Thursday, 23 April 2015

Fears for the future of the judiciary in NZ expressed by retiring judge

This is something the government and its media lapdogs don't want you to know about

Retiring judge fears for the future of the rule of law in NZ

Retiring High Court Justice John McGrath
Retiring High Court Justice John McGrath



There’s another very disturbing factor in what has now morphed into another serious judicial fiasco and the pattern of corrupt political behavior around it – the role that the country’s judiciary appear to have performed in this case is seriously questionable; begging the question, is the New Zealand judiciary now at the beckon-call of the country’s seriously small political elite?

Just thirteen days ago retiring Supreme Court judge Sir John McGrath spoke of his concerns for the rule of Law in New Zealand. – That the National party government had been playing with the statutes to such an extent and in particular the governments proposed removal of democratic safeguards, that he held very real fears for the rule of law.

McGrath’s concerns never made a half serious newspaper column, nor did any of the country’s editors pick up on his warning. Instead the best that could be done was a flippant piece penned by Mr jocular himself, Jock Anderson, in his weekly column “Case Load” for the New Zealand Herald:



Dumping rule of law worries retiring judge
9:30 AM Friday Apr 10, 2015
A statutory provision affirming New Zealand’s commitment to the rule of law will soon disappear from the statute book – and retiring Supreme Court judge Sir John McGrath (70)doesn’t like it.
In his recent retirement speech, Sir John – a former solicitor general – expressed concern at the removal of a provision on the rule of law from legislation governing the Supreme Court.
Sir John said though the Constitution Act 1986 provided for Parliament to be the supreme law-making power of the nation, there was no equivalent provision stating the role of the judicial branch “or indeed the underlying concept of the judicial function which is to uphold the rule of law”.
He said the gap was filled to some extent by the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2003. The establishing legislation stipulated that nothing in it “affects New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the rule of law and sovereignty of Parliament”.
But he said the statutory provision would be repealed if the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which recently had its second reading, is enacted in its present form.
If that happens, in the new statute providing for senior courts, we will no longer have this meaningful statutory recognition of both the judicial and legislative roles,” Sir John said.
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11429540
If the Sabin abuse case is anything to go by it would seem that at least one of those “rule of law”fears may have already started to manifest – the current New Zealand government believing itself to be above the law.



Justice McGrath’s full speech can be read HERE.



2 comments:

  1. As McGrath is about to find out, him and his peers had their chance to do something about it. Now it is gone, nothing us little people have been able to do about it for years. Why did it take so long for one of the "three legs of rulership" take so long to realise what was going on....

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only message to sort these idiots out is fiduciary legislation to make them all fully accountable. Both the judges and the politicians have for too long pushed the law and benefits of public office power to suit themselves and their mates irrespective of their fiduciary obligations and duty of care.
    They've been able to do this by the protection of crown immunity to block any complaints.
    The unguarded flank is this:
    "Political and judicial immunity is a breach of fiduciary duty because they misuse power to gain benefit for them alone and not for the public to whom they owe the duty of care."
    Obviously any attempt to test that in the courts would be met with judicial self interest - as they have always done.
    However the proposition in law is correct and can't be ignored. It forms a foundation for new debate that challenges the corrupt nature of what we call democracy.
    So many corrupt and negligent actions by judges and politicians can't be ignored forever, particularly in light of its cost to New Zealand.
    When New Zealanders get serious and really want change,they only need to flood the existing political parties with new members and demand those political parties adopt new accountability policies - namely a mandate to introduce fiduciary legislation. Once party policy its MP's would be burnt at the stake if they tried to ignore it.
    After all the only fiduciary not accountable are judges and politicians. People have had a gutful of their games which never hurts them as they walk away with huge pensions. The damage is the bill the taxpayer is forced to suffer not to mention the endless frustration of having to suffer stupid decision after stupid decision.

    ReplyDelete