ACCforum: Iprc Act Overrides Bill Of Rights Legislation. - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Iprc Act Overrides Bill Of Rights Legislation. Is this correct?

#1 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:00 PM

letter from Neil McKellar, DRSL to me.....

"I appreciate you alerting me to the Bill of Rights legislation. Our understanding is that the specific review and appeal provisions for ACC decision in the IPRC Act stand in place of the Bill of Rights provisions for review and appeal. This is challenged from time to time in the Courts, but as yet we are not aware of any change to that position."

So.....kids.....your rights appear to have been cancelled by your urstwhile gumbiment. Lovely, lovely - NOT!

Gloria.
0

#2 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:18 PM

Gloria,

Mr McKellar has just expressed to you DRSL's Legal Position.

This position is completely unacceptable. It just goes to show what has been said for some time by one of the most experienced contributors to this forum, that the IPRC Act was not enacted constitutionally correctly as the attorney general failed to give notification to Parliament that the draft Bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act,

or alternatively,

This is another case of the Corporation and it's subsidaries misinterpreting their legislation in order to deny access to justce to claimants.



In the district court recently, I was told by a judge that it is the oppinion of the court that they cannot recall their judgements as the Part 5 of the IPRC Act overrides the District Court Rules. This much may be true and I am led to believe that Judge Cadenhead researched this at length.

This does not mean that the IPRC Act can override the NZBORA. This is a different set of circumstances as although parliament can "override" the District Court Rules, Window dressing in the case of human rights is another kettle of fish!

Cheers

Warren
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:23 PM

As the government committed an act of war against invalids. I believe Hitler did this in the 1930s. I think the number of invalids executed ran into the millions and of course many many more millions were put on concentration camps.

As for myself I am virtually on home detention for being an invalid as my rights to sue has been taken away and if we are to believe the ACC, DRSL and various reviewers we do not have a judicial mechanism under part 5 of the act to seek legal redress so as to be compensated for the taking away of our right to sue.
0

#4 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 05:15 PM

Attached is a document which I prepared for a recent appeal.

The appeal was sucessful, Judge Beattie stating that the Corporation and DRSL were wrong to deny the claimant access to justice.

On page 6, the issues regarding NZBORA are discussed, the Corporation certainly did not address the issues in any depth, instead stating merely that the definition of "decision" which I put forward was too wide.

Cheers

Warren

Attached File(s)


0

#5 User is offline   Warren Forster 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 06:23 PM

For anyone who doesn't have PDF...

NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

28. Section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act establishes that
the Act Applies to acts done by the Corporation.

29. Section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sets out that,
whenever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consitent
with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that
meaning shall be prefered to any other meaning.

30. Section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act is relevant here.

NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990
PART 2 - CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Search, arrest, and detention
27. Right to justice—

(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of
natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the
power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights,
obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or
recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any
tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance
with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and
to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those
proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil
proceedings between individuals.


31. As the NZBORA was enacted under the Acts Interpretation Act
1924, the Long Title is also relevant here. It states:
An Act –

(a) To affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental
freedoms in New Zealand; and
(B) To affirm New Zealand’s commitment to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights

32. In the Queen v Poumako, the Court of Appeal Held
“Window dressing in the case of Human Rights is unacceptable and no
such cavalier attitude is attributable to Parliament”.


33. In this case, there are two posisble interpretations, firstly an
interpretation of the definition of “decision” which excludes Mr
X from having access to justice and denies him the
right to be heard, and secondly an interpretation which allows Mr
X such rights and remedies.

34. It is submitted that in this case, the issue of the definition of
decision must be made in favour of the interpretation which is
consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
0

#6 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 07:21 PM

Surely to right to Natural Justice would stand, in that, Justice must be able to be seen to be seen and Justice not allowed by social insurance legislation cannot not be seen to be withheld and surely a social insurance scheme cannot be allowed to legislate to override basic human right to justice where it has clearly been prejudiced?

As in a request for recall or rehearing where prejudice and or wrongdoings are clearly shown to have prejudiced the resulting judgement.

Was it the Parlimentarians intent to not only take away the right to sue for redress, but to also take away the right to recompense where the gate keeper itself deliberately prejudices decision making of the judiciary?

Surely not the intent of the Act as I understand it to have been......not the intent of those whom I know were involved in the inaugeration of the Accident Compensation Scheme. Although I consider it to be an interesting study on the efficacy of legislated protection of Medical Personel. Yes I made a mistake, sorry, but go see ACC cause I am covered by the No fault Insurance Scheme. Hmmmm there were a whole sleigh full of medical people involved in the formation of ACC. Interesting?

Gloria.
0

#7 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 23 January 2007 - 11:13 PM

View PostAl9lifes, on Jan 23 2007, 09:46 PM, said:

IMHO the ACC legislation was designed to serve and protect the injured persons in our society come what may.


Or maybe Come what WHO? Think medical misadventure.......it happens all too often....there are horrifying statements on forum about this topic if I recall correctly.

Gloria.
0

#8 User is offline   Chrissy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 25-August 05

Posted 24 January 2007 - 07:52 AM

This document is fantastic, I am sure a few forum members could use these arguments for their own cases!
0

#9 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 27 October 2009 - 06:40 AM

View PostWarren Forster, on Jan 23 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

Attached is a document which I prepared for a recent appeal.

The appeal was sucessful, Judge Beattie stating that the Corporation and DRSL were wrong to deny the claimant access to justice.

On page 6, the issues regarding NZBORA are discussed, the Corporation certainly did not address the issues in any depth, instead stating merely that the definition of "decision" which I put forward was too wide.

Cheers

Warren

Hi Warren it is Darrell Pearce here. Do you happen to have the case number at hand by any chance please. I would be interested to see it myself. There is also another case called Albert Dean. Both judgments can be found on www.courtsofnz.govt.nz. There is a high court decision & a court of appeal decision.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce
0

#10 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 03-February 07

  Posted 13 February 2010 - 08:15 PM

View PostWarren Forster, on Jan 23 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

Attached is a document which I prepared for a recent appeal.

The appeal was sucessful, Judge Beattie stating that the Corporation and DRSL were wrong to deny the claimant access to justice.

On page 6, the issues regarding NZBORA are discussed, the Corporation certainly did not address the issues in any depth, instead stating merely that the definition of "decision" which I put forward was too wide.

Cheers

Warren

Hi Warren it is Darrell Pearce here. Can you give me please the case number to this appeal that was successful by any chance please.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 14 February 2010 - 10:05 AM

I agree Darryl, I too would like the actual case number to be put up here as the Judges comments on Warrens submission are relevent to us using this information in our own cases.

Well we cant really can we because we dont know what the case is. and cannot quote what the Judge said about it.

In otherwords the way it is presented to us is useless for using as caselaw in the courts, as interesting as it is.

I am going to do what I am good at and investigate, by the information we already know and see how close I can get to the actual case. I will certainly let you know as the case is for public consumption unless otherwise deemed by the Judge and I cant yet see where this has happened.

Thanks for the assistance Warren, as ever you are as helpful as you wish to be.

Much appreciated.
Mini
0

#12 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:00 AM

What is natural justice? Does it occur if Nick Smith gets run over by a Tallys fish truck? or Phil Riley gets paralysed from the neck down instead of from the neck up? or John Keyes gets bitten in the eyes by a snake? or Jan Whites Plane crashes in to Shamrock house on the way home from work next week? If its New Zealand Government style justice it is naturally corrupt. Is that what they mean by natural justice? Sort of shiny on top and shit underneath, like our clean green image. There but not there. Or our sustainably managed fishing industry. We have wiped out our two most important species commercially; Orange Roughy and Hoki. The two main sources of income from New Zealand fishing reduced to nothing. No enquiry, no accountablility, no responsibility. It is sustainably managed, no need.
0

#13 User is offline   sunny 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 207
  • Joined: 07-December 09

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:15 PM

View Postjocko, on Mar 22 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

What is natural justice? Does it occur if Nick Smith gets run over by a Tallys fish truck? or Phil Riley gets paralysed from the neck down instead of from the neck up? or John Keyes gets bitten in the eyes by a snake? or Jan Whites Plane crashes in to Shamrock house on the way home from work next week? If its New Zealand Government style justice it is naturally corrupt. Is that what they mean by natural justice? Sort of shiny on top and shit underneath, like our clean green image. There but not there. Or our sustainably managed fishing industry. We have wiped out our two most important species commercially; Orange Roughy and Hoki. The two main sources of income from New Zealand fishing reduced to nothing. No enquiry, no accountablility, no responsibility. It is sustainably managed, no need.


Mmmm and who would be the 2 MAIN OFFENDERS of wipeing out those fisheries?????
2 VERY big an influencial fishing industrys! wonder if they line the govenments pockets to have gotten away with that! could be why one is slowly but surely moveing offshore an the other is branching out into other industrys!! :rolleyes:
0

#14 User is offline   mike p 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-May 11

Posted 27 May 2011 - 04:42 PM

View Postdarrellpearce, on 27 October 2009 - 06:40 AM, said:

Hi Warren it is Darrell Pearce here. Do you happen to have the case number at hand by any chance please. I would be interested to see it myself. There is also another case called Albert Dean. Both judgments can be found on www.courtsofnz.govt.nz. There is a high court decision & a court of appeal decision.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce

0

#15 User is offline   mike p 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 27-May 11

Posted 27 May 2011 - 04:48 PM

View Postdarrellpearce, on 27 October 2009 - 06:40 AM, said:

Hi Warren it is Darrell Pearce here. Do you happen to have the case number at hand by any chance please. I would be interested to see it myself. There is also another case called Albert Dean. Both judgments can be found on www.courtsofnz.govt.nz. There is a high court decision & a court of appeal decision.
Kind Regards
Darrell Pearce

new at this the cases mentioned in the correspondence between warren and darrel in need of this info can anybody help thanks cheers
0

#16 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 27 May 2011 - 05:50 PM

the Document is downloaded in post 4 from this thread

Post 5 is there in word format.
0

#17 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:40 AM

http://waterpressure...dicial-conduct/

HE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 2002

(The Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct 2001adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity,as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, November 25-26, 2002)

Preamble

WHEREAS the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes as fundamental the principle that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of rights and obligations and of any criminal charge.

WHEREAS the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees that all persons shall be equal before the courts, and that in the determination of any criminal charge or of rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled, without undue delay, to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

WHEREAS the foregoing fundamental principles and rights are also recognized or reflected inregional human rights instruments, in domestic constitutional, statutory and common law, and in judicial conventions and traditions.

WHEREAS the importance of a competent, independent and impartial judiciary to the protection of human rights is given emphasis by the fact that the implementation of all the other rights ultimately depends upon the proper administration of justice.

WHEREAS a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is likewise essential if the courts are to fulfil their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law.

WHEREAS public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of the utmost importance in a modern democratic society.

WHEREAS it is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honour judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system.

WHEREAS the primary responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the judiciary in each country.

AND WHEREAS the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary are designed to secure and promote the independence of the judiciary, and are addressed primarily to States.


0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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