Crown Law & Maritime NZ’s submissions anti-Rehearing.

Crown Law & Maritime NZ’s submissions anti-Rehearing.
Their 2nd reason against allowing Bolton to have Julian Joy’s Report included in his application for a Rehearing which would have the aim of an acquittal or a Retrial, is hugely protective of their ill-gotten prosecution win – They say …
“Mr Barry Young, an independent expert, has considered the Joy Report & has deposed that nothing in it causes him to alter his conclusions or would have caused him to change the evidence he gave at the hearing.
Accordingly, this is not a situation where uncontested exculpatory evidence is now available & the Court can be satisfied that declining to order a rehearing will not give rise to a miscarriage of justice.”
Bolton wrote a post towards the end of February – “The Report covers 23 Points over which it would appear, the Court was mislead” & there were other posts through to mid March highlighting Julian Joy’s Report, concluding with a post “Summary of my conclusions (Julian Joy Report)”
Julian Joy writes – “My investigation of this matter brings me to the conclusion that MNZ & their expert witness did not complete an adequately professional standard investigation of this matter. In my opinion & largely as a result of the inaccurate advice given to the Court, the wrong conclusion to this matter was reached.”
Barry Young, MNZ & Crown Law openly flout their respective Codes of Conduct in a display of deception which could only be accepted by a self professed Nautically unknowledgeable Judge.
(a) Barry Young swore to be an independent expert, helpful to the Court but he acted as an advocate & Hired Gun for MNZ purposely misleading the Court.
(b) Barry Young with his purported nautical experience, can’t claim ignorance in his position, so it appears decidedly dishonest for him to remain uncorrected by the revelations in Mr Joy’s Report & equally unprofessional for MNZ/ Crown Law to allow his intransigence to stand.
(c) “Exculpatory” definition – to clear from a charge of fault or guilt. Why Crown Law describes Mr Joy’s Report as uncontested seems like pettifoggery as it validates 100% every evidential point Bolton made & certainly contests the decision made by Judge Davis as a result of being led astray by the erroneous evidence given to him by the prosecution.
(d) This was certainly the situation to clear Bolton from his wrongful conviction, punitive fine & miscarriage of Justice.
The Facts of the matter are disregarded by MNZ & Crown Law

Justice – Concept of moral right – The principle of Fairness

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