Search Results

1. Proposals against incitement of hatred and discrimination - discussion document - accessible [docx, 206 KB]

   ...and personal information 6 Questions and further information 7 Safety concerns 8 What you can do if you are experiencing hateful speech or behaviour? 8 Background and context 9 Why is the Government doing this? 9 The right to freedom of expression is protected but is subject to reasonable limits 10 The Human Rights Act 1993 contains two provisions prohibiting the incitement of hostility 11 Several problems have been identified with the current law 13 The Government is seeking feedback on six pr...

2. Strengthening the Criminal Justice System for Victims: Survey report [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...the system should be more rehabilitative. Victims should be at the centre of the system Many people described the criminal justice system as offender-centric, which is exemplified by the following statement: “The system is totally geared towards protecting and supporting the offender.” 08 Respondents reported that the system is currently set up in a way which only works for the offender by: protecting the offender, offering the offender more support and investment than the victim,...

3. BORA Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill [pdf, 368 KB]

   Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill 14 March 2011 Attorney-General Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill PCO 15016/1.1 Our Ref: ATT395/156 1. I have reviewed the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I conclude that, while the Bill raises possible issues...

4. Adams v Aucamp [2016] NZIACDT 53 (14 September 2016) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...telephone. [1.1.5] Mr Aucamp overcharged the complainant’s parents, and failed to refund the over-payment. [1.1.6] He did not have a written agreement for work he performed for the complainant’s parents. [2] The Tribunal found Mr Aucamp was careless in relation to the IELTS score, he failed to report on filing the expression of interest, he did not have a written agreement and presented a backdated agreement, he threatened to make a malicious and unfounded complaint to Immigrati...

5. LCRO 176/2021 BR v UE and VJ (7 December 2022) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr BR has applied for a review of the determination by [X] Standards Committee, in which the Committee determined that Mr BR had breached rule 10.1 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules1 and made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against Mr BR by reason of that breach. [2] The Committee censured Mr BR and ordered him to apologise to Mrs UE. It also ordered him to pay a fine of $3,000 and costs of $1,000. Mrs...

6. LCRO 122/2020 G & P LN v Todd Whitcombe and RC findings & publication decisions (4 May 2021 & 22 June 2021) [pdf, 397 KB]

   ...with in the civil courts where evidence could be tested by cross examination. It also observed that the overall focus of the complaints and disciplinary process was the maintenance of professional standards in the legal profession, as well as the protection of the public. [68] The orders imposed by the Committee were:56 a. Mr Whitcombe pay to the New Zealand Law Society costs of $500.00 pursuant to s 156(1)(n); b. Mr Whitcombe pay to the New Zealand Law Society a fine of $2,000....

7. VJ v JT LCRO 279/2014 (2 September 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...Mr VJ’s complaint. [24] It has also been helpful to consider the Family Court judgment to which Mr VJ refers, which contains the following comment by the Judge:6 The hearing before me lasted eight days. I read boxes of written material. Careful, detailed cross-examination by four skilled counsel [one of whom was Ms JT] demonstrated consistent depth of preparation. The submissions were meaty and relevant. [25] That passage is also inconsistent with Mr VJ’s view of the Judg...

8. 23 September 2014 Legal Aid News [pdf, 455 KB]

   ...changes to Ministry-funded domestic violence programmes. These changes come into effect on 1 October and focus on the safety of children and vulnerable people affected by violence at home. Other changes extend the maximum sentence for breaching a protection order from two to three years’ imprisonment, and recognise financial or economic abuse as a form of psychological violence. The changes aim to improve the safety of victims and protected people and increase the accountability of re...

9. KF v WP LCRO 103 / 2011 (12 April 2012) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...the Applicant’s business: “It was the lawyers conduct when they instructed me that was not in accordance with the lawyers obligations under rule 12.2”. He submitted that it was the lawyers’ role to ensure his position as third party was protected, implying that the Practitioner was obliged to take steps to ensure that his position under the Rule was protected. He suggested this could be achieved by obtaining an up-front estimate, offering to meet the cost of mediation, re...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ravelich [2020] NZLCDT 22 (16 July 2020) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...certain matters which bear on the proper, and least restrictive penalty in relation to the findings of misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct made in the January 2020 decision. Rehabilitation [16] One of the primary purposes of penalty – once protection of the public is assured – is that of rehabilitation of the practitioner. Not only is this a human response by the disciplinary process, but it is also a sensible and practical factor given the years and cost of training of a l...