Maritime New Zealand & Crown Law would stoop so low as to purposely Pervert the Course of Justice
Judge Toogood Begins Considering Julian Joy’s Reports
He writes in his deficient Decision …
The nature of the proposed further evidence.
The allegedly fresh evidence which the appellant wishes to call in support of his appeal against conviction comprises two reports prepared by a Mr Julian Joy who, for present purposes, may be regarded as an expert on maritime law and practice with respect to collision prevention at sea.
Mr Joy did not give evidence in the District Court, but it is common ground that he attended two-and-a-half days of the three-day hearing in his capacity as a Senior Lecturer at the Maritime School, in the company of a number of his students. By coincidence, one of his students, a Mr Phillip Sweetman, was in the wheelhouse of Seaway II, keeping watch, at the time of the incident.
Bolton in his Appeal against Judge Toogood’s Decision submits …
a : It is not fresh evidence the Appellant wishes to call in support of his Appeal but Expert corroboration of his (Bolton’s) evidence which had been totally dismissed. ( by Judge Davis at the original Hearing)
b : Julian Joy’s status at the hearing before Judge Davis is made clear in his affidavit 27 July 2012 – he (Julian Joy) was not available to Bolton and further more would not have been required if the Maritime New Zealand prosecution & expert ( Barry Young) had behaved in a manner helpful to the Court in verifying the facts of the case.
Note in addition to the above submission …
It is a sad indictment of this Auckland District Court Hearing before Judge Davis who seven times declared his ignorance of Nautical matters, that Maritime New Zealand & Crown Law would stoop so low as to purposely pervert the course of Justice – thereby giving Bolton valid grounds for Appeal & need to present Julian Joy’s supporting evidence.
Link for Seeing, Signing & Sharing Petition – http://maritimenz.com/AnnulConvictionGainedByAbuseOfCourtProcess