About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

January 29, 2014 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 29 January 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment129

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (129)

Login to comment or vote

publicwatchdog

FYI

I have been declined speaking rights at tomorrow’s Auckland Council Governing Body meeting:

(Thursday 30 January 2014
9.30am
Auckland Town Hall)

My response:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29 January 2014

‘OPEN LETTER’

Dear Elaine,

Please be advised that I do NOT accept that the declining of my request for ‘speaking rights’ at the Auckland Council Governing Body upcoming meeting (to be held at the Auckland Town Hall on Thursday 30 January 2014) was lawful.

“3.21.3 Subjects of Public Input

Public Input is not to be used to speak to a matter:

(i) that has already been considered and determined.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The FACT is that the (former) CEO of Auckland Council, Doug McKay, and his appointment of Ernst and Young to conduct this ‘Independent Review’ of Auckland Mayor Len Brown, did NOT follow the ‘due process’ as clearly outlined in the Auckland Council ‘Code of Conduct’ (s.8 Compliance), thus has NOT ‘already been considered and determined.’

Please be reminded that as an ‘anti-corruption’ campaigner, I attended a full-day specialist workshop on ‘How to Conduct an Inquiry’ at the recent 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference.

I now have a very comprehensive understanding of how such an inquiry should have been carried out, and the Ernst and Young ‘Independent Review’ was anything but, in my considered opinion.

I respectfully request that this decision to decline my speaking rights, is reconsidered as a matter of urgency.

Also, I do NOT consider it appropriate, or in keeping with the basic principles of ‘natural justice’, for Auckland Mayor Len Brown, to the one to make the ultimate decision on whether or not speaking rights should be granted in this case, for this matter, as he is a directly-affected party.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/NemoJudexInParteSua.aspx

A fundamental principle of natural justice which states that no person can judge a case in which he or she is party or in which he/she has an interest.

Also known as:

nemo judex in sua causa; or
nemo debet esse judex in propria causa
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(As Auckland Mayor Len Brown has been a lawyer, I’m sure understands this fundamental principle).

Please also be reminded of the statutory duties arising from the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0174/latest/DLM122283.html

4 Purposes

The purposes of this Act are—

(a)to provide for the availability to the public of official information held by local authorities, and to promote the open and public transaction of business at meetings of local authorities, in order—

(i) to enable more effective participation by the public in the actions and decisions of local
authorities; and

(ii) to promote the accountability of local authority members and officials,—
and thereby to enhance respect for the law and to promote good local government in
New Zealand:

(b) to provide for proper access by each person to official information relating to that person:

(c) to protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.
Compare: 1982 No 156 s 4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please also be reminded of the rights of citizens to ‘freedom of expression’ as guaranteed under the NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1990:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225513.html

14 Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please be advised that I shall be attending this Auckland Council Governing Body meeting to be held tomorrow, Thursday 30 January 2014, starting as 9.30am at the Auckland Town Hall.

Please finally be reminded that I have a proven track record of successfully defending my above-mentioned lawful rights as a citizen, in Court, in the (hopefully) unlikely event of these matters being taken to the point of arrest.

Kind regards,

Penny Bright

‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

Attendee : 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference

2010 Auckland Mayoral candidate
2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 7:49pm
nickb

As usual, McVicar doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about. To get a sex offenders register in NZ would require the politicians to do something, not the ‘Justice Establishment’.

Any tiny remaining hint of credibility flew right out the window with his comments on the Bruce Emery / Pihema Cameron case, FE. I wouldn’t worry.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 7:51pm
nasska

F E Smith

What are your thoughts on a register? I understand that Britain & at least some states of the USA have introduced such a measure.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 7:52pm
big bruv

Penny

So you have been denied speaking right. Good!

Pay your bloody rates and they might let you, until then you remain a parasite.
5 3
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 7:56pm
F E Smith

Oh, I think he had no credibility well before that, nick, but you make a fair point!

What are your thoughts on a register?

I have no issues with one, nasska. I doubt you will find many defence lawyers who do have an issue with one. So long as it is not mandatory; I think mandatory sentences make bad law. Make a presumption that persons convicted of certain offences will be placed upon the register, but allow the judge to order that they not be registered if it would be unjust.

EDIT: That said, I do worry about vigilante action. The situation would need to be monitored to make sure that it met its goals without detrimental side effects. Also, if a person is actually rehabilitated I would support them being able to apply to be removed.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:08pm
Kea

nasska, here is one such data base:

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:11pm
Kea

but allow the judge to order that they not be registered if it would be unjust.

Like if they are famous Maoris, rich or a woman.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:12pm
nasska

….”I think mandatory sentences make bad law”….

While I accept that there must be some situations where compulsory sentences or conditions are unjust I admit to being challenged to think of one when it comes to sex offences against kids.

To the layman at least, when a judge gets to use his discretion the aims of parliament get a fair watering down. For instance the fact that not once has LWOP been used smacks of a reluctance to follow the wishes of our lawmakers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:17pm
nasska

F E Smith

Re your edit…..do you know whether vigilante action has been a problem in Britain?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:19pm
nasska

….” here is one such data base:”….

Point taken Kea but I’m inclined to let sleeping religios lie tonight. 🙂
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:20pm
Kea

nasska, yeah I went to delete it but too late 😉
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:32pm
Kea

I have been declined speaking rights at tomorrow’s Auckland Council Governing Body meeting:

Penny, that’s okay we still read every word you post on KB and always look forward to your thoughtful submissions on local government matters 😐
4 5
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:35pm
stigie

Hey Bruv, Penny not so cant pay her rates because she doesnt know what they are being spent on ya see !!~
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 8:54pm
nasska

Stigie,

With the amount of time the cleaners spend getting the wank stains off the walls of the Mayoral Chambers, Waterwoman may have a valid point after all. 🙂
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:00pm
stigie

Who is giving us the down votes there Nasska ?

Talk serious during the day i believe…. but shite at nite !!~
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:09pm
F E Smith

While I accept that there must be some situations where compulsory sentences or conditions are unjust I admit to being challenged to think of one when it comes to sex offences against kids.

The moment you start to have mandatory sentences, especially mandatory sentences of imprisonment, you will begin to have injustices occur. No doubt about it.

To the layman at least, when a judge gets to use his discretion the aims of parliament get a fair watering down.

That may be the perception, but it is not the reality. Unfortunately, the layman is reliant on the media to gain his information from, and one thing that you can guarantee when the media is involved is that the cases will be cherry picked, and there will be inaccuracies. The vast majority of sentences are not reported. Most of them you will never hear about, especially those against children because the names are almost always suppressed to protect the children.

I understand the perception, but it is a wrong one.

For instance the fact that not once has LWOP been used smacks of a reluctance to follow the wishes of our lawmakers.

No, that is wrong. The lawmakers did not envisage LWOP to be used very often. Don’t forget that s104 of the Sentencing Act still exists (which is the 17 year minimum) and that is to apply to a whole raft of aggravating factors, so LWOP would need to be worse than that. We don’t have very many truly horrific murders in NZ, so the rate of occurrence for which LWOP becomes a consideration will be very, very small. Add to that the fact that LWOP has only been on the books since mid-2010 and it will only be a matter of time before it is used. But it is a third level of sentencing that Parliament has set out, so it will take a fair bit to get to it.

The other thing that most people ignore is the role of the Crown in this. It must be remembered that Judges are not a part of the crime fighting apparatus. They are impartial arbiters who apply the law as written. At any serious sentencing the Crown will file written submissions setting out what they believe is the correct sentence range for the offence. The Crown also has the right of appeal. If a sentence is too low then the Crown should appeal it. If the Crown does not appeal it would suggest that the sentence is within the acceptable range.

Moreover, the Judiciary are in fact very sensitive to changes in sentencing levels. Sentences in all areas have been steadily rising over the last 20 years. Whenever Parliament has increased sentencing ranges, for example with regards to Child Pornography offences, the Judiciary has been very quick to adjust sentences upwards accordingly. Periodically the Court of Appeal will review sentencing levels and adjust the tarrif, always upward. That sort of thing just never gets mentioned by the media because a) they just don’t understand it and b) it doesn’t make for interesting newspaper/tv/radio reporting (but mostly point a).

The other point is that most of the judiciary are ex-prosecutors or civil/family lawyers. Comparitively very few ex-defence lawyers, especially in the High Courts. Read into that what you will!!
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:12pm
F E Smith

Re your edit…..do you know whether vigilante action has been a problem in Britain?

I think it does have regular risks in the UK, and in the US it has certainly been an issue from time to time. So, short answer: Yes.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:17pm
nasska

F E Smith

1) Thank you.

2) ….”The other point is that most of the judiciary are ex-prosecutors or civil/family lawyers. Comparitively very few ex-defence lawyers, especially in the High Courts. “…..

For some strange reason the old anecdote about the fox in charge of the hen house springs to mind. 🙂
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:18pm
nasska

stigie

….”Who is giving us the down votes there Nasska ?”….

Who knows stigie but I think I’ve picked up a stalker from somewhere & you’re probably tarred by association.

In any case, ever since Baity got sprung for wanking up ticks the “Karma” feature has been irrecoverably compromised. 🙂
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:22pm
RightNow

Sea Shepherd on trial over spill in coastal waters off Cairns

A WELL-known marine life conservation group has been charged with discharging oil in coastal waters off Cairns.

Sea Shepherd Australia Limited was recently mentioned in Cairns Magistrates Court charged with discharging oil in Trinity Inlet on October 13, 2012.

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/sea-shepherd-on-trial-over-spill-in-coastal-waters-off-cairns/story-fnjpusyw-1226811832390

They must be banned!
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:25pm
F E Smith

For some strange reason the old anecdote about the fox in charge of the hen house springs to mind.

Yeah, that is because most people believe what they see on US television shows. Defence lawyers are generally tougher on their clients than anyone else. It is a good thing that the clientele cannot hear us talk about them in the lawyers rooms at the Courts around the country. They would never use us again!!!

We just take a more pragmatic approach to things, is all.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:25pm
F E Smith

They must be banned!

A pack of pirates; gaol the lot of them!

(In all seriousness: gaol the lot of them).
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:26pm
Snarkle

Penny, please tell us approximately how much you haven’t paid in rates. Ball park figure will be fine, thanks. It’s called transparency; set us all a good example!
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:27pm
Kea

Sea Shepherd on trial over spill in coastal waters off Cairns

A WELL-known marine life conservation group has been charged with discharging oil in coastal waters off Cairns.

LOL 🙂

That has made my night.
3 2
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 9:54pm
stigie

That has made my night.

Me to Kea, got a link to that ?
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 10:12pm
Kea

stigie, It came from RightNow at 9:25pm ^^^

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/sea-shepherd-on-trial-over-spill-in-coastal-waters-off-cairns/story-fnjpusyw-1226811832390
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 10:18pm
stigie

Thanks Kea, dont understand how i missed that…. i must have been out to lunch !~
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 10:24pm
Kea

stigie, It needs to headline tomorrows GD I reckon 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 10:27pm
Kea

Environmental extremist and anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd has issued a statement that accuses Japan’s fleet of spilling oil in Australian waters. Using four vessels to try to obstruct Japan’s yearly whale hunt in the Southern Ocean, Sea Shepherd says it has collected samples from the oil slick it discovered on Sunday near the Sun Laurel, the whaling fleet’s re-supply ship.

http://japandailypress.com/sea-shepherd-accuses-whalers-of-spilling-oil-trying-to-crash-into-them-1823551/

Oil Spills Proliferate – the impact on whales and dolphins

http://www.wildlifeextra.co.nz/go/whales/oil-spills.html#cr

Some marine mammals and reptiles, such as dolphins, whales and turtles are very vulnerable to oil spills because they have to be able to surface to breathe and the reptiles also need to leave the water to breed. The layer of oil makes surfacing difficult and the animals drown.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004218/OilEffects.htm

LOL 🙂 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 29, 2014 10:37pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Whale under attack

68 days off »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Woman of the day
Hompaddock
The strange case of the I am Hope funding
The Standard
You Read It here First – I bet you’re sorry about that
No Minister
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
US military-industrial-sports complex.
Kiwipolitico
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d