Crown Law Falsified The Document Related to Notifying TAIC

Section 60 Marine Transport Act places duty on Maritime New Zealand to notify TAIC. They failed

Crown Law Falsified The Document Related to Notifying TAIC
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 – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Crown Law on behalf of Maritime New Zealand wrote in their Submission, Paragraph 44
“This issue was not raised as part of the defended hearing. It is therefore submitted that it cannot properly form part of Mr Bolton’s grounds of Appeal. This issue was raised for the first time on the second application for a rehearing. As noted above, Judge Davis rejected it as having no relevance to the issue to be determined. It is submitted that the position taken by Judge Davis was correct. This is an entirely separate matter, about which the Court has heard no evidence. Accordingly it cannot properly be said to have impacted in any way upon the conviction that was entered.”
The Appellant (Bolton) seeks to respond to the Crown submission …
Response to Paragraph 44 …
Response 44. That MNZ failed to notify TAIC of the incident, was certainly raised at the defended hearing and should properly form part of the Appellant’s grounds for Appeal. Contrary to Crown Law’s stance, it was well discussed with Ian Howden (Trans Pages 151,152,153). “Mr Bolton, I haven’t made any report in relation to this investigation … I have done no report …there was no official report”
(a) Section 60 MTA places a duty on MNZ to notify TAIC.
(b) The box to indicate that TAIC had been informed was unchecked in Disclosed Documents & confirmed in the Appellant’s communications with TAIC.
(c) The question now arises as to how Crown Law produced a checked box on a copy of the same document before the second Rehearing application – there is an inference that the second document had been altered.
(d) Equally disconcerting to the Appellant is that neither his incident report filed subsequent to M Pigneyguy’s report, nor any of the plethora of evidence that showed the Appellant was not guilty, was studied in an investigation.
(e) It is submitted by the Appellant that if TAIC had been involved & a proper investigation made of the incident, then the Appellant would not have been prosecuted – rather, M Pigneyguy would have incurred a penalty for his many violations.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Crown Law before a Rehearing, dishonestly modified Maritime New Zealand’s form to indicate TAIC had been informed
Crown Law Falsified The Document Related to Notifying TAIC

 

Crown Law Falsified The Document Related to Notifying TAIC

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