The case of unjust judgements is becoming an increasing feature of our society. It's probably been this way for a long time, but the visibility is becoming greater. This year marks 100 years since British Lord Chief Justice Hewart wrote the words that have since become a maxim: "Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
This year we've already had two high profile cases that simply stink. The "grannybasher" was let off for assault at a women's rights event that resulted in the hospitalisation of a 71 year old grandmother. Judith Hobson sent me her story:
The one thing I asked of the court was no name suppression. I could see where the case was going right from the start. The police were provided photographs and film, but declined to use them to find him. Social media published them.
The next communication I received was that the case had been moved to Gisborne Court and diversion had been granted. I was quite devastated. A friend who was advising me sent an email through to the police and the courts asking for full access to documents under the OIA. It seems a little paper shuffling had been going on and somehow his file had been placed in another file for a shoplifter and sent to Gisborne. Where it was quickly granted diversion. There was some red faced shuffling, then the announcement that the diversion had been cancelled.
When my assailant was found he was 21 years old. I was a 71 year old female. The charge should have been male assaults female. A lesser charge could have been assault with intent to commit harm. Instead the police charged him with common assault. Common assault allows the police to seek diversion or restorative justice. Both have to be approved by the victim. Which I declined. Nevertheless, the judge sent the case through to the diversion officer. The officer deemed the assault too severe for diversion and rejected it.
In his first court appearance he entered no plea. The second time the case came up he did not appear. His family hired a lawyer. She is quite reputable for getting obviously guilty clients into treatment or restorative justice. He was assessed mentally, despite being a student already at a tertiary institute. Amazingly he had made his way through life with no behavioural problems to that point. Now he had ADHD and was autistic … I would like to finish but can't. I caught Covid in Auckland. A final gift.
The Judge granted the discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression, but ordered him to pay $1000 reparation to the victim. Police did not oppose the application for permanent suppression or the discharge without conviction.
Unlike many judges, Kevin Glubb doesn't have a particular reputation for giving sentences that are too soft, for instance when trying to find the link between Golriz Ghaharaman and Maria Pecotic I saw that he had previously sentenced Judge Pecotic's son to 25 months imprisonment. There was an appeal (High Court decision [2017] NZHC 2660) against this sentence where Maria Pecotic (then a barrister of the Court) submitted a letter on his behalf on how he had suffered in state care previously—at a boot camp no less. New Zealand is a small country it seems!
The NZ Police themselves appear to be an impediment to justice by failing to oppose name suppression for Judith's assailant. They went easy on MP Metiria Turei who was never prosecuted for benefit fraud, an event that triggered Golriz Gharaman's entry to Parliament as three Green MPs resigned during that 2017 election campaign.
Pecotic was a go-to lawyer for the Head Hunters gang. How many Head Hunters clients did she represent? It does make you wonder. In 2021, Maria Pecotic was appointed and sworn in as a judge in a government that was giving money to gangs, while Golriz was an MP in a party working as part of the government.
There was a sudden change in the hearing date that saw Golriz's case brought forward. It would be interesting to see if the information relating to the case put before Judge Pecotic is available under the OIA. After entering her plea, Gorliz was quickly remanded at large, which means there were no bail conditions. It's very unusual for there not even to be an address condition on that level of charge. There was not even a condition not to go back to the stores where she committed the crimes.
This feels like our two tier justice system at work. An even bigger issue is what appears to be police corruption. They should be asking for standard bail conditions. This looks like they are doing what they did for Turei, going softly in return for political favours. Will they oppose a discharge without conviction? I wouldn't bet on it. It's almost like the police have an inside deal with the Green party at the rate their MPs end up breaking the law.
Our judges and police are partners in crime when it comes to these cases where justice is neither done, nor seen to be done.