Attorney-General Hon Christopher Finlayson
Parliament Building
Wellington 6160
New Zealand




Re: Parliament repealed sections of an Act and you are criticizing Justice R Harrison’s concurrence with pleadings he upheld in the Rotorua High Court.


Dear Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson,

Minister it is of course not for me to offer legal advice, however I have already copied to you a copy of the documents that were correctly filed for appeal.
Also I asked that you ask the Prime Minister to exercise his lawful right to avail himself (the Prime Minister) of a copy of the transcript of those proceedings in the Rotorua High Court on 16th December 2002 as we clearly disagree.
If you avail yourself of an opportunity to have the PM listen to the findings of Justice Harrison who is after all a qualified High Court Judge; not you Minister.

You might stop expressing criticism or perceived flaws in respect to the legal process Plumtree v Defence Force in matters Justice Harrison upheld my pleadings in. Please ask the Prime Minister to listen to the transcript before making wrongful statements without knowing the facts Minister.

I have already advised you the appellant had considered filing an appeal under section 123 (2) of the Human Rights Act, however the appellant found that section had been repealed effective from 1st January 2002, it was repealed subsequent to commencement of proceedings. The repealed section 123 was amended repealing subsection (2) by virtue of the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 and amended to come under section 28, Appeals to High Court. The appellant found such an appeal failed to provide for the hearing of further evidence, because it directed the complainant to section 95 of the Human Rights Act a section directed in respect to an appeal pertaining to an Interim Order.

The Human Rights Amendment Act describes further amendments including a description of an amended by omitting the expression section 83 of the Human Rights Act to read sections 92B, 92E, 95 and 97.

Under Appeals to High Court, from a decision under sec. 83 (92B) as of the 1st January 2002, under section 28 (2) of the Act now says. “If a party to proceedings under section 92B or section 92E is dissatisfied with a decision of the Tribunal dismissing those proceedings or granting 1 or more of the remedies described in section 92I or the remedy described in section 92J or constituting a final determination of the Tribunal in those proceedings, that party may appeal to the High Court against all or any part of that decision”!

My appeal was correctly filed in accordance with law and upheld by Justice Harrison.


Yours faithfully
RF Plumtree