Which of the two decisions in Court of Appeal CA 193/03 do you consider correct ?
John Creser made this Official Information request to David Parker
Response to this request is long overdue. By law David Parker should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: John Creser
Dear David Parker,
I'm writing to you in your capacity as Attorney-General
The Justice Select Committee has of 25/August/2021 decided not to seek evidence or hear submissions on the petition in the link below. I'm now asking the Justice Minister & Ministry to answer the questions that the Justice Select Committee, chaired by Labour's Ginny Anderson, refused to do.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petition...
I'm concerned about two materially different Court of Appeal decisions resulting from the same hearing. in 2003.In CA193/2003 [2015] NZCA 579 Para (31). The Court of Appeal led by President Justice Stephen Kos said; “Some form of error seems to have occurred given the discrepancy between the judgment and the (Court’s) sealed order but we are unable to determine some 12 years after the event how this came about or which version is correct”
The Chief Archivist in charge of the public record has said:“The error that appears to have occurred in the sealed judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 14 October 2003, predates the passing of the PRA. A record keeping failure in 2003 cannot be considered a breach of a provision that only came into force in 2005.”
Given that the Court of Appeal has admitted the error and the Chief Archivist has said the error occurred in the 14 October Judgement, I'm writing to ask which one of the two decisions you consider correct.
Yours faithfully,
John Creser
From: D Parker (MIN)
David Parker
Thank you for contacting the office of Hon David Parker, Attorney General,
Minister for the Environment, Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Minister
of Revenue, and Associate Minister of Finance.
Please note that as Minister Parker receives large amounts of
correspondence, it is not always possible to personally reply to all
emails.
The following guidelines apply:
¡¤ Portfolio related correspondence will be considered and
responded to where appropriate.
¡¤ If your email is an invitation or request to meet with the
Minister, your request will be processed and a staff member will be in
contact in due course. As the Minister receives a high volume of
invitations, it is not always possible to respond immediately.
¡¤ Media queries will be responded to by a staff member.
¡¤ Requests for official information will be managed in accordance
with the provisions of the Official Information Act 1982, which may
include a transfer to a more relevant Minister or agency.¡¡
¡¤ If your email falls outside of the Minister's portfolio
responsibilities, your correspondence may be transferred to another
office.
¡¤ If your email expresses a personal view, or is copied to
multiple Members of Parliament, then your opinion will be noted and there
may be no further response.
Regards
Office of Hon David Parker
Office of Hon David Parker MP | Attorney-General | Minister for the
Environment | Minister for Oceans and Fisheries | Minister of
Revenue | Associate Minister of Finance
Authorised by Hon David Parker MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: D Parker (MIN)
David Parker
Dear John Creser
Please find attached a response to your email.
Kind regards
Tracey
Office of Hon David Parker
Office of Hon David Parker MP | Attorney-General | Minister for the
Environment | Minister for Oceans and Fisheries | Minister of Revenue |
Associate Minister of Finance
Authorised by Hon David Parker MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
-----Original Message-----
From: John Creser [mailto:[FOI #16581 email]]
Sent: Monday, 30 August 2021 8:45 PM
To: D Parker (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Which of the two decisions in
Court of Appeal CA 193/03 do you consider correct ?
Dear David Parker,
I'm writing to you in your capacity as Attorney-General
The Justice Select Committee has of 25/August/2021 decided not to seek
evidence or hear submissions on the petition in the link below. I'm now
asking the Justice Minister & Ministry to answer the questions that the
Justice Select Committee, chaired by Labour's Ginny Anderson, refused to
do.
[1]https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petition...
I'm concerned about two materially different Court of Appeal decisions
resulting from the same hearing. in 2003.In CA193/2003 [2015] NZCA 579
Para (31). The Court of Appeal led by President Justice Stephen Kos said;
“Some form of error seems to have occurred given the discrepancy between
the judgment and the (Court’s) sealed order but we are unable to determine
some 12 years after the event how this came about or which version is
correct”
The Chief Archivist in charge of the public record has said:“The error
that appears to have occurred in the sealed judgment of the Court of
Appeal dated 14 October 2003, predates the passing of the PRA. A record
keeping failure in 2003 cannot be considered a breach of a provision that
only came into force in 2005.”
Given that the Court of Appeal has admitted the error and the Chief
Archivist has said the error occurred in the 14 October Judgement, I'm
writing to ask which one of the two decisions you consider correct.
Yours faithfully,
John Creser
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[2][FOI #16581 email]
Is [3][David Parker request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to David Parker? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[4]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petition...
2. mailto:[FOI #16581 email]
3. mailto:[David Parker request email]
4. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
5. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: John Creser
Dear D Parker (MIN),
Thank you for your email of 29 Sept 2021, I acknowledge that the Official Information does not apply to you in your role as Attorney-General. To clarify my position, I've written to each and every Member of Parliament as individual lawmakers seeking their views on my reasons for proposing codification of the law in respect of record-keeping compliance under the Public Records Act 2005.
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petition...
"You have said " Quite apart from the Official Information Act, your question is a matter on which the Court of Appeal has already issued a decision. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for me to
provide any comment on the matter.Hon David Parker"
To clarify my request to you, the Court of Appeal has in fact issued two decisions in respect of the same hearing. They were not both issued by the Court of Appeal, one document was created by the court, in the court and for the court, the other was created by a lawyer, for his client and hidden by the registrar for 12 years. The judgments of the court speak for themselves, there are two, they are materially different and can't both be correct, this has nothing to do with judicial discretion or comity. This is a fraud upon the court and a breach of s258 of the Crimes Act for altering and concealing documents.
Fraud : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1huqM1Bj...
Court: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9-UWd8...
I filed a private prosecution and a District Court Judge agreed there was sufficient evidence to issue summonses but your office issued a stay of proceedings to halt the prosecution.On one hand you've admitted its not appropriate for your office to provide comment on the matters that have been before the court and with the other your office has stepped into a courtroom and issued a nolle-prosequi to halt proceedings, which I might add is the very thing the you've just said you can't comment on.
I believe its an abuse of the Attorney General's powers to allow officers of the court to escape the proper legal consequences of their actions, accordingly I've recently written to Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann to seek her opinion.
Chief Justice 1https://tinyurl.com/x5by85es
Chief Justice 2 https://tinyurl.com/hnwrkhhc
Please consider the question again in respect the above, and advise me whether of not the Attorney-General's office would object to the reinstatement of a prosecution for fraud and if not, why not.?
Yours sincerely,
John Creser
From: D Parker (MIN)
David Parker
Thank you for contacting the office of Hon David Parker, Attorney General,
Minister for the Environment, Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, Minister
of Revenue, and Associate Minister of Finance.
Please note that as Minister Parker receives large amounts of
correspondence, it is not always possible to personally reply to all
emails.
The following guidelines apply:
¡¤ Portfolio related correspondence will be considered and
responded to where appropriate.
¡¤ If your email is an invitation or request to meet with the
Minister, your request will be processed and a staff member will be in
contact in due course. As the Minister receives a high volume of
invitations, it is not always possible to respond immediately.
¡¤ Media queries will be responded to by a staff member.
¡¤ Requests for official information will be managed in accordance
with the provisions of the Official Information Act 1982, which may
include a transfer to a more relevant Minister or agency.¡¡
¡¤ If your email falls outside of the Minister's portfolio
responsibilities, your correspondence may be transferred to another
office.
¡¤ If your email expresses a personal view, or is copied to
multiple Members of Parliament, then your opinion will be noted and there
may be no further response.
Regards
Office of Hon David Parker
Office of Hon David Parker MP | Attorney-General | Minister for the
Environment | Minister for Oceans and Fisheries | Minister of
Revenue | Associate Minister of Finance
Authorised by Hon David Parker MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: D Parker (MIN)
David Parker
Dear John Creser
Please find attached a letter from Hon David Parker.
Kind regards
Tracey
Office of Hon David Parker
Office of Hon David Parker MP | Attorney-General | Minister for the
Environment | Minister for Oceans and Fisheries | Minister of Revenue |
Associate Minister of Finance
Authorised by Hon David Parker MP, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
"Justified limits" on the freedoms and rights of New Zealanders for a disease with 1 percent infection fatality rate
To David Parker by Erika Whittome
How batteries required for EVs will be recycled or disposed of in New Zealand over the next 30 years
To David Parker by Matthew Hooton
