Thank you Gary, KCs are mere pleaders whose hubris upon being elevated to the judiciary wrongly assumes some element of the principle of the divine right of kings, struck down as an outcome of the English Civil War and interregnum, thus upholding the demos. I suggesthe system of appointments to the judiciary needs scrutiny.
I have lost faith in NZ judicial and legal framework - https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=165818 My experience includes at the Appeal Court the Judges asking the KC opposition party "what of the wider misconduct being perpetrated on other members of the public who also face loss and do not realise?". The opposition KC stated "this matter is between the parties only and does not include other classes or parties". The Appeal Court agreed and let drop what was the undermining of widescale concealed financial misconduct being perpetrated on all of New Zealand consumers by financial institutions that operates to this day.
Government agency was then asked to intervene. The director of the agency resigned and nothing happened.
The issues show the potential conflict between the rule of law, the principle of standing in legal proceedings, and the influence of a large group of kCs. While the rule of law dictates that everyone is subject to the law and treated equally, the concept of standing limits who can bring a legal case to court. Standing is a legal doctrine that requires a party to have a sufficient stake in the outcome of a case to bring it to court. This means that the party must have suffered a concrete and particularised injury, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions, and that a favorable court decision is likely to redress the injury.
The Appeal Court Judge appears to be applying the principle of standing strictly, focusing solely on the immediate parties involved in the case. The Judge's question, "what about all the others affected?", suggests a concern for the broader impact of the misconduct, but the KC in response stating "this matter is only between the two parties and not all consumers," effectively limits the scope of the case.
The issues raises several concerns:
1) Limited access to justice: If only the directly aware affected party can bring a case, it could create a situation where widespread harm goes unaddressed. This is especially problematic when the misconduct is systemic and affects a large number of consumers.
2) A consortium of KC can influence Parliament: Forty-two senior lawyers, all King’s Counsel, can send a letter to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General stating that the Treaty Principles Bill should be abandoned.
3) Potential for injustice: By focusing solely on the immediate parties, the court may fail to consider the broader implications of the misconduct, potentially leading to a decision that perpetuates harm for others.
4) Erosion of public trust: When courts and Parliament appear to prioritise technical legal arguments over the broader public interest, it can erode public trust in the legal system.
Possible Solutions are removed as Legislative action by the Government to enable and enact laws to address widespread misconduct, or lack of justice for providing a broader framework for consumer protection and constitutional matters is open to manipulation.
Courts should consider adapting their approach to standing, and KC informal actions outside process to recognise the broader societal impact of certain types of misconduct and allowing for more flexible interpretations of doctrines.
Barriers to justice are alive and well in NZ. Finding a balance between these principles is essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting the interests of all citizens.
Is it a coincidence that objection to the debate is on the grounds that the Treaty Principles Act may validate Parliamentary Supremacy and the "right to govern" as per the Constitution Act 1986 amongst others like the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975.
One wonders whether the authors of the letter remember their oath to follow the rule of law and serve the people of New Zealand without fear or favour.
I'm not sure why so many KCs attended the recent Hikoi in protest against the bill but were silent when the freedoms of all New Zealanders that are fundamental to a free and democratic nation were cast aside for years between 2020 and 2023 on the back of a declared "medical emergency" despite a lack of evidence outside of sensational media reports 24/7 and the PM's daily live press briefings that such an emergency actually existed. They were also silent about the recent Labour administration's lack of transparency, lack of accountability, intense censorship of debate, refusal to answer reasonable questions put to them by constituents and their decision to adopt pandemic policies that placed New Zealand's health and wellbeing children at risk. Most KCs, KC Gary Judd being one esxception, were also silent about the misuse and abuse of urgency provisions to enact paradigm shifting legislation such as Three Waters while the emergency health orders were in place.. I could go on...
Well said Gary. I think the exposition on the sovereign power of Parliament, which the 42 seem to doubt, is very necessary. I hope your piece gets wider coverage. Law Talk comes to mind. It would be good if it appeared in Bryce Edwards' daily roundup as well.
Thanks Gary, but why pussyfoot around with these people any longer? We have indulged these ‘sacred cows’ for decades, unable to foster a reasonable defence against their anti-democratic impulses because our ‘elites’ (sneer) went to the same dinner parties, universities or met in the same boardrooms in the shallow pool that constitutes NZ society.
So we stand at a precipice,sacrifice our unity as Kiwis to these elites that foster division and would sell us out for their own commercial gain (it’s the fees that count), or draw a line in the sand and proclaim that’s it’s time for ordinary Kiwis to be heard. There is no better time than now while the Supreme Court has shown just how far out of touch it is with reality,
thinking that it answers to no one, not even Parliament.
Their activism only encourages other judges and courts to defy Parliament’s authority. Bring back the supremacy of Parliament. Kick a few prominent ‘elite’ backsides and throw out some of these non-elected nobodies. Average Kiwis won’t care.
If Parliament won’t act then sooner or later your ‘average’ Kiwis will. Look at what has happened in recent European elections, the centre has reaffirmed itself as the voice of the people.
Thank God we have Gary Judd batting for the common man. Keep it up Gary you are a godsend.
A nicely crafted reminder, for us all, of the order of things. Thanks.
Thank you Gary, KCs are mere pleaders whose hubris upon being elevated to the judiciary wrongly assumes some element of the principle of the divine right of kings, struck down as an outcome of the English Civil War and interregnum, thus upholding the demos. I suggesthe system of appointments to the judiciary needs scrutiny.
I have lost faith in NZ judicial and legal framework - https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=165818 My experience includes at the Appeal Court the Judges asking the KC opposition party "what of the wider misconduct being perpetrated on other members of the public who also face loss and do not realise?". The opposition KC stated "this matter is between the parties only and does not include other classes or parties". The Appeal Court agreed and let drop what was the undermining of widescale concealed financial misconduct being perpetrated on all of New Zealand consumers by financial institutions that operates to this day.
Government agency was then asked to intervene. The director of the agency resigned and nothing happened.
The issues show the potential conflict between the rule of law, the principle of standing in legal proceedings, and the influence of a large group of kCs. While the rule of law dictates that everyone is subject to the law and treated equally, the concept of standing limits who can bring a legal case to court. Standing is a legal doctrine that requires a party to have a sufficient stake in the outcome of a case to bring it to court. This means that the party must have suffered a concrete and particularised injury, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions, and that a favorable court decision is likely to redress the injury.
The Appeal Court Judge appears to be applying the principle of standing strictly, focusing solely on the immediate parties involved in the case. The Judge's question, "what about all the others affected?", suggests a concern for the broader impact of the misconduct, but the KC in response stating "this matter is only between the two parties and not all consumers," effectively limits the scope of the case.
The issues raises several concerns:
1) Limited access to justice: If only the directly aware affected party can bring a case, it could create a situation where widespread harm goes unaddressed. This is especially problematic when the misconduct is systemic and affects a large number of consumers.
2) A consortium of KC can influence Parliament: Forty-two senior lawyers, all King’s Counsel, can send a letter to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General stating that the Treaty Principles Bill should be abandoned.
3) Potential for injustice: By focusing solely on the immediate parties, the court may fail to consider the broader implications of the misconduct, potentially leading to a decision that perpetuates harm for others.
4) Erosion of public trust: When courts and Parliament appear to prioritise technical legal arguments over the broader public interest, it can erode public trust in the legal system.
Possible Solutions are removed as Legislative action by the Government to enable and enact laws to address widespread misconduct, or lack of justice for providing a broader framework for consumer protection and constitutional matters is open to manipulation.
Courts should consider adapting their approach to standing, and KC informal actions outside process to recognise the broader societal impact of certain types of misconduct and allowing for more flexible interpretations of doctrines.
Barriers to justice are alive and well in NZ. Finding a balance between these principles is essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting the interests of all citizens.
Excellent timing Mr Judd, thank you.
Is it a coincidence that objection to the debate is on the grounds that the Treaty Principles Act may validate Parliamentary Supremacy and the "right to govern" as per the Constitution Act 1986 amongst others like the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975.
One wonders whether the authors of the letter remember their oath to follow the rule of law and serve the people of New Zealand without fear or favour.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1957/0088/latest/DLM316133.html#:~:text=I%2C%20%5Bspecify%5D%2C%20swear,favour%2C%20affection%20or%20ill%20will
I'm not sure why so many KCs attended the recent Hikoi in protest against the bill but were silent when the freedoms of all New Zealanders that are fundamental to a free and democratic nation were cast aside for years between 2020 and 2023 on the back of a declared "medical emergency" despite a lack of evidence outside of sensational media reports 24/7 and the PM's daily live press briefings that such an emergency actually existed. They were also silent about the recent Labour administration's lack of transparency, lack of accountability, intense censorship of debate, refusal to answer reasonable questions put to them by constituents and their decision to adopt pandemic policies that placed New Zealand's health and wellbeing children at risk. Most KCs, KC Gary Judd being one esxception, were also silent about the misuse and abuse of urgency provisions to enact paradigm shifting legislation such as Three Waters while the emergency health orders were in place.. I could go on...
Well said Gary. I think the exposition on the sovereign power of Parliament, which the 42 seem to doubt, is very necessary. I hope your piece gets wider coverage. Law Talk comes to mind. It would be good if it appeared in Bryce Edwards' daily roundup as well.
Thanks Gary, but why pussyfoot around with these people any longer? We have indulged these ‘sacred cows’ for decades, unable to foster a reasonable defence against their anti-democratic impulses because our ‘elites’ (sneer) went to the same dinner parties, universities or met in the same boardrooms in the shallow pool that constitutes NZ society.
So we stand at a precipice,sacrifice our unity as Kiwis to these elites that foster division and would sell us out for their own commercial gain (it’s the fees that count), or draw a line in the sand and proclaim that’s it’s time for ordinary Kiwis to be heard. There is no better time than now while the Supreme Court has shown just how far out of touch it is with reality,
thinking that it answers to no one, not even Parliament.
Their activism only encourages other judges and courts to defy Parliament’s authority. Bring back the supremacy of Parliament. Kick a few prominent ‘elite’ backsides and throw out some of these non-elected nobodies. Average Kiwis won’t care.
If Parliament won’t act then sooner or later your ‘average’ Kiwis will. Look at what has happened in recent European elections, the centre has reaffirmed itself as the voice of the people.
Time for a demagogue?
Thank you Gary. Yes, fantasies of importance. Perhaps they've all watched too many movies....