Crown Law Responds to Submissions Re Judge Davis’s Decision

The case was wrong according to Law & the finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make.

Crown Law Responds to Submissions Re Judge Davis’s Decision
Appellant’s Submissions in response to Submissions of the Respondent in opposition to Appeal against Conviction
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
May it please the Court :
The Crown has filed submissions in response to the Appellant’s Supplementary Submissions
The Appellant (Bolton) seeks to respond to the Crown submissions
Response to Paragraph 1 – The Appellant challenges this conviction – his Appeal was filed immediately after Judge Davis’s Decision believing that the prosecution’s case against him was wrong according to the Law and that the finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make.
Responses to Paragraphs 3 & 4
(a) The primary basis for 2 applications for a Rehearing was that in the Interest of Justice it would save the Court & all concerned, the necessity of an Appeal if the errors of the prosecution’s evidence and violations of the Expert Witness’s Code of Conduct could have been addressed without delay.
(b) For MNZ to oppose both Applications for a Rehearing and this Appeal, using Legal technicality, is not in my submission, being open, fair, courteous, in good faith and honest to the Appellant or the Court, if the facts of the case are to be established not only for the benefit of the Appellant but also for the wider boating public (This being the authorized function of TAIC – Transport Accident Investigation Commission)
(c) For example – The ferry skipper, M Pigneyguy, wrote in his damagingly biased article in the Professional Skipper Magazine, March/April 2011 (Edited by Keith Ingram) – “ If you see a possible incident in the making … ensure you are able to use a camera.” Nowhere does this article draw attention to the mandatory requirement to comply with Rule 22.34.4 “Immediately sound 5 warning blasts – with a complying horn” or R22.34.1 maneuvering signals or R22.8.3 regarding avoiding small alterations of course.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

Crown Law, Mark Davies, Meredith Connell Auckland
begins Milking the Public Purse in Opposing the Submissions made by Bolton
Crown Law Responds to Submissions Re Judge Davis's Decision

Crown Law Responds to Submissions Re Judge Davis’s Decision

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