Publisher Vince Siemer jailed for reporting a crime:

Publisher Vince Siemer of Kiwisfirst

On 9 December 2010, Winkelmann J delivered a judgment making pre-trial rulings   in criminal proceedings, regarding the trial of the defendents in the matter that became known as the "Urewera terror raids". The front page of the judgment carried a heading stating that the judgment was not to be published in news media or on the internet or other publicly accessible database or otherwise made publicly available until final disposition of the trial or further order of the court.   What Winkelmann J sought to suppress was her rulings that the defendants were to be denied a trial before a jury of their peers as they were lawfully entitled to, and that Winkelmann J sought to establish an arguably unlawful precedent forcing them to be tried by a Judge alone, because Winkelmann J was of the extraordinary view that a jury couldn't be trusted to arrive at a sound decision.  As we now know, the Urewera raids were found to have been conducted unlawfully.


Publication in a law report or law digest was permitted by Winkelmann J, as an exception to the order forbidding publication of her rulings.  Shortly after the judgment was delivered, the appellant Mr Siemer published an article on each of two identical “Kiwisfirst” websites he operated. The article referred to the decision made by Winkelmann J, and included a hyperlink which gave readers of the article immediate electronic access to a copy of the 9 December judgment.


The Solicitor-General brought proceedings in the High Court seeking to have Mr Siemer committed for contempt of court. A Full Court of the High Court held that Winkelmann J had power to make the suppression order in relation to the judgment.


The Crown argued that any other criticisms of the court order could not be a defence to a charge of deliberately breaching it. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Siemer had knowingly published the judgment in breach of the order and found him to be in contempt of court. The Court sentenced Mr Siemer to six weeks’ imprisonment. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Mr Siemer appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has, by a majority comprising McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ, dismissed Mr Siemer’s appeal.


The Chief Justice has dissented.


The first issue before the Court was whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases. The majority has held that New Zealand courts have an inherent power to suppress judgments. This power has not been extinguished or replaced by s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 (now repealed and replaced with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011), which confers a limited statutory power to suppress. The majority has decided that a suppression order can be made consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act where publication of the information would give rise to a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial right.  Ironically.


The second issue was whether a person who wishes to act in a manner contrary to a suppression order may seek to have it varied or rescinded. The majority has held that such a person may apply to the court for review of that order. The application must be made in writing and set out the reasons why review of the order, or its application to that person, is sought. The application must be considered by a judge, who will determine the procedure to be followed in response to the application, and make a decision upon the application itself.


The final issue was whether, in proceedings for contempt of court based on breach of a court order, the defendant may raise as a defence that the order should not have been made or made in the terms it was. The majority of the Court has decided that breach of a court order will constitute contempt of court, at least where the court had power to make an order of the relevant kind. It will not generally be open to a person facing contempt proceedings to defend them on the basis that the order should not have been made. The person bound by the court order should instead apply to the court seeking to have the order varied or set aside.


The Court has decided that there are very limited exceptions to this general rule where that is

necessary in order to ensure that there is a meaningful and practically available opportunity for those subject to court orders to challenge them.


In the present appeal, the Court held the view that it was open to Mr Siemer to apply to the Court to seek to have the suppression order made by Winkelmann J varied or set aside. There was no exceptional basis for allowing Mr Siemer to raise a defence, in the contempt proceedings, on the basis that the court order should not have been made at all or in the terms that it was.  Mr Siemer’s actions breached the order made by Winkelmann J and frustrated its purpose. For that reason, Mr Siemer’s conduct was held to be contemptuous.


The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Supreme Court has directed that Mr Siemer must commence serving his sentence.


The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz:  

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL

(SC 37/2012)

[2013] NZSC 68


Vinnie Eastwood interviewed Vince Siemer shortly after the release of the decision of the Supreme Court:






- In another recent ruling released today, another local businessman was sentenced to jail for contempt of Court for failing to co-operate upon being called for jury duty.

Point of Order Protest at Supreme Court and Parliament calls for Transparency in New Zealand Courts and public affairs:

The inaugural Point of Order Protest was held on 13 June 2013, beginning outside the Supreme Court in Wellington and progressing to Parliament. 

Protestors led by publisher Vince Siemer of Kiwisfirst  united in Wellington today in solidarity with Transparency NZ, NZ Justice Forum, the NZ Private Prosecution Service, and a number of other individuals and representatives of various organisations concerned with human rights abuses, injustice in the Courts, etc, and demanded accountability, fair access to justice, transparent Courts, transparency regarding public affairs, and governance by the people and for the people, with fair elections and access to fair justice for all - rather than only the well off.  The Courthouse itself cost over $80,000,000 of taxpayer's money to build, it replaces New Zealanders' access to the Privy Council, which cost us nothing.

While Transparency International's NZ chapter is well 'incentivised' to come up with their "reports" which spread the propaganda that there is no corruption in New Zealand - or indeed the wider Pacific - the evidence tells another story - the National Business Review reports there is an alarming amount of bribery in New Zealand.  Vince Siemer and Kate Raue are only two of the many people who have been corruptly bullied by taxpayer funded Courts, Judges, lawyers, amicus curiae, Court appointed 'forensic staff', psychologists and psychiatricts and other purveyors of quackery who quaff at the great trough that is our ironically named 'justice' system, a system which is totally dysfunctional and prejudiced and biased in favour of the wealthy, including recent widely criticised changes to the legislation resulting in extremely restrictive access to legal aid.  Others protesting included Maria Van Der Meel of The City is Ours - protesting in particular to the manner in which the Council are dealing with issues regarding the bus lanes in Wellington and in particular Manners Mall - several people have been killed or seriously injured now, including Venessa Green, who was struck and killed by a bus in Willis St recently, as well as representatives of the Wellington Private Prosecution Service, and several independent journalists.

The processes for complaints through the established agencies are widely recognised as being inefficient because of incompetent and corrupt 'investigators', often ex Police officers, who've 'perfed' out of the force rather than face disciplinary action, such as Jon Moss and his mates at the REAA.  The Ombudsmen's Office, the IPCA, the Privacy Commissioner and Health and Disability Commissioner are all dysfunctional, incompetent, and often corrupt, which has led to a situation where there is a massive backlog of complaints and the only option for the victims is the Courts, which is what led to the overload of the legal aid applications and the changes to curtail access to legal aid.

Thanks to Simon Powers' widely criticised changes to the legal aid system, people no longer have access to lawyers unless they've got lots of money, these changes were slammed in a recent decision from the Court of Appeal, Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General.  The irony is, that the Criminal Bar Association represents the lawyers whose money tree was being pruned, rather than the public interest, and lawyers are still refusing to take clients unless the clients have the means to pay huge legal bills.  The same thing is happening in Europe where lawyers are protesting similar changes.  The decision of the Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General contains the words 

"But the issue is not what is desirable as a matter of sound public administration, but what is lawful."

Vince Siemer was party to this little exchange in the Auckland High Court on 17 June 2008:

Judge Lester Chisholm:  "Mr Siemer, if we find that you have broken the law will you change your ways?  

Mr Siemer:  "What law have I broken?" 

Judge Chisholm:   "That is for us to decide." 

Mr Siemer:  "What law is it said that I've broken?" 

Judge Chisholm:   "Mr Siemer, I'm not going to get into a debate with you." 

Mr Siemer:   "Of course not."

Here's another:

"Mr Siemer:  Is this proceeding being recorded as I requested?
Judge Rhys Harrison:  Why do you want it recorded?
Mr Siemer:  Is this not a 'Court of record'?
Judge Harrison:  'Court of record' was a phrase coined many, many centuries ago, before recording devices came into existence, so it has nothing to do with 'accurate record of proceedings'.  So, no, there is no need to record, thank you."

The Point of Order Protest serendipitously ambushed Judge Rhys Harrison on Molesworth St as he was scurrying off to do his dastardly business, and followed him up the street addressing him with the loud hailer for a few moments, which was particularly appropriate.

Recent decisions to ignore the decision of Criminal Bar Association and ignore Peter Dunne's lack of a mandate make a mockery of our 'democracy'.

Access to the Courts is further obstructed by a general unwillingness to release information according to the Official Information Act, Privacy Act, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and a propensity instead to try and withhold and conceal as much information as possible and deliberately and unlawfully obstruct and hinder the provision of information routinely, thus clogging up the Office of the Ombudsmen with a landslide of complaints and resulting in a totally unacceptable delay of over a year for even looking at complaints let alone 'investigating' them - and complaints are all too often referred to the very people complained about to investigate anyway, such as the IPCA who routinely refer complaints back to the very police (or their colleagues) instead of any truly independent or robust investigation with any integrity we are routinely fobbed of with what often amounts to an orchestrated litany of lies.

In one case a woman had to ask a Judge for a Court Order just to obtain Disclosure from the local Police - in order to find out what it was she was actually charged with, over a year after the charge was laid - whereupon the Police had to admit that the charge never should have been laid in the first place - as the prosecutor knew all along!

Police are lying in order to unlawfully take DNA from innocent people which is extremely worrying given the evidence of the campaign of corrupt bullying and malicious and vexatious litigation which sadistic local officers indulge it - enough!  We pay taxes for fair and honest governance - not this travesty of justice we are currently enduring.

There's been a disgraceful whitewash regarding the Pike River mine explosions which killed twenty nine men, a whitewash of the GCSB spying, a whitewash of the Urewera fiasco, an unprecedented landslide of legislation curtailing human rights and access to justice and the Point of Order Protests will continue to act to change this taxpayer funded incompetence and blatant corruption.

Transparency NZ spokesperson Katherine Raue launched a stinging address at Parliament regarding the fact that twenty nine men still lie dead somewhere inside the Pike Rive mine while we've witnessed the systemic corporate failure or not only Pike River Coal but Solid Energy - Don Elder retained on the big salary and a "commission of inquiry" that didn't even have the power to compel witnesses to appear and conveniently minimised the role and liability of the Department of Labour and the government in the deaths of the twenty nine men, and a Court process that has ignored and intimidated and let down the families of those men on top of everything else they've had to endure - from the unspeakable shock of first finding out that there'd been an explosion while their men were in the mine, throughout the fiasco of a response, the second explosion, the hounding of journalists who didn't check their facts anyway, throughout all the days and weeks and months and years - over two and a half years - of birthdays and wedding anniversaries, children growing up without their dads and wives who, like many other New Zealanders, just won't put up with the fact that this government enabled the Department of Labour with resources (taxpayers money) and our paid public servants - and systems of governance - have failed so totally and utterly as was exposed at the inquiry (transcripts of the evidence are available to read, scroll down at this link) - although what was exposed was only the tip of the iceberg anyway.  Kate also gave parliament (and half of Thorndon) a piece of her mind regarding the incompetence and corruption of the NZ Police, particularly those in the Wairarapa and Wellington regions, and the complete dysfunction and obvious corruption of the IPCA and the fact that the so called 'investigation' into the fact that Sgt Mark McHattie threw hundreds of child abuse files in the rubbish bin and deliberately lied about it - saying "hand on my heart they've been resolved" when he knew perfectly well he'd thrown them in the bin.  The so called investigation has been going on for nearly seven years and nothing's changed - the 'inquiry' has just been a big gravy train for all involved, rewarding the perpetrators - conducted by the perpetrators and their mates and funded by the gullible taxpayers who believe everything the media tells them while the NBR report that there is an alarming amount of bribery in New Zealand at the same time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs funds Transparency International NZ to tell us there's no corruption in New Zealand or the Pacific region.  Yeah, right.

The investigation's been going on since at least 2007, and nobody involved in investigating the matter has even bothered to interview McHattie, and he and the other ringleader, Area Commander John Johnston have both been actually PROMOTED instead of charged with perverting the course of justice and imprisoned - while we've got over twice the national rate of suicide REGULARLY - it's not rocket science to see the link there, when the message we're giving people is "Talk to someone" and then the "someone" they talk to throws their files in the bin and gives his sicko mates their names and addresses etc, while they sit on their backsides sending each other emails about websites they shouldn't be worrying about anyway - the Courts have repeatedly found the publisher of the website innocent of their corrupt accusations and the NZ Police should be getting on with investigating child abuse and other violent crime instead of sending each other emails saying "Something needs to be looked at regarding Kate Raue's blog and the statements she's making on it about our staff."   Something needs looking at regarding why New Zealanders are being spied on in record numbers and unlawfully, and being stripped of our rights, while our taxes are used to fund a private army that rallies en masse to crack down on protests and pickets while they throw child abuse files in the rubbish bin.

The first Point of Order Protest outside the Supreme Court, with Kiwisfirst editor Vince Siemer, and protestors from  Transparency NZ , the NZ Private Prosecution Service, Wellington City is Ours and a number of other campaigners for justice and transparent governance.

Police out in force at a protest outside McDonalds in  March 2013

Police acting in force to protect corporate interests in return for cheap burgers, in contempt of regulations.

(Police bosses, including the Minister, initially lied, claiming that Police didn't receive any incentive or discount from McDonalds, until it was revealed that they in fact did receive a discount at McDonalds, in total contradiction of police regulations.)  Our police force has becoming a private army for corporate and political interests, and our Courts are acting increasingly in a manner which is not in the public interest and not in the interests of justice.

And now the government is forcing through even MORE legislation making it illegal to strike.

International Day of the Disappeared 2011, August 31:

Today is the International Day of the Disappeared - where is the Panchen Lama of Tibet?  Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, was kidnapped by the Chinese authorities at the age of six (!!), shortly after he was recognised as Panchen Lama by H.H. the Dalai Lama.  After the real Panchen Lama disappeared, the Chinese appointed their own Panchen Lama, a puppet of the government.

This is as good a spot as any to remember this letter from Vince Seimer, who, like me, has "Disappeared" from time to time in the course of seeking justice and truth, the original, and the rest of the story, can be found at kiwisfirst.com, at least we reappeared eventually.  Spare a thought today for those who've disappeared, and write to the Chinese embassy and ask them where is the Panchen Lama?  Many thanks to all who rang and wrote asking "Where is Kate Raue?" when I disappeared, if we don't speak up for others, who's going to speak up for us?
_______________________________________________________________________________

Mr  David Gasciogne ** Please treat as URGENT **
Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner
P.O. Box 2661
WELLINGTON posted and faxed to 04 4726159

RE: Formal complaint against Winkelmann J

Dear Mr Commisioner,

I wish by this letter to file a formal complaint against Justice Helen Winkelmann of the Auckland High Court for misconduct on the bench in R v Bailey CRI 2007-085-7842.

On 9 December 2010, Justice Winkelmann issued a judgment in public court which prevented the numerous defendants in the above action their statutory right to trial by jury.  Justice Winkelmann stated in her ruling denying the statutory right to trial by jury was, in part, because a jury would use “improper reasoning processes” in making a determination of guilt or innocence.

This is extremely insulting to the people of New Zealand who would be called upon to fulfill their civic duty as jurors in the case.  Moreover, it is simply absurd.  Any jury would be limited to making only factual determinations, constrained in every other respect by the directions of the Crown judge in this Crown prosecution which is currently the object of a United Nations Human Rights Council formal complaint.

This dreadful insult to the New Zealand public is only offered as relevant background.  It is not the crux of this complaint. These surrounding facts merely suggest possible motivation behind Justice Winkelmann’s judicial misconduct outlined below.

My complaint is that:
As an unelected public servant, Justice Winkelmann’s discretion in suppressing the public’s fundamental legal and democratic right to know what is occurring in the New Zealand public courts must be based upon some premise.   This could ostensibly include the judge claiming Cleopatra came and spoke to her in her sleep - - but, whatever the justification for subverting the accepted norm that public court proceedings are to be public, the judge must state her reasoning.
It is incumbent upon any judge who professes to subvert the fundamental precept of open and transparent justice in such a fashion to state it directly in her order.  Justice Winkelmann did not do this.  She did the equivalent of a “post-it” note, essentially tagging the cover page with a rubber stamp to keep the order secret.

Every lawyer I have spoken to – and, I stress “every” lawyer – is at a loss as to any legitimate legal basis upon which Justice Winkelmann could rely in violating her public duty by keeping her ruling denying trial by jury in the most expensive and broad-ranging prosecution in New Zealand’s history secret.

Winkelmann J has refused to provide her reasoning for making important judicial rulings in contravention of the legal principles of every law-respecting democracy and United Nations Convention.  More importantly, she has done so in a case which even Ross Burns, acting for the Crown, has stated in a 16 December 2010 email to the Court “I intend to apply for orders rescinding the suppression orders in the New Year.”   Mr Burns further stated at the time “It seems to me that the decisions as to mode and location of trial cannot possibly prejudice the fair trial rights of the accused, and are a matter of genuine public interest.”  (text of this 16 December 2010 email is attached).

Particularly under these circumstances, unless Winkelmann J states what her reasoning was in preventing the public’s legal right to know about the effect of her 9 December 2010 ruling, the Judge has committed an egregious act of judicial misconduct.  When the Judge gives her reply to this aspect of my complaint, I will respond as appropriate.

The grave significance of Winkelmann J’s alleged misconduct detailed above cannot be overstated.  I am currently being prosecuted by the State for merely fulfilling my public duty of reporting on this public court ruling as the publisher of the legal news website www.kiwisfirst.co.nz. The State is seeking my imprisonment because Winkelmann J wants to subvert her public duty by keeping her public servant actions secret, and to do so with “off record” rubber-stamp efficiency.

Respectfully submitted,


Vince Siemer
27 Clansman Terrace
Gulf Harbour  0930

HIGH COURT SUPPRESSES ORDER [**censored by the New Zealand Government**] IN "TERRORIST" RAIDS

17 September 2009 - Kiwisfirst.com
In a monumental Court decision, Judge Helen Winkelmann of the Auckland High Court last week [** CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]  authorised by the Court in the "Tuhoe Terrorist" raids in 2007.  The Judge ruled there was "No [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] for issue of [CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT]".  Winkelmann J also ruled the Police [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]to be on the various roads and track for the purpose of covert surveillance. 

Counter-intuitively the Judge ruled [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  The legal admissibility of the evidence collected in the [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] to be the subject of another hearing.

In an [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] -page judgment, Justice Winkelmann [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] to reach a conclusion [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] threatened New Zealand's clean-green image, and life itself.  Her ruling points the finger instead at the [CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT] of the Police raids and seizures which occurred with the [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] of some New Zealand Judges.

In a sour note to Justice Winkelmann's historic ruling, Her Honour ordered her findings suppressed from the media, seemingly to save embarrassment to the Police, as well as fellow High Court Justice Judith Potter - who was the judge [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].  In stark contrast to this current shroud of secrecy, the Police raids and massive arrests consumed "mainstream media" coverage for weeks in New Zealand when they occurred two years ago, as well as prompted breaking news bulletins around the world.   In 2007, Judge Winkelmann herself read out, in open Court and in front of national TV news cameras, the very worst evidence from the Police affidavits - before ordering the affidavits themselves concealed by judicial order from the public.

What started out as a prosecution under the Terrorist Suppression Act 2002 by Solicitor General David Collins in 2007 has now been diluted into an Arms Act 1983 prosecution.  In November 2007 S-G Collins backed down from the Terrorist charges after a month of mass protests brought attention to the lack of credible evidence being publicly released and resulted in increased suspicion concerning the NZ Court's blanket order suppressing the Police affidavits.

The 18 accused are represented by 14 barristers and countless solicitors, as well as Amicus Curiae Paul Dacre - an Auckland barrister who is the former Pitcairn Island Public Defender.  An 'Amicus Curiae' is a neutral 'friend of the court' appointed by the Judge to give an independent analysis of the facts and relevant legal position.  After several weeks of deposition hearings last year, 5 of the 18 defendants were additionally charged with participating in a gang under the Crimes Act.  The cost of all this to the Crown has already surpassed $8 million and could exceed $20 million.  Most of the defendants are on legal aid.

Preeminent defence barrister Rodney Harrison QC has been recognised by consent as lead counsel for the accused, with Maori rights lawyer Annette Sykes afforded distinct status by the Court in relation to the tikanga of Tuhoe and implied licence.

The written factual background laid out by the Judge in the substantive prosecution [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] but quite simply can be summed up as "[ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**], resulting in an intensive 13 month covert operation, 9 court-ordered land warrants, countless other search warrants and road blocks." 

Gone is the seditious language used when the story first gripped the nation that men in "paramilitary uniforms" were being trained in guerilla warfare by foreign terrorists and planned to use "napalm bombs" in coordinated attacks against State institutions.  In retrospect, it now seems odd that [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] on a Police affidavit that could not determine whether the number was closer to [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].  Perhaps they were too-well camouflaged for Police.  But then this is why it is the responsibility of the Judge to ask such pertinent questions before [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].

In Para. [55] of her judgment, Winkelmann J [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].

In oral submissions, Crown prosecutor Ross Burns argued that it was in the public interest for the Judge to allow the case to proceed unimpeded by legal technicalities.  He is being assisted in the prosecution by Meredith Connell employee Emma Finlayson-Davis.  In contrast, Mr Harrison QC for the defence provided the Court a dissertation on the relevant law, providing intricate details which gave rise to those laws in Parliament.  Harrison concluded his submissions by stating his own limitations relative to the specificities of each individual defendant, advising the Court may need to hear arguments from each defendant's counsel.  "The (evidence) exclusion issues can then be addressed by all counsel in a focused and hopefully helpful manner." 
The parties were again in the Auckland High Court on Tuesday for further arguments.
BACK TO FRONT PAGE                            - with kind permission from Vince Seimer, editor, Kiwisfirst.com