Dear Ombudsman Littlewood,
I feel we are a bit crossed up in this process of
discussing passage of Plumtree v Defence Force appeal process. This is what I
BECAUSE Justice Harrison did not hear the listed sections
of the HRRT decision that Plumtree sort appeal on e.g. those sections
described in law that were filed for appeal at the commencement of proceedings
in his High Court Appeal that remain un-heard.
On receipt of transcript an application needs then to be
constructed for appeal to the Full Court of Appeal in Wellington pleading
compelling reasons for the appellants right to have the High Court properly
hear the sections filed for appeal. Maybe then the High Court will give very
public consideration to each of the 37 sections filed for appeal and make such
comments as it sees fit pertaining to the previous findings made by HRRT in
its final decision.
Which is what Robert Francis Plumtree started an appeal process for in the first place.
Well I dunno what you think Ombudsman Littlewood, but
that pretty much describes the passage of appeals process that I perceive as
being required in appealing a Final Decision of the Human Rights Review
Sensitivity of others feelings is not an aspect of due
process as best as I can tell. I believe the appeal process is contained in
the High Court Rules and has nothing what so ever to do with
It is not Justice Harrison that is obstructing due
process of my appeal. In the first instance in-action of a court official
appears one very likely cause. There might be another miss understanding that
is also delaying the appeal process…
P.O. Box 13482
Your Ref: C8026
Plumtree v Defence Force
Dear Ombudsman Christopher Littlewood,
Thank you for your correspondence dated 19th
April 2004. I advise I had not intended criticism of judicial officers, rather
I complain I am being deprived of due-process in accordance with the rules and
regulations in law and its administration, which relates particularly to a
matter of administration set out in sec.13 (1) of the Ombudsmen
Act 1975, being a complaint against a officers inaction in the Department for
I complain I correctly filed for an appeal for hearing
before the Appeals Court against Registrar B Gribble’s findings he found in
the decision earlier handed down by the High Court from the hearing held at
Rotorua and heard by Justice R Harrison on 16th December 2002.
I correctly filed an application in the Rotorua High Court Registry (Civil Division) and have received an inappropriate response. I have received no appropriate legal response at all. The only response I have thus far received since filing for appeal was a copy of a minute written by the same judge whose decision I sort to appeal.
During the Human Rights Review
Tribunal proceedings a meeting occurred between Defence Force legal Officer,
Crown Law Solicitor, Barrister Peter Birks and myself. During that meeting
held in the local RSA the Defence Force witness produced forgeries of my
signature part of evidence clearly displaying I’d been signed up for an
additional year in the army without my knowledge. The witness later repeatedly
claimed at the Tribunal hearing, he could not recall producing the documents
he had earlier produced at the meeting at Rotorua.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal had
prior to the Tribunal hearing, ordered for hearing by all parties during the
proceedings, only written submissions filed prior to the hearing could be
heard during the proceedings, and the Tribunal had also asked that I file my
appeal books three months in advance of the hearing instead of handing them up
the usually required day before; I complied.
I believe I received a reasonable hearing of the facts upon which I relied during the first half-day of the Tribunal hearing held before three members. However witness for Defence Force had only filed some thirteen written points in his submissions for his evidence, of those he raised only nine, and went on in breach of Tribunal directions to raise others far in excess of the ones he had filed. I objected and was told words to the effect to sit-down and shut-up, Defence Force witness was then allowed to raise his personal opinion for quite some time, on the first day almost two hours. He went over point-by-point facts I had raised and were in the main facts supported by my army personal file, Lt Col Taylor makes lots of unsubstantiated, false misleading statements over what otherwise the documents produced clearly displayed.
The next full day of hearing held in
Auckland, Defence Force and the Tribunal continued to build upon those false
misleading explanations of what had occurred. However there was two weeks
in-between the two days of hearing and I filed in accordance with law,
a written objection, which the Tribunal accepted and upheld in my favour,
though later included the disallowed evidence in its decision. Three months
later the Tribunal delivered its 35-page decision, and included some findings
in that decision from the Defence Force witness, I describe as false and
misleading statements given in breach of Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal in its decision gave
one award in my favour in relation to vaccination certificates that army held
in its procession (clearly forged replacement certificates that displayed many
Australian army stamps and I had been given vaccinations the year prior to my
enlistment) the tribunal gave the one small award only on the grounds Defence
Force had breached the Privacy Act in Defence Force having not produced the
certificates on application under freedom of information request.
The Tribunal decision didn’t
mention the written evidence I’d submitted in relation to the army arranged
sweetheart to write to. During the Tribunal hearing Defence Force witness Lt
Col Taylor, made a lot of statements like (a) he didn’t think army
actually conducted annual medicals, he only has had one medical in the three
years he’s been in the regular force. (b) Being taken of strength and
put back on strength was just some usual clerical event, when I had testified
that’s what occurred on re-engagement.
(c) During the Tribunal hearings Lt Col Taylor clearly stated
the pay book he held in his hand containing a last entry January 1966, was the
only pay book found. He still has not sent me the pay-book the Tribunal
ordered him to and he later sent me another with first entry January 1967. (d)
He Lt Col Taylor repeatedly could not recall the documents he’d produced at
the meeting in Rotorua, however Barrister Peter Birks attests otherwise as do
The Tribunal made an award in my
favour for cost however the witness objected to the amount of ink I had
claimed and has refused to pay, so I have received none of the cost both the
Tribunal and High Court had awarded.
I appealed the Tribunal decision in
the Rotorua High Court, however straightaway the judge (I believe acting with
bias) ordered three times that I withdraw my appeal, and because I didn’t
want to be judged in contempt of his order I did, the judge then turned around
and asked what had I filed. The judge then went on to ask what I wanted and
upholds my request for a lawful discharge, and also he to awarded the Tribunal
costs in my favour.
Still to this date the Defence Force has not paid the
awarded cost or addressed the upheld request for my lawful discharge so I
wrote to the Rotorua High Court Registrar and later appealed according to law
his reply, which I copied to you displaying what I had done because I have
only received the judges minute in response. I did not withdraw, I was ordered
to withdraw by that judge, and in any event, he cannot order the registry not
to receive documents from me as he did within the minute he wrote, stopping
any opportunity for judicial review of his decision of 16th
I have noted your comments regarding previous
correspondence between your colleagues myself and your further comments in
relation to the functions of the Ombudsmen and conclude I have not asked you
to investigate in the matters set out in sec.13 (8) (a)
or (b) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, however I am left without any other
right of appeal or avenue for objection in these matters, but for sec. 6
and 7 (a) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, no appeal can now lie in
respect to these proceedings, and no proceedings or decision by the Department
for Courts lays open to me against there inappropriate response as the no
response at all cannot be appealed.
Please can you give consideration to sec.13 (1)
and sec. 6 and 7 (a) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 in
choosing to investigate this matter?
I remain, yours truly,