This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at

GROSS Judicial injustice


In a reserved decision of 12 October 2009, Justice Miller of the High Court of Wellington has overstepped the mark of reasonableness. The judge turned down an application by Benjamin Easton, a Wellington political campaigner for the release of $800 security paid to the Court in 2008.


Easton’s application to release the security stated that the chances of winning the case were indefensibly in his favour; that he was impecunious requiring the security and that the matter was a matter in the general public interest.


The proceedings were relative to a decision made by the Broadcasting Standards Authority 4 June 2008, Easton claims that there is no possible way he should lose the argument where the complaint considered by the BSA was different from the complaint he made. He claimed that ‘not only men commit domestic violence” which the BSA re worded for their consideration that ‘not only women are the victims of domestic violence.


“The original decision is just ludicrous” states Easton. “The BSA has reasoned as if they were the complainant. There is a significant difference between the two concepts of being a victim and being an offender. The BSA puts the emphasis on the status of a victim and the appeal is literally about being realistic on who it is in fact that commits domestic violence. Society has no control over who is the victim. All of the control is on who perpetrates the violence and to say the perpetrator is singularly the male is a simple, discriminatory, offensive, abusive nonsense”.


Part of Easton’s frustration is that not only did the lawyer appearing for Radio New Zealand, Sandra Moran of Oakley Moran, not offer any written submission of any defence she was openly patronizing and derogatory, calling Easton a vexatious litigant, who made complaining his hobby. Ms Moran said that ”Radio New Zealand would defend the application to release the security vigorously”. No written defence was provided or required from RNZ as Judge Miller decided the case on the information put by Easton before the Court.


Easton’s objection to the judgment is obvious. “How is it possibly fair if a judge can simply ignore in whole and part of a submitted and oral argument that states the public interest is being perverted by propaganda and its protection? The judge instead preferred his own argument, and one that was never submitted by the respondent?”


Easton is reserving the right of appeal until other campaigns can be concluded, but says it is highly likely that he will challenge the decision in the near future.



Intolerable_decision.pdf9.86 KB
Memorandum_proving_injustice.pdf649.59 KB


GROSS Judicial injustice

The Courts are an exclusive club of fat cat lawyers where self-litigants are openly not welcome and this decision just reflects that mindset. Good on your Brian for challenging the system. Keep them honest. Kia Kaha.

Dixie :)

Nothing new in that  

Nothing new in that   Benjamin, if only others would  realise the state of our courts.    Judge Joyce  who  is on record  for having reprimanded  Jurors  for going on line   to  look for definitions, admitted in a judgement against me  that   he had clicked through links and had conducted a Google search  .

My appeal on the   defamation charges   (which  I pleaded truth and honest opinion on  and was denied  the right  to  that defence )  was heard in February 09 , I still have no decision .  In the mean time the decision which  is  most defamatory of me is being used  to exonerate the   man  whose uncorroborated evidence in court was accepted by the judge. I have now prepared a file for the police for perjury .

Joyce found that there  was no need  for the statement of claim to be proved , nor was there even as  much as one document   produced  which substantiated  the alleged  claims against me.. all pure  hearsay  all made  legal just by  filing a statement of claim.  

Joyce’s  on line research and my affidavit ( ie statement of truth )  which showed no less than 40 contradictions  and deceptions ( with back up docs)  on the part of the  plaintiff  ( actually out  right lies    in my opinion ) were enough   for  "his honour"   to decide that  I defamed  this poor barrister .

Some of us    don’t have a right to a fair  hearing.  We are guilty before we start  and the evidence is then  dug up to  substantiate the  judgement   even if the judge has to go on line in desperation .  Goodness only knows  what he saw and  what I  was judged on .

I am a former Police prosecutor  a lay littigant, the  plaintiff was a barrister.. how could I have been right.