ACCforum: Crown V Jeffrey Chapman Ca 82 97 - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Crown V Jeffrey Chapman Ca 82 97 ex ACC Ceo, Auditor General

#1 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 November 2005 - 05:13 PM

Judgment Date: 14/05/1997 Decision of: KEITH J

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/97

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
Applicant

AND

JEFFREY THOMAS CHAPMAN
Respondent

Coram: Gault J, Henry J, Thomas J, Keith J, Blanchard J

Hearing: 8 May 1997

Counsel: W G G A Young QC and S P France for Applicant
H W Riddoch and J A Gibson for Respondent

Judgment date: 14 May 1997

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY KEITH J

The Solicitor-General applies for leave to appeal against concurrent sentences of six months and three months imprisonment imposed in respect of 10 convictions for fraudulent use of a document in breach of s229A of the Crimes Act 1961. The ground of appeal is that the total effective sentence of six months imprisonment is manifestly inadequate. The Solicitor-General submits that the minimum sentence available was 2 years. The application does not extend to the refusal to order reparation.
At the time the respondent, Jeffrey Thomas Chapman, committed the first and second of the offences he was the Managing Director of the Accident Compensation Corporation and at the time of the remaining offences he was the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand. Shortly before the offending commenced he had held office for one year as the President of the New Zealand Society of Accountants.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 Guest_Read Me_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 12 November 2005 - 05:14 PM

Isnt it curious that, given the information in this judgment, the Auditor General could not find fault with ACC Case Management.

Auditor General's Report Verifies Concerns, Press Release: Acclaim
http://www.accforum....p?showtopic=743

Acclaim Otago: Report is a Whitewash.
http://www.accforum....findpost&p=6412
0

#3 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 November 2005 - 09:44 PM

but of course not.... "That's in the past, we must focus on the future" - Ruth Dyson

Yeah Right - Tui ad
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 20 November 2007 - 06:18 PM

bump de bump bump de bump


bump de bump bump de bump
0

#5 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 20 November 2007 - 09:50 PM

No wonder the deputy pm and others were answering for ruthie questions on ACC in parliment prior to the reshuffle that took her out of the firing line.
That festering brood had forknowledge that when this report was released and the full context leaked the proverbial would hit the fan.
They are for their Waterloo methinks and sooner rather than later as well.
Pity they have managed to reward a few of the party faithful with Quangoes that Longe, who was stabbed in the back by his mates, so vehemently decried.
Oh well!
Meanwhile on the farm............................the stock are still being denied proper care and treatment being Knackered en'masse and the spca could'nt give a stuff.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 January 2008 - 10:06 AM

bump

This is the opposite end of the spectrum of ACC fraud.

In my case there is an argument over what is work and what is rehabilitation activity. ACC claim rehabilitation activity is capable of proving an end of incapacity and fraud.

On the other hannd we have a senior staff member of the ACC qualified in accounting who knew exactly what he was doing.
0

#7 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 14 January 2008 - 10:17 AM

That's odd.I thought you knew exactly what you were doing????
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 January 2008 - 10:32 AM

The ACC assured me that producing business plans and investigating various rehabilitation opportunities as and when they present themselves was not working. In fact I was so confident that I was doing the right thing when ACC gave me an ultimatum to produce business plans or have my entitlements suspended I could not possibly conceive of a possibility that I was an error . The ACC later claimed that I did not know what I was doing when they prosecuted for fraud. Obviously if what I was doing was wrong I would have either just watch television or carried out my rehabilitation in a clandestinely way. A dishonest person does not carry out dishonest activities at the podium in public places or go on nationwide TV in China etc etc. Do you think I am stupid or something?
0

#9 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 14 January 2008 - 03:49 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 14 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

The ACC assured me that producing business plans and investigating various rehabilitation opportunities as and when they present themselves was not working. In fact I was so confident that I was doing the right thing when ACC gave me an ultimatum to produce business plans or have my entitlements suspended I could not possibly conceive of a possibility that I was an error . The ACC later claimed that I did not know what I was doing when they prosecuted for fraud. Obviously if what I was doing was wrong I would have either just watch television or carried out my rehabilitation in a clandestinely way. A dishonest person does not carry out dishonest activities at the podium in public places or go on nationwide TV in China etc etc. Do you think I am stupid or something?


Yes
0

#10 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 14 January 2008 - 03:53 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 14 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

bump

This is the opposite end of the spectrum of ACC fraud.

In my case there is an argument over what is work and what is rehabilitation activity. ACC claim rehabilitation activity is capable of proving an end of incapacity and fraud.

On the other hannd we have a senior staff member of the ACC qualified in accounting who knew exactly what he was doing.


What the Fxxk has this got to do with Crown V Chapman, apart from the fact you are both convicted fraudsters?
0

#11 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 14 January 2008 - 03:56 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 14 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

A dishonest person does not carry out dishonest activities at the podium in public places or go on nationwide TV in China etc etc. Do you think I am stupid or something?


now who said that you could carry out the rehabilitation activity in China that consisted as advertising in most business.

I will not answer your question as there is two questions that can only be answered IMHO to curate an argument.
0

#12 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 14 January 2008 - 04:41 PM

What was you selling on tv tommo yourself or a load of boolocks to get people to immigrate so you could pecuniary gain from it.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 January 2008 - 04:51 PM

Doppelganger S18 of the 1992 act states clearly that the claimant is primarily responsible for his own rehabilitation. There is the expectation that the claimant utilise residual capacity to the maximum extent practical while having regard for the injury. My way of thinking is that it is my social duty to explore all opportunities including promoting what residual capacity I have to the maximum extent. In my case I spent money on my own rehabilitation and definitely did make it towards rehabilitation.

The question is:

Was rehabilitation successful?

The ACC now claim that they are not focusing on rehabilitation into a new occupation, as per what I was looking into. ACC are claiming that the various task activities indicated that I was no longer incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. This is a rather novel approach.

ACC claim to have information in their possession that I am no longer incapacitated. This would have the meaning that the 1992 review hearing decision was wrong and that I did not need the surgery prescribed by some of the finest hand surgeons in New Zealand. The ACC reasoning is based on the evidence of Ben Masoe as reported by private investigators.

It would seem that the ACC would have preferred that I stay home and watch television until they relabelled me.


This posting is about a senior ACC official being prosecuted for fraud in regard to his duties to ask invalids. The comparison I have made is with myself with those he managed also decided to benefit themselves and ACC by pecuniary advantage when alleging they had possession of information that I was working without ever releasing that information to me to charge. They then went on to commit perjury claiming that they had carried out a proper procedures when they later acknowledged he did not even know what those procedures were.

Cearly the conviction of the senior management staff demonstrates that a leadership level a culture of the ACC had been developed. The question we must ask ourselves is: As anything changed? huggy thinks there has been changes or changes are in process of this is a very long time after this prosecution.
0

#14 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 14 January 2008 - 04:59 PM

The advanced transplant systems - yo ho ho.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 January 2008 - 05:55 PM

Hardwired I was not selling anything on television. I was having a discussion with one of the five vice premiers of China at the Sheraton hotel about a joint-venture medical research project concerning tissue transplantation. The discussion lasted a little over five minutes. I doubt very much if the vice premier was actually interested but it was a wonderful photo opportunity broadcast all over China. There is no possibility that the vice premier of China would be discussing the export of its finest and most educated people. As China needs these people more than we do.
0

#16 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 14 January 2008 - 08:16 PM

You are joking???
5 mins on TV in China!! Went all the way for that??
So you are a qualified Medical researcher in China now? You coulda fooled me.
who paid for your trip cos I thought you were a penniless invalid. Seems you did a bit of the old world travel after your ""accident"?
Samoa, Fiji, China and where else?
Wow, not bad for an invalid!!!
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 January 2008 - 08:23 PM

I did not go to China to be on TV. The recording took place at the Sheraton Auckland and I had no knowledge that I was to be broadcast on China National television. I was aware however of the various video cameras and media including those of New Zealand.

I am not a qualified medical research anywhere anywhere. I funded my own rehabilitation objectives as ACC informed me that I was not entitled to vocational rehabilitation at the time. I was making my own way in life self-funded self rehabilitating. I was not a penniless invalid I had ERC and I lived frugally so I could afford self-funded vocational rehabilitation. I have lived overseas for more than one year in total since my injury travelling to USA, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Australia, Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China.

The trial judge seem to think that an invalid might not be able to endure the rigours of travel which seemed to be a point against me. I was not aware that trial judges were qualified to make such medical assumption and moreover I mystified as to how he interprets light duties capacity of my preinjury occupation or whether he thinks that somebody is either bedridden invalid or 100% able-bodied. I find is quite typical of the ACC approach of liability measurement in as much as they routinely ask someone not qualified to answer, including trial judges.
0

#18 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 14 January 2008 - 08:47 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 14 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

Hardwired I was not selling anything on television. I was having a discussion with one of the five vice premiers of China at the Sheraton hotel about a joint-venture medical research project concerning tissue transplantation. The discussion lasted a little over five minutes. I doubt very much if the vice premier was actually interested but it was a wonderful photo opportunity broadcast all over China. There is no possibility that the vice premier of China would be discussing the export of its finest and most educated people. As China needs these people more than we do.


Anyone who gets involved with tissue or organ transplants needs to be aware just where the Red Army hospitals of the Peoples Republic of China get there tissue and organs from.

China does not publish execution figures, but human rights groups estimate that they number from about 5,000 to 12,000 annually.

Introduction (From Amnesty)

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that executed prisoners are the principal source of supply of body organs for medical transplantation purposes in China. While most observers would acknowledge the moral dilemmas implicit in this situation, the chronic shortage of voluntary organ donors around the world has led some to believe that such practices may still be justified: through their deaths, after all, condemned criminals can contribute to saving the lives of innocent victims of disease. Recent research by Human Rights Watch/Asia has uncovered, however, important new documentary and other evidence demonstrating that China's heavy reliance on executed prisoners as a source of transplant organs entails a wide range of unacceptable human rights and medical ethics violations.(1)

The obvious linkage between China's extensive use of the death penalty and the country's burgeoning organ trade and transplant program has attracted mounting international attention and alarm. In 1993, the U.N. Committee Against Torture formally asked the Chinese government "whether the death sentence might not constitute a form of cruel and unusual punishment...[and] whether the bodies of persons executed could be used for the purpose of organ transplants."(2) Later the same year, a report on the British government's first human rights delegation to China officially called upon the Chinese government to produce "a code of conduct for executions which prohibits...the use of organs from executed prisoners for spare part surgery."(3) An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 organs (mainly kidneys and corneas) from prisoners each year are used in this manner, with government officials reportedly receiving priority in their allocation.

A growing worldwide trade in human organs, whereby the poor in countries such as India and Brazil are induced to sell their body parts to meet the transplant needs of high-paying customers, largely from the developed countries, has been widely condemned because of its financially exploitative nature and its abuse of medical ethics. China's extensive use of executed prisoners as a source of organs for medical transplantation purposes, a problem which so far has received somewhat less international attention, likewise creates serious cause for concern on a number of basic human rights grounds.

The consent of prisoners to use their organs after death, although required by law, appears rarely to be sought. In some cases, prisoners and their families are not even informed that the organs will be removed, although in others, the families are given cash payments. Since the prisoner's body is cremated immediately after execution and any last written will or statement can be censored by the authorities, moreover, family members have no way of ascertaining whether or not organs have been removed.

The execution procedure prescribed by Chinese law (shooting in the back of the head), is sometimes violated in order to expedite harvesting of prisoners' organs. According to Chinese legal authorities, some executions are even deliberately mishandled to ensure that the prisoners are not yet dead when their organs are removed.

The lack of adequate judicial safeguards in China, coupled with the existence of government directives allowing political offenders and other nonviolent criminals to be sentenced to death, virtually guarantee that a significant number of wrongful executions will take place. Some of those unfairly sentenced may be unwitting organ donors.

0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 January 2008 - 09:02 PM

organ harvesting is voluntary from those who have received the death penalty in exchange for an additional terminal survival. the tissue transplantation I was involved with is what is known as "auto graft" which means one part of the body to another such as harvesting necessary for cardiovascular surgery. The trials were to be carried out on dogs.
0

#20 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 14 January 2008 - 09:21 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 14 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

organ harvesting is voluntary from those who have received the death penalty in exchange for an additional terminal survival. the tissue transplantation I was involved with is what is known as "auto graft" which means one part of the body to another such as harvesting necessary for cardiovascular surgery. The trials were to be carried out on dogs.

read this again Alan and remember it's Amnesty International you are trying to discredit, also note there is additional terminal survival. In China you are tried and executed within hours after you have paid for the bullet that kills you and usually at the local garbage site and in public.

The consent of prisoners to use their organs after death, although required by law, appears rarely to be sought. In some cases, prisoners and their families are not even informed that the organs will be removed, although in others, the families are given cash payments. Since the prisoner's body is cremated immediately after execution and any last written will or statement can be censored by the authorities, moreover, family members have no way of ascertaining whether or not organs have been removed.

In regards to the dogs, there is an International Samoyed Dog Rescue organisation that in part tries to stop harvesting of Samoyed dogs worldwide, there is a warning from NZ breeders that a Samoyed or Huskie type is worth believe it or not $10.000 a carcase in China.


I also find it a paradox that a man so rabidly anti-socialist seems to venerate such a corrupt and violent Socialist Society as The Peoples Republic of China.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users