Maritime NZ hid behind Crown Law in denying a Rehearing

Maritime NZ hid behind Crown Law in denying Bolton a Rehearing.
When it came to his Application for a Rehearing after Julian Joy’s Report was commissioned, Crown Law’s submissions on behalf of MNZ were intent on maintaining the prosecution they had obtained by misleading a Nautically hoodwinked Judge Davis.
They start by repeating Bolton’s main basis for a Rehearing …
“The interests of justice demand that Expert evidence & documentary evidence be placed before the Court”
MNZ opposes the application – in essence MNZ submits that no miscarriage of justice or unfairness would result if a Rehearing were not granted & the high test required under s 75 is not met.
More specifically MNZ submits that Julian Joy’s comments on material issues were fully argued & considered by the Court. It is questionable whether the evidence of Mr Joy is “substantively helpful”for the purposes of s 25 of the evidence Act’06. It is essentially an attempt to relitigate the same arguments that were advanced at the hearing via an expert witness who was readily available to the applicant at all material times.
Referred to is sec 75 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – which provides the criteria for granting a Rehearing – the test is whether a refusal to grant a Rehearing would result in a miscarriage of Justice.
Sec 25 of the Evidence Act’06 is about the Admissibility of expert opinion evidence – it must be substantially helpful to the Court.
———————————————————————————
Julian Joy’s Report is covered in posts made about mid March. It fully backs Bolton’s evidence & is highly critical of the unprofessional behavior & misleading evidence of Barry Young.
(a) It appears at the outset that MNZ’s flim flam is tailor-made to hoodwink Judge Davis – the high test required under s 75 is certainly met & Bolton has endured a most punitive miscarriage of Justice.
(b) Julian Joy’s comments on material issues were not fully argued or considered by the Court – These are in his Report which Bolton is wanting to be argued & considered in the Rehearing which has the aim of obtaining an acquittal or a retrial. The points Bolton made at the Hearing were argued but Judge Davis was unable to consider the validity of his evidence due to his acknowledged unfamiliarity with Maritime matters – unable to discern fact from fiction.
(c) If the MNZ, Crown Law & the Court were interested in the facts of the case, Julian Joy’s Report would be hugely helpful to the Court in arriving at an honest outcome. It is an attempt to relitigate with highly Expert endorsement, the same arguments that were advanced at the hearing but it is spurious to say Julian Joy was available at all to Bolton at the hearing – in fact it was Crown Law’s Mark Davies who actively discouraged Bolton’s interaction with Mr Joy who was attending as a Senior Lecturer of the Maritime School with a professional interest in the proceedings.
Mr Joy subsequently filed an affidavit as to his unavailability.
Crown Law wrote 7 pages for MNZ opposing Bolton’s Application, as if they were paid by the page & knew how devastating a Rehearing would be to their counterfeit case.

There appears to be an Unholy Alliance between 3 government departments
interested only in protecting their parochial interests
unholy alliance

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