First & Second Applications Were Made For A Rehearing

A Supporting Memorandum re evidence in matters that may have resulted in a miscarriage of Justice

First & Second Applications Were Made For A Rehearing
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess
Maritime New Zealand & its witnesses mislead Judge Davis into giving the result they wanted – the wrongful prosecution of Bolton, the innocent skipper of Classique.
The first application for a Rehearing was made at which Judge Davis commissioned the Report by Julian Joy, a Senior Lecturer at the same Maritime School from which the nefarious Barry Young hailed.
Julian Joy had superior qualifications to Barry Young. He had attended the hearing with students from the Nautical School & witnessed the purposeful denial of basic Navigational Principles & distortion of the truth regarding the situation M Pigneguy manufactured .
Barry Young’s bare faced response to Julian Joy’s Report was to say that it didn’t cause him to change his opinions – he also misconstrued the valid points Julian Joy had made in support of Bolton.
Consequently a part 2 Report & affidavit by Julian Joy was written to set the record straight.
The Legal Aid Barrister now acting for Bolton applied for a second Rehearing & filed a Supporting Memorandum referring to “evidence in matters that may have resulted in a miscarriage of Justice.”
It became apparent that the Legal Profession behave artificially correctly – using the “may” when it was blatantly obvious to a nautically knowledgeable person how Maritime New Zealand aided & abetted by Crown Law had dishonestly framed this prosecution targeting Bolton.
So it seemed stupid that this Memorandum continues …“We are inviting Your Honour to rehear the matter on grounds other than in relation to the expert”.
“Firstly there is the issue of the procedural matter. There is a direction in Section 60 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 that the Director of Maritime New Zealand shall refer the matter to TAIC as soon as practicable after any accident or incident is notified to the Authority. In that respect we submit that the position is unclear whether the matter was notified to the TAIC in terms of Section 60 (17) of the Act.”
Unnecessarily polite when Bolton had spoken to TAIC who confirmed they had received no notification & Maritime New Zealand left unchecked the box to indicate they had notified TAIC.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess

The Legal Profession gives the impression of acting like turkeys
First & Second Applications Were Made For A Rehearing

First & Second Applications Were Made For A Rehearing

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