Judge Davis Outlines Onus & Proof of Charge In Decision

M Pigneguy was guilty of all charges laid against Bolton – he convicted the wrong skipper.

Judge Davis Outlines Onus & Proof of Charge In Decision
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
It makes one wonder what goes on in the head of a Judge who has no understanding of the Maritime matters brought before him.
Judge Davis quotes from his book of Court procedure
1: “The onus of proving the elements of the charge rests with the prosecution. The prosecution must prove all elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I will be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt if I am sure the defendant is guilty then it is my duty to find the defendant guilty. If I am left with a reasonable doubt – a doubt that I consider reasonable in the circumstances of the case – then it is equally my duty to find the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2: There is no onus on a defendant to prove he is innocent. There is no requirement or expectation that a defendant should give evidence. In this case however the defendant has chosen to give evidence but that does not alter the fundamental proposition that the onus of proving the charge rests with the informant.”
An analysis of how the Judge is to operate & did operate.
a: In this case the prosecution had a trumped up charge & framed their evidence to suit their purpose.
b: Judge Davis could not discern right from wrong from his own experience – he had to rely on the prosecution to be honest in their interpretation & application of Maritime Rules, feasibility of claim made, vessels compliance, navigation etc.
c: It appears that Judge Davis made no attempt to consider that Bolton might not be guilty – Bolton was unrepresented & considered unqualified compared with the purported credentials of Ian Howden, Barry Young, Mark Davies, Crown Law & M Pigneguy.
d: He did not have any intention, it seems, to be at variance with Maritime New Zealand, a State Service expected to be operating within a Code of Conduct to be Fair, Impartial, Responsible & Trustworthy.
e: Maritime New Zealand from start to finish was dishonouring their Code of Conduct, as was Barry Young disregarding his code of conduct as a purported Expert witness to be helpful to the Court
f: Evidence was given by the prosecution which was false, impossible, inaccurate, colluded, & not backed up with any electronic data or reliable verification.
g: That Bolton was not required to give evidence seems extraordinary. It didn’t make the slightest difference as it turned out even though his evidence was at complete variance with that of the prosecution.
h: Bolton’s evidence was 100% backed up by Julian Joy, a senior Instructor at the Maritime School with higher qualifications than Barry Young but Judge Davis was not prepared to entertain it after the Hearing.
i: If Judge Davis had been able to tell right from wrong he would’ve worked out that M Pigneguy was guilty of all charges laid against Bolton – he convicted the wrong skipper.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

                         Judge Davis Outlines Onus & Proof of Charge In Decision
Judge Davis Outlines Onus & Proof of Charge In Decision,conviction4

 

 Judge Davis Outlines Onus & Proof of Charge In Decision
M Pigneguy was guilty of all charges laid against Bolton – he convicted the wrong skipper

 

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge