I agree with you vic and the transcript doesn't have any of the statements that were read out nor the reason for most of the objections so it looks to me as though it is already cleaned up.
When I buy a book nobody says I can't lend it to someone to read. If I buy a DVD I can't show it to large groups but I am allowed to watch it with a friend. The objections were to having the information as well as using it. With so many people having access to it now it would be easy to give a reference without even using the person's name, just a generic reference of how they fit into the picture and what the evidence is. The first transcript has been around for years and used on various sites. Far better that we have the facts than to be inaccurate because we are unable to access them. A lot of the trial was televised and reported on anyhow. I'm sure it would come under the freedom of information act as anything that they don't want you to know has already been removed.
Edited by misspw at 10:41 pm, Mon 13 Sep
Quotemisspw (65 ) 10:39 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27283
Try explaining this Christine Williams, then when you recover explain what 'the freedom of information act' you talk about is. Face it Christine Williams, you are in Contempt of Court. You don't have permission to copy, or reproduce the Court File.
3.7 General right of access to formal court record and certain
applications under Administration Act 1969
“(1) Subject to rule 3.12, every person has the right to access the
formal court record kept in a registry of the court.
“(2) Subject to rule 3.12, every person has the right to access any
document or court file that relates to an application or action
for a grant of administration under the Administration Act
1969 or to a proceeding for the recall of any such grant.
“(3) Despite subclause (1) or (2), a Judge may direct that judgments
or orders, or documents or files of the kind described in subclause
(2), not be accessed without the permission of the court.
This part of the same act may also be pertinent.
“3.8 Right of parties to access court file or documents
“(1) The parties to a proceeding, and their counsel, may (whether
during or after the completion of the proceeding), under the
supervision of an officer of the court,—
“(a) search and inspect the court file or any document relating
to the proceeding, without payment of a fee; and
“(b) copy any part or parts of the court file or any document
relating to the proceeding on payment of any prescribed
fee.
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
Fairly typical. It seems to be a question of do whatever you feel like them make excuses afterwards. Sound familiar?
ReplyDeleteThe rules regarding the trial transcripts are very specific and outline in the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Documents)Rules 2009.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case, the formal court record is subject to a court order and cannot be accessed without permission of the court as outlined below.
6 General right of access to formal court record
(1) Subject to rule 12, every person has the right to access the
formal court record kept in a registry of a court.
(2) Despite subclause (1),—
(a) a Judge of the court may direct that judgments, orders,
or sentencing notes not be accessed without the permission
of the court:
(b) the Crown Book kept under section 353 of the Crimes
Act 1961 may not be accessed without the permission
of the court.
12 Restrictions on access
(1) Any right or permission conferred or given by these rules to
access a document, court file, or any part of the formal court
record relating to a criminal proceeding is subject to—
(a) any enactment, court order, or direction limiting or prohibiting
access or publication; and
(b) the payment of any prescribed fees for access.
(2) Without limiting the generality of subclause (1), a person may
access a document of the kind described in subclause (3) only
if a Judge permits the person to do so.
13 Applications for permission to access documents, court
file, or formal court record other than at committal or
trial stage
(1) This rule applies whenever the permission of the court is necessary
under these rules and is sought to access a document,
court file, or any part of the formal court record relating to a
criminal proceeding, except where access may be sought under
rule 8 or 9.
(2) An application under this rule is made informally to the Registrar
by a letter that—
(a) identifies the document, court file, or part of the formal
court record that the applicant seeks to access; and
(b) gives the reasons for the application.
(3) The application is heard and determined by a Judge or, if a
Judge directs the Registrar to do so, by the Registrar.
(4) On receipt of an application made in accordance with subclause
(2), the Judge or Registrar may direct that the person
file an interlocutory application or originating application.
(5) The applicant must give notice of the application to any person
who, in the opinion of the Judge or Registrar, is adversely
affected by the application.
(6) The Judge or Registrar may dispense with the giving of notice
under subclause (5) if it would be impracticable to require notice
to be given.
(7) The Judge or Registrar may deal with an application on the
papers, at an oral hearing, or in any other manner the Judge or
Registrar considers just
14 Decisions on applications under rule 13
(1) The Judge or Registrar may refuse an application made under
rule 13 or grant it in whole or in part without conditions or
subject to any conditions that the Judge or Registrar thinks
appropriate.
(2) A Judge may permit access to a series of files for the purposes
of research.
Very familiar, particularly quoting a Parliamentary Act that doesn't exist.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Freedom of Information Act in New Zealand. If Christine Williams is intent of following her current line of lies, you would at least think she had the intelligence to make sure what she was quoting actually existed.
ReplyDeleteChristine has dug herself a very big hole, but seems determined to keep digging, despite her obvious errors. I hope she realises that even if she doesn't have the court transcripts, what she is claiming to do is a crime under section 18 and 19 of the Summary Offences Act 1981
I'm just hoping her stuff up will result in something good, with all her digging, she must be close to rescuing those trapped miners.
I hope Christine Williams reads this blog and realises what an iconic moronette she is. She has proved herself to be absolutely worthy of this weeks moron award.
ReplyDeleteThank you Christine William (misspw, millie231) for confirming what the rest of us know - you're an idiot!
She is a very worthy recipient of the award. Today she has been justifying the illegal distribution and copying of a document placed under Court ordered restrictions. She even cited the Chief Justice in a speech on an unrelated matter, nothing like a bit of name dropping on the side. I suppose Christine expects that the Judiciary will be impressed by her illegal activities and her gong for being a moronette. Ah, at least whe wears the title with pride.
ReplyDeleteJudge Harvey in the ruling on the Whaleoil case today makes some interesting comments that some people should probably think very carefully about. Oh dear.
ReplyDelete