including any audio recordings in court, do not come under the Official Information Act, and so can not be requested by the complainant as part of any research for a judicial complaint.
* The Ombudsmen (www.ombudsmen.parliament.nz) is a department that monitors and regulates government offices and departments. The JCC and judiciary do not come under the auspices of the Ombudsmen.
* Judges earn $360,000 (plus) per year, paid for by the government, and so by us.
* Retired High Court judge John Hansen calculated that each High Court judge costs taxpayers more than $630,000 a year.
* The number of complaints rises each year, and the number of “unfinalised” complaints rises each year, but no complaints have ever recorded as being “finalised,” other than being simply dismissed out-of-hand.
* Since its formation in August 2005, no judge has ever been officially or publicly impeached, cautioned, disciplined, sanctioned, dismissed or fired.

Think about that when you consider whether we live in a "free society." Do your research and make your own mind up.