ACCforum: Private Investigators Hearing - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Private Investigators Hearing Very serious issues

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 04 October 2008 - 12:16 PM

I have this morning been pointed to the two articles in the Otago Daily Times and the one in Investigate Magazine TGIF and I believe that there has been a breach of procedural and substantive fairness amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

I am now aware of the background and have also looked at the PI & SG Act and the Commissions of Inquiry Act and I am satisfied that if the Registrar proceeds to issue a decision when he has knowledge of substantive matters outstanding and in issue, then there are bona fide and serious grounds of argument for judicial review of the Registrar being the exercise of statutory and discretionary powers.

IMHO the processes and procedures adopted by the PI Registrar has effectively created the problems for both parties. I would therefore not expect to see any opposition from Mr Gibbons or his counsel that the objector's have put forward to the Registrar.

I note that the Registrar and Mr Gibbons counsel was served with a Memorandum on Thursday 2 October 2008 and yet all the media articles are dated 4 October 2008.

Someone is therefore being quite mischievious in approaching the media after being filed and served with objections including that the proceedings were not over.

There also appears to be other very serious issues that ACC has to answer for relating to the Investigate Magazine TGIF article. There could well be contempt issues involved.

There is a legitimate question of law - does the right for a person to attend a hearing as a member of the public (actually an ACC media advisor) extend to that member of 'the public' making notes and then passing privileged evidence heard in the hearing room to witnesses for the opposing party waiting outside in the waiting room before they gave their evidence?

(The objector's were not even advised of any witnesses for Mr Gibbons et al, being called, the Registrar states in writing that he was not aware of any witnesses either, and neither was there a witness list produced or timetabled by the Registrar).

These are all very serious matters which need full and proper scrutiny.
0

#2 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 04 October 2008 - 01:50 PM

Fully agree magnacarta.

Lets see how the issues are dealt with and if it needs to go to judicial review.
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 October 2008 - 03:16 PM

Both the recent whitewash report and the conduct of this hearing were reasonably predictable. Historically the lower courts and the junior preceding judicial procedures have been dumbing down with the result that most make their preparations simply to go through this necessary gatekeeper using the opportunity to lay the foundation for when addressing matters before the more learned judiciary normally found at the High Court and above.

I agree with the original posting and further add that I am encouraged with the probability that this matter may now go directly to a judicial review where the team may get some solid ground to put forward a well set out legal argument. Of course it is still an adversarial system which means that the team is going to need to employ robust legal counsel.
0

#4 User is offline   Jaws 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 30-September 08

  Posted 04 October 2008 - 07:41 PM

Our Mr Harrison should indeed be careful what he issues in his decision as I do not think he wants a storm of skunk s**t landing in his front garden (so to speak)

My belief is that he is very aware that Gibbo has told porkie pies and this little tidbit of information will bite our Gibbo very hard on his backside and might just very well come back and bite the Registrar also.

My best wishes for the Gibbo
0

#5 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 04 October 2008 - 08:01 PM

monday should be interesting in "THE HOUSE"
0

#6 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 04 October 2008 - 08:15 PM

Indeed Flowers, it will be

I'm surprized none of the Poly Parties have made press released comment of their shock horror yet

Anyone heard a squeek out of Hon Maryann? (Labour Party) Pansy Wong? (National Party) Sue Bradford? (The Green Party)
0

#7 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:55 PM

Because of the impending election PArliament has been disolved, so there will be no "In the House" on Monday. Pity

Gibbo getting his just deserts, now he knows what it is like to be watched by HIM. Keep up the good work guys, hound him outa Dunners!!!!!
0

#8 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 05 October 2008 - 12:01 AM

I hesitate to criticise Magnacarta (post # 1, above) and his careful analysis but I have been following this case on accforum for months now (is it even years?) and I am truly depressed that when the objectors had their day in court – and they went there of their own choice – they somehow managed to go there pretty well totally unprepared, were found to be unprepared, and then walked out again.

The police investigated the private investigators, the police complaints authority investigated them, the ACC investigated them and we all took them to court (well, to a hearing). Just read the accforum thread “Private Investigators Speak Out Over Scandal”.

It does not matter very much what any of us say now however sympathetic we may be to Huggy et al. No one has put up anything on accforum (or at the hearing or to the police or ACC it seems) that stands up against Mr Gibbons or Mr Scott.

Will someone please post the ‘evidence’ which was supposed to be so convincing – there has been simply none put up on accforum. Instead all we have got is propaganda, politics and unlikely claims as to the future due processes the objectors are going to follow.

The due process has been completed and the Registrar concluded the hearing by pointing out that NO evidence had been produced. That is, our side chucked in the towel WITHOUT EVEN GIVING THE EVIDENCE.

The ‘day in court’ was had and abandoned – it will be difficult (impossible?) to ‘appeal’ under such circumstances.

If ACC did to any of us what we are trying to do here – maintain a case without ANY evidence (or refusing to put it up or give it in court at least) – we would all be deeply and justifiably upset.

If there is evidence (put up or shut up is what Gibbons and Scott are saying) WHERE IS IT PLEASE?

Get real. This is a simple, total, embarrassing loss.
0

#9 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 05 October 2008 - 07:26 AM

Keentohelp do you think we will put evidence up here when this is still a live issue.

The hearing was not conducted with due process, all laws regarding commission of enquiries were bypassed.

The registrar's fairness in the way the hearing was conducted was outragious, we do have legal remedies available which are being pursued. Of course we now sit and wait for his decision if he is going to reconvene the hearing and if he doesnt do that and decides Gibbons is a fit and proper person then we can judicially review his conduct on the way process was not followed.

The IPCA did not investigate Gibbons as its not their jurisdiction to do so, however they did make comment about Gibbons and if you read that you will clearly see they refer to Gibbons error regarding the medical certificate status.

The Police have not investigated Gibbons because we havent lodged complaints into him as of yet. This will happen as the Police are not happy at all about being provided false information.
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 09:54 AM

Hi Huggy

Actually I think you are both right, from what I know of court hearings etc.

All evidence is usually given to the other side as a gesture of good faith usually, I try and settle any arguements outside hearing.

In fact I have one at the moment that if I wish to present more evidence it has to be past by the judge as having to be needed and crucial to the outcome.

So if you have evidence you have not provided to the 'Mr Harrison' it maybe too late to do so. I do not know what the rules of the hearing were, but if it were a mini court that would be standard.

If you have not had time to present it because you walked out then maybe he has to make a finding on the evidence that he has.

So whoever told you to withhold that evidence, until the actual day of the hearing, maybe just maybe, made a little error which is going to stop any further action.

Having said that it does not excuse them for budgering a witness. I take it they were not giving you a chance to put your evidence forward. But one would have thought that your side had first say.

By all means have another 'go' at Judicial Review. As you can see I did and got my own way, so it sometimes works but is very hard on the old nerves. Mind you having counsel must make a difference.

I wouldnt put my evidence up here though, I would just make sure all you have is apparent to the Judge and people involved before you get in the Court room next time.

Sometimes just sometimes, the other side will weaken through the shear weight of your evidence and they dont want it out in public. Sometimes that happens.

Good Luck whatever you do, you know my heart goes with you

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 10:26 AM

of course the evidence is not up on here.... sheesh....I will say again the objections were not withdrawn. The objectors withdrew because it was a completely unsafe environment for the objectors to be heard. This was supposed to be run "akin to a commission of inquiry" see Harrison quote from D Scene back in May but by the 26th Sept Harrison had changed that to "similar to a defended criminal hearing in a District Court"

Now in my opinion he can not have it both ways

IF it was run in the way iti s supposed to be as set down by the PISG Act and the Commission of Inquiry Act we would not have had to withdraw - the process was flawed and that disadvantaged both sides. The public has a right to judge the documents on their own merit and that didn't occur because of procedural error in our view.

Quite simply the registrar got it wrong and we have lodged a Notice Of Objection to that end last Thursday.

A decision has not been issued, legal proceedings are not over Gibbons and Scott should not have been discussing it as though it was.

Until a decision is made one way or another there will be no evidence placed up here for all the vultures to pick over.
0

#12 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 05 October 2008 - 10:32 AM

What is being overlooked is the fact that everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing before a competent judicial, legislative or administrative authority (save for suppression orders or where a public hearing would result in serious prejudice).

It is common ground that this was a public hearing but it was not a procedurally or substantively fair hearing - there was substantive prejudice created in the way this hearing was conducted by the Registrar (to both parties).

There was no case telephone conferences or preliminary timetabling hearing conducted by the Registrar even though the objector's lodged their objections as far back as February and March 2008. In fact, there was no timetabling of anything.

Can I suggest that members also refer to Article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which NZ has ratified, and the long title and s.27 (1) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (natural justice)

There is also a mountain of case law in both the domestic and international jusrisdictions relating to the fundamental and over-arching obligation to conduct fair hearings. It is also well settled that procedural law is an accessory to substantive law. (see Laws NZ Civil Procedure para 1).

It is also not correct to suggest (as was done by opposing counsel) that Huggy was the lead objector and 16 others were simply following - each objector had a seperate and legitimate cause of action.
0

#13 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 11:52 AM

Keentohelp, your ignorance is apalling for a person who is an Advocate
Of course the EVIDENCE is being with held from the Forum and th e World wide Web!!

As has been stated, this case is not over and of course we await with eagerness to see an outcome satisfactory to all the Southern friends.
Do not try and demean these people as you have done in the past.
ACC forum was being read in the court by the Defence Council and imagine the disaster if all what YOU want to know was put up on the Web.
Your comments re Huggy over the past weeks have not been helpful.
You , like the rest of us, will have to be patient and wait and see what the outcome is before any more uninformed comments please.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 01:58 PM

Are we there yet?

Anecdotally we feel that private investigators employed by the ACC are misbehaving.

The private investigators defend themselves by saying their activities are within the law and that if anyone is to blame it is the ACC issuing misleading information and after collecting the information requested to be collected and delivering that information to the police when requesting a search warrant because the ACC had alleged a crime has been committed based on the ACC interpretation of that information then if there is any mistake in applying for the search warrant in the mistake must be made by the ACC & police.

The criminal registrar who issued to search warrant will no doubt say that they issued a search warrant on the basis that the ACC have claimed on balance of probability fraud has occurred which was supported by the police, leaving the private investigators out of the picture.

What I am seeing is all parties are claiming to be standing behind firewalls so as it is very difficult for fairgo and the 16 objectors to provide the registrar with proof beyond reasonable doubt connective evidence that demonstrate the private investigator's activities have been unwarranted. I am seeing that the private investigators unorthodox activities are in bad taste only if the private investigators are to be believed. They are claiming no actual evidence has been put forward. In my correct that huggy was the first one up to present evidence that relate to him and are about his experiences while the remaining 15 had not yet made their presentations under oath of their evidence and exhibits etc and as such the registrar is now left empty-handed without substantial amounts of evidence formally entered into the system?

Was the objectors evidence substantive fact in relation to points of law or simply moral outrage against unsavoury behaviour or objections about what the law allows private investigators to do?

Did the ACC and the private investigators deliberately create an untenable situation in the hope that the objectors would withdraw? (Rather like the mafia which threaten a witness)

Did the registrar seek to protect the decisions of his fellow registrars concerning the issuing of private investigator licences? (By allowing undue rough-and-tumble in regards to cross examination)

Has the registrar ended the proceedings so as to make a decision on what was actually entered into evidence? (The defendant appears to think so when issuing a press release)

If the applicant is alleging that the proceedings were unlawful to the effect that there was no possibility that the right to be heard was a real right, could we see an actual list of the wrongs together with the evidence of those wrongs?


Naturally we all want to be 100% unified and provide unwavering support but we need to know the nature of what we are supporting. By 100% unified I do not mean emotional support but rather that we agree on the points of law, the veracity of the facts and how the law has been broken that makes the private investigator unsuitable as an unsavoury conduct described in the recent report may not be enough. Obviously police misconduct described in the report is irrelevant.
0

#15 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 05 October 2008 - 07:32 PM

That’s not fair at all Sparrow. (post # 13, above).

What my post (# 8, above) asks is for someone to post what the evidence is that has been put up in the hearing.

We are all saying there is all this evidence but the Registrar said there was NONE.

If there is none then he is right (none has actually been posted on accforum that I have seen).

If there is some then it is already in the public arena, has been disclosed to and presented at the hearing and posting here will not make any difference to what the other side knows.

It is just that with no evidence being posted on accforum it all seems to bear out what the Registrar said – no matter how much you or I may not like it.
0

#16 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 05 October 2008 - 09:35 PM

A 65 page brief of evidence was provided along with 373 pages of documentational evidence given to the registrar. If he wishes to treat it as no evidence then that is fine with me. It allows me to put in more evidence that has been slowly filtering in from Police and other agencies over the last week.

It was given to counsel as well. The registrar stated to the newspapers that no evidence had been produced, whether this was done in error or not is not my problem.

Either way is no skin off my nose as this whole fiasco has in affect made them look worse.

So therefore i will not produce evidence on the forum until we have exhausted all legal remedies.
0

#17 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 05 October 2008 - 11:23 PM

Keentohelp. you are either so stupid or just plain nasty. .
Noone would use th e Forum as a vehicle to present evidence. Are you that stupid??
0

#18 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 October 2008 - 07:28 AM

Keentohelp, I am somewhat mystified with the tenor of your postings on this forum.

Perhaps you could explain to us all exactly how you are "keentohelp'?

And keentohelp whom?
0

#19 User is offline   flowers 

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

Posted 06 October 2008 - 07:31 AM

Was wondering when someone would ask that question!!
especially the WHOM?
0

#20 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 06 October 2008 - 08:22 AM

LOL my thoughts exactly :)
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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