Taking Advantage – Judge’s Incompetence in Maritime Matters

Taking Advantage of Judge Davis’s Incompetence in Maritime Matters – Crown Law & Maritime NZ don’t want their unethical Expert to be shown up for misleading the Court.
In their submissions to prevent a Rehearing for Bolton & keep Julian Joy’s Report from Rocking their knavish Legal Boat, they say … “ Mr Barry Young does not accept parts of the Joy Report & even if that evidence was called at best there would arise a situation where M Pigneguy & Barry Young would disagree with Mr Joy … it is questionable whether the Joy Report can be substantially helpful & so admissible as expert opinion”
Obviously Crown Law & MNZ wouldn’t find Mr Joy’s Report helpful to their case & are obstructing the Court in finding Facts
Here is how the Experts role is envisaged by the Court & how Experts in disagreement are to have their discussions.
(1) It is the duty of experts to help the court on matters within their expertise.
(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom experts have received instructions or by whom they are paid.
Discussions between experts
(1) The court may, at any stage, direct a discussion between experts for the purpose of requiring the experts to
(a) identify and discuss the expert issues in the proceedings; and
(b) where possible, reach an agreed opinion on those issues.
(2) The court may specify the issues which the experts must discuss.
(3) The court may direct that following a discussion between the experts they must prepare a statement for the court setting out those issues on which –
(a) they agree; and
(b) they disagree, with a summary of their reasons for disagreeing.
(4) The content of the discussion between the experts shall not be referred to at the trial unless the parties agree.
(5) Where experts reach agreement on an issue during their discussions, the agreement shall not bind the parties unless the parties expressly agree to be bound by the agreement.
1. Judges are often presented with evidence on matters that are
beyond their field of expertise and knowledge.
Such scenarios present a tension between the need for a final &
conclusive determination of parties’dispute and rights, and the need for “rationality” in adjudication, without which the legitimacy of the adjudication would be undermined.
An additional problem is that an expert witness obtained by a party is ultimately a “hired gun” and thus susceptible to offering “biased” opinion.
2. This adds further pressure on judges to discern truthful expert opinion from partial ones. Faced with such a predicament, we could be resigned to the conclusion that there are presumably no manageable judicial standards and thus accept that such disputes are not justiciable (to use the term loosely), or we could find practical solutions to achieve the best possible outcome.
3 This article begins by considering the nature of the scientific method and the various normative rationales at play with regard to the problem of conflicting expert evidence. Following that, the author shall analyse the four types of conflicts: (a) conflict over assumed facts; (b) conflict over diagnosis or analysis of facts; (c) conflict over methodology; and (d) conflict over theory. With regard to the former two types, no specialised expertise on the part of the courts is required for adjudication. For the latter two, it shall be argued that where there is a demarcation of dominant and subordinate paradigms of methodology or theory, the dominant paradigm would hold presumptive weight unless the party seeking to rely on the subordinate paradigm establishes sufficient justificatory force to rebut the presumption, in which case the court should not prefer the “dominant paradigm” expert evidence; where, however, there is no clear dominant paradigm, the court should rely on neutral reasoning processes such as the burden of proof. This proposed approach would allow the court to rationally and legitimately adjudicate between conflicting expert evidence without pretending to be a “super-expert”, while ensuring the pursuit of the ends of justice in each case.
Crown Law & Maritime NZ’s remedy is to keep conflicting evidence from disturbing the decision of Judge Davis who was well outside his field of expertise – unable to discern truthful expert opinion.

Judge Davis didn’t flip a coin,
he just went along with what he was told
by Crown Law & its prosecution witnesses.

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