ACCforum: Natural Justice - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Natural Justice Natural Justice

#21 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 05 June 2007 - 07:35 PM

"Depriving someone of natural Justice, such as withholding personal information needed for a criminal defence, is a criminal offence distinctly separate from the civil issues. Typically when innocent a convicted claimant will take 5 or 10 years to resolve the situation."
Bullshit. You may have grounds for a retrial, though, if you can prove that the prosecution kn owingly withheld material relevant to your defence. Big if, though.
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 08:34 PM

Spacecadet the reality is that my case is the way in which my case was progressed is more common than the ideal where there was well funded competent legal counsel. In the Donaldson case the letter prison despite the fact that he spent over $100,000 on legal counsel. He then had to spend a whole lot more on a QC to get him out of prison. In this case the ACC Fraud Unit did exactly the same as mine, withheld the information that it alleged to have in its possession and simply bluff its way through the entire trial.

The Donaldson trial is famous for its PowerPoint presentation to persuade the jury in place of actual substance such as work task activities carried out at material times to indicate a capacity to earn greater than the medical certificates were saying.

You are right that this is a United Nations issue in as much as the state is taking away the rights of an accident victim, then cancelling the compensation promised based on an unsubstantiated allegation that the claimant has been working or can work while at the same time depriving the claimant of judicial recourse. In these cases the claimant is entitled to refugee status and resettlement in one of the 10 United Nations refugee settlement countries.

The most of these cases where work has been alleged there is actually no evidence of work rendering the allegation impossible to disprove after the ACC has gone through the judicial steps described in ACC legislation as a lack of entitlement comes a legal fact sufficient to achieve a criminal conviction for fraudulently obtaining entitlement.

When considering 1500 Fraud investigations per year in comparison with competent legal counsel in New Zealand we are up against a statistical impossibility, a fact that the ACC Fraud Unit is well aware. If they don't get you the first time of the queue the second time or third or fourth such as Lyntott. Probably 80% simply give up.


MG I certainly do have grounds for a retrial however legal aid won't fund the appeal which was an issue addressed in my favour in the Privy Council with the results that I now have a choice of another and appeal to get a retrial or the one of the last in New Zealand to go before the Privy Council. My case goes before the privy Council after the ACC disclose the information they claim to have any position, so I can have made in court, or confess that they never had any information and had committed perjury.

Obviously if ACC have no information that I was working and could work on my previous occupation my entitlement would remain intact rendering fraud and impossibility as you cannot steal what you own.

With regards to your concept of "big if" regarding the knowingly withholding information this fact is identified in a letter to Dr Monash two months after the trial asking him to examine all of the ACC information to determine whether or not I could return to my pre injury occupation. This information was not made available to me at the criminal trial. Dr Monash confirms no medical information and no work task activity for him to examine. He also confirms that ACC did not even know what my pre injury occupation was so as to claim that I could return to that occupation.

Naturally I would not be so bold as to directly accuse people of committing perjury if I did not have proved beyond reasonable doubt hardcopy evidence of such perjury. When staff of the ACC fraud unit and the PIs involved have possession of information that they clearly understood which was directly opposite to what they are telling the court they have a case to answer. As there has already been a three year sentence based on this perjury I anticipate that the eternal incarceration will be no less.

In discussing this matter with numerous barristers who are the top of the game in New Zealand criminal law who stated to me that these people will more likely than not be incarcerated, apart from judicial corruption, I am encouraged to press on so as others do not suffer as some of us have suffered such as Donaldson Lyntott Brown Hayes and myself.
0

#23 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 05 June 2007 - 08:59 PM

If you are in contact with these barristers, why not instruct one of them to represent you on a "no win no fee" basis or, if the issues are of the momentous public importance you say they are, why not ask them to represent you pro bono?
0

#24 User is offline   ACC battler 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 22-February 07

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:31 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on Jun 4 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

Hi Guys, I thought you might be interested in this quotable extract from M v
ACC 17/2002 Judge Willy.

The first point that I want to make is that when ACC makes decisions it must
afford the claimant their right to the observance of the principles of
natural justice (see s.27 NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990) before it makes any
decision effecting the rights, interests or obligations of a claimant.

In other words a right to be heard BEFORE a decision affecting your rights, interests or obligations is made (called Audi Alteram Partem - decency in adjudication).

It is unconscionable that ACC offers its own staff the right to be heard by another person if they disagree with their personal employment assessment by, for example, their branch manager - but they have been offering no such right to most claimants.

Moreover, in offering mediation or an administrative review by ACC itself or by an
independent person outside the statutory review and appeal process ACC are not offering anything
other than what ACC is required by law to do. ACC is bound to the NZ Bill
of Rights Act by virtue of s.3 (B) of that Act.

Similarly, a reviewer is not permitted to adjudicate on anything other than
what was presented at the review. So often, a reviewer will decided "no
jurisdiction" - or some other stupid decision - when neither ACC nor the
claimant has raised the jurisdiction issue or other things which the reviewer has adjudicated on at the review.

For example, I have seen a case where ACC asked the reviewer to uphold its
decision of a certain date but the stupid reviewer then issued his decision
declining jurisdiction saying that it was not a decision. In other words he
acted for, on behalf of, and as, ACC. This is happening all too frequently.

I also ask that you pay particular attention to what Lord Diplock said below about your "......interests (including in that term career and reputation........" as it relates to your reputation which may be under attack by ACC and its private investigator's.

You have a right to be heard on the commentary, observations, opinions, inferences etc drawn by ACC or its private investigator's - (and including police officer's) because they affect your "interests" under the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

This is what Judge Willy found - and said - in M v ACC.

[21] These submissions are, in my view, unanswerable. The relevant
principles of natural justice applicable to such hearings were stated by
Lord Diplock in Re Erebus Royal Commission; Air New Zealand v Mahon [1993]
NZLR 662 at 671 in this way:

"The first rule is that the person making a finding in the exercise of such
a jurisdiction must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative
value in the sense described below. The second rule is that he must listen
fairly to any relevant evidence conflicting with the finding and any
rational argument against the finding that a person represented at the
inquiry, whose interests (including in that term career or reputation) may
be adversely affected by it, may wish to place before him or would have so
wished if he had been aware of the risk of the finding being made.

The technical rules of evidence applicable to civil or criminal litigation
form no part of the rules of natural justice. What is required by the first
rule is that the decision to make the finding must be based upon some
material that tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with
the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be
disclosed, is not logically self-contradictory.

The second rule requires that any person represented at the inquiry who will
be adversely affected by the decision to make the finding should not be left
in the dark as to the risk of the finding being made and thus deprived of
any opportunity to adduce additional material of probative value which, had
it been placed before the decision-maker, might have deterred him from
making the finding even though it cannot be predicated that it would
inevitably have had that result."

[22] There is nothing difficult or technical about these prescriptions.
They amount to no more than well understood notions of fair play.

[size=7]

Does this mean that when ACC prosecuted me for criminal fraud without ever having interviewed me or discussed the matter with me in any shape or form and then had their prosecution thrown out of court that I have redress under those circumstances?

absolutely intrigued

ACC Battler.
0

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2007 - 09:58 PM

MG my case is going to the Privy Council pro bono.

Hundreds of hours have been poured into my civil case by my barrister without pay.


There are a significant number of cases whereby the ACC fraud unit and PIs have successfully prosecuted cases without evidence while promising the criminal court that the ACC have made decisions based on information in the ACC's possession or information known to be contradictory to the facts. Some claimants have been lucky enough to have the cases thrown out halfway through while others had to go through the arduous process of appeal. Misleading the court is broadly speaking called perjury and perjury is illegal with the punishment of perjury in serious cases imprisonment. These cases are serious cases.

ACC battler what we are attempting to do is to establish the criteria whereby we bring about criminal prosecutions against ACC staff and their agents whereby they are removed from the community so as we may exist in safety.
0

#26 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:10 PM

Allan have you applied through the privacy Act to collect that information that can not be what section 27 says. If you haven't then why not. I know that you are on the way back to court but you will still need to gather that information.
0

#27 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10802
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 June 2007 - 07:38 PM

Dopplegangger in my previous postings I confirmed that the Privacy Commissioner upheld the ACC's use of S27. I have also confirmed that the ACC have ignored a Directions Order from the District Court to release that information.

Obviously it is impossible to refute an allegation that I was working if the ACC don't describe what that work was or when I was supposed to have done this alleged work. Any suggestions?
0

#28 User is offline   ACC battler 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 22-February 07

Posted 07 June 2007 - 09:52 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jun 5 2007, 09:58 PM, said:

MG my case is going to the Privy Council pro bono.

Hundreds of hours have been poured into my civil case by my barrister without pay.


There are a significant number of cases whereby the ACC fraud unit and PIs have successfully prosecuted cases without evidence while promising the criminal court that the ACC have made decisions based on information in the ACC's possession or information known to be contradictory to the facts. Some claimants have been lucky enough to have the cases thrown out halfway through while others had to go through the arduous process of appeal. Misleading the court is broadly speaking called perjury and perjury is illegal with the punishment of perjury in serious cases imprisonment. These cases are serious cases.

ACC battler what we are attempting to do is to establish the criteria whereby we bring about criminal prosecutions against ACC staff and their agents whereby they are removed from the community so as we may exist in safety.

Morning Alan,

what can I do to help????

cheers

ACC Battler.
0

#29 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 June 2007 - 06:38 PM

Allan the information can not be sentive if it is about you because you should know what you did or was doing.

Point that out the the PC.

the only reason that they could with hold that information if the information was not about you or if it was false. you have no right to some one elses information and they can not use someones elses information as your information.

Yrll the PC that you think that there information is false misleading and being used to mislead others.

Don't give up on the first reply or return
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