Crown Law Misleads in Submissions Re Judge Davis’s Decision

Crown Law & Maritime New Zealand blatantly disregarded their State Services Code of Conduct

Crown Law Misleads in Submissions Re Judge Davis’s Decision
Appellant’s Submissions in response to Submissions of Crown Law Mark Davies, Meredith Connell in opposition to Appeal against Conviction
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition –
The Appellant (Bolton) seeks to respond to the Crown submissions
Responses 8(a) Although the Appellant was advised by Crown Law, on several occasions to gain legal representation, each occasion was subsequent to him providing clear information that the Appellant was not guilty – rather it was the ferry which was severely in violation. Detailed information had also been provided to the Harbour Master’s office at which the ferry’s complaint had been initially lodged & to Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) directly. On March 17th 2010 a meeting was held with MNZ, Barry Young & Crown Law at the instigation of Judge Simpson aiming to have “a resolution, not wasting further Court time” but Crown Law disregarded that opportunity saying they would only take the Appellant’s information with no decision being made. The Appellant had both senior Legal & Nautically qualified advice from several sources since the outset, all indicating that the MNZ prosecution was unwarranted & should be withdrawn. The Appellant’s financial situation as a superannuatant with a vessel such as Classique, also is such that the monetary penalty which would be incurred in defence is unaffordable.
Response 8(b) The Appellant’s arguments were traversed but not tested during the District Court Hearing – rather, it is submitted, they were disregarded in favour of erroneous evidence, the extent of which the Judge was admittedly unaware – SD[6](A). The Appellant was led to believe by the Court that the MNZ Expert could be relied upon to determine technical issues (Trans Pages 67,169,171.) but Barry Young instead, gave misleading Nautical information on all material matters.
Response 8(c) The evidence of Mr Joy would have been, it is also submitted, “substantially helpful” to the Court and very much admissible in the “Interest of Justice” considering Julian Joy’s Expert Report fully backed the Appellant’s evidence upon which Judge Davis had been mislead on so many nautically specific points.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition –

Crown Law & Maritime New Zealand disregarded their Code of Conduct
Crown Law Misleads in Submissions Re Judge Davis's Decision

Crown Law Misleads in Submissions Re Judge Davis’s Decision

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Leave a Reply

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

CommentLuv badge