Listening to National Radio Nine to Noon yesterday I heard a very interesting Kathryn Ryan interview with legal commentator Robert Lithgow, QC. They were discussing the preposterous prospect that will see a sacked Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickard becoming a lawyer.
The question arose, do Lawyers have to be credible?
The Queens Counsel replies; “ Credibility is utterly irrelevant according to the new Act”
Credible - Collins English dictionary;
1 capable of being believed
2 trustworthy or reliable
Why was Rickard dismissed from the Police again?
I am both appalled and astounded that being a fit and proper person of credibility is not deemed a necessary character trait in the administration of the New Zealand laws. Rickard who I call a bent pig can be the right kind of person to play Denny Crane in Kiwi Legal? Surely his historical behaviours demonstrate a total lack of judgement and self-control? This deranged pervert has made a mockery of New Zealand Police Standards of respectability and integrity. Bent pig has disgraced and dishonoured the New Zealand police, but he can play lawyer in a court of fools. Come on pull the other one. What is the state of the Mental Health of this Nation? The land of the long black lie!
The Bill of Rights gives the bent pig the chance to rub more salt into his many victims’ wounds. He was acquitted of rape? How unusual –yeah-right - bent pigs got a habit of doing that. A Senior Sergeant from Ashburton Police told my partner and me that “ police regularly lie in court to protect there own.” Good stuff bent pig Mr Kelly. The Police are corrupt and must be cleaned up!
The judges don’t care about credibility. The Court is only concerned that the officers of the Court do not let personal opinion hinder the administration of the law. The lawyers must adhere to the underlining provision, which is the rock solid principle that they fully support the correct administration of law. This logic creates the adversarial litigation process, which is the bread and butter of the judiciary. This insane logic leads us to the fact that we don’t need credible people presenting respectful submissions to judges.
A recent case in Melbourne demonstrates that a gangster’s mole and widow can legally strut her stuff in the Courts of deception. Lawyers move on to be judges, however the credibility standard and code of ethics remains the same. Round and round the Westminster law system we go, then we all fall down dizzy, broke and heart broken.
The law is a sick joke .How can they call them Courts of Justice when the extremely well paid workers don’t have to be credible? No wonder I feel nauseous everytime I enter a Courthouse.
No wonder the many lawyers I have encountered since my travesty started in 2001 are such rotten bastards and bitches.