MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Judicial Corruption Corrodes Rule of Law

Filed under: General — Julie @ 10:11 pm Thu 7th June 2007

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

~ Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.

Around the world corruption is undermining judicial systems, denying citizens access to justice and the basic human right to a fair and impartial trial, sometimes even a trial at all.

“Equal treatment before the law is a pillar of democratic societies. When courts are corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary people suffer,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International. “Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while the guilty act with impunity.”

Judicial corruption usually falls into two categories: bribery and political interference in the judicial process by the legislative or executive branch.

Despite decades of reforms to protect judicial independence, the pressure to rule in favour of political interests remains intense. Problems remain though many judges around the world are indeed acting with integrity.

But for judges who refuse to be compromised, political retaliation can be swift and harsh. Failure to appoint judicial officials on merit can lead to the selection of a pliant, corruptible judiciary. “Problematic” judges can be reassigned or have sensitive cases transferred to more pliable judges.

Interference from politicians or civil servants can also buy “legal” cover for embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and illegal political decisions. Such interference can be as blatant as physical threats and intimidation, and as subtle as the manipulation of judicial appointments, salaries and conditions of service.


  1. Julie,

    Is **Keep at it Judy** getting to hot?

    Comment by Jim Bailey — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 10:35 pm

  2. No Jim, I will try and figure what Benjamin is on about in the morning. LOL
    Next i am going to figure out how to put a screen on a post for watching.

    Comment by julie — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 10:40 pm

  3. continue… watching a video.

    Comment by julie — Thu 7th June 2007 @ 10:42 pm

  4. Julie you are like a breath of fresh air. We have this very unhealthy taboo about criticizing the judiciary in NZ.
    You did over look two other insidious forms of judicial corruption.
    1. Judicial activism in all it’s forms.
    2. Judicial incompetence – in terms of making justifiable decisions.

    Comment by Dave — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 12:43 am

  5. Sorry Jim, had to delete your comment. It was too long. But thanx for the compliment on calling me clever. If there is something you can add to help new readers, it would be appreciated. But if you have something to say to me that may put new readers off, could you please kepp it offline and e-mail me personally.

    Comment by julie — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 7:38 am

  6. So what happens in NZ when this corruption is identified from within NZ.

    What happens if the principle separating the established (1689 English Bill of Rights) necessity of comity between the church and the parliament becomes itself corroded?

    What happens if in order to preserve this corrosion from falling prey to the extremes the original message denotes if that preservation infects the principle of “comity” between the executive and the judiciary?

    What happens if the damage is so significant it directly discriminates against our offspring so in order to manifest its preservation? What if?

    What if, (and this is the good part) the place of New Zealand (Aotearoa) is so ideally placed for its own circumstantial and geographical ability to withstand such a condition of injustice that it set itself up to tackle, on behalf of everyone the corrosion of this global problem?

    What if?

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 11:33 am

  7. aahhh the ‘whatif’ argument often emplyed by DV industry and W-refuges and family corts and often emphasised as being reality instead of reality itself…

    Comment by starr — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 6:52 pm

  8. What if that secret star chamber the nz family ‘court’ finally became open to public scrutiny, kept full records of all procedings therein and made judgements by panel instead of by a single unaccountable ‘judge’?

    Also what if nz scrapped ‘no fault’ divorce so fathers weren’t routinely dumped as redundant to be replaced by the state and/or another success object?

    What if so many women nz stopped treating their menfolk as disposable and started treating them as human beings?

    What if nz men actually started demanding a fair return on the huge amount of taxes they paid by getting equitable state sponsored healthcare?

    What if nz wakes up to realize the bloated prison system IS the male shelter movement?

    What if huge numbers of men are quietly waking up to how so called modern democratic systems don’t really represent them and have their best interests at heart….and then they quietly go their own way, downshifting into careers which suit their souls rather than female’s materialistic preferences, avoided paying taxes wherever they could, stopped paying interest in women in general in order to look after themselves and their beleaguered brothers?

    What if that process was already well underway?

    Comment by Stephen — Fri 8th June 2007 @ 7:00 pm

  9. I have that many corrupt judges minutes you could wall paper a three bedroom house with them . The Court of Appeal fobbed me back to High Court again last week , yawn , yawn , round and round we go in the corrupt world that we call a fair justice system – yeah right !

    Comment by dad4justice — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 8:35 am

  10. So put the last few posts together and what do you get? A problem!

    Whose job is it to fix the problem?

    Judy Turner? Well what support does she have? The Republicans? Well they aren’t in power yet. So that narrows down our options.

    Yet if we are talking bureaucratic processes let’s hold with the Republicans for the moment because they are the ones most advanced to look at these issues as talking from knowledge in the base of pain.

    How will the Republicans get themselves past the media constraints that exist where the media as a partially commercial entity has to control is influence to an event that will give it return. If the return isn’t financial then it needs to fit into the kaupapa (philosophy/theology).

    So if teh Republicans cannot swing with the cash, which they cannot nor bring the flesh pressers (political influence) then they are left with the more crude methods to get to their ground – that being on the streets. They have leaders and organisers. At teh moment they are the talkers. Fair enough, I reckon they say some pretty interesting things and I can sit to listen to Bevan for quite some time. Yet that doesn’t count on the political front. There needs to be a lift beyond the dialogue. If we are talking about male issues then we need to see the male. That factor will be drawn not from dialogue but from direct action – the kind that we honour every Anzac Day when the blokes were sent to get crippled and die. Some of them slowly and painfully – mangled physically and emotionally under the weight of hot steel and intoxicating fumes. They died for this society, where we needed brute strength.

    I’m not advocating violence or physical force I am advocating that a few individuals begin to stand up with some form of conviction in what they say. It’s easy to talk when others have to die to endorse the word’s truth.

    Dave says more: a breath of fresh air – more words. Peter says, he can line his walls with judicial corruption and knowing a bit about his case (presently before the Families Commission like mine) he’s right. Vince Seimer has a web site devoted to absolute lies and has highlighted this for the masses convenience. Where is the mass? I come back to the point of “who is supposed to do this” Judy Turner? The Republicans?

    Superb point Jim – who is the sheep? Where are the wolves trained to protect the flock? Or do we just have shepards in sheeps clothing?

    The point is that the bosses who run the country have been proved to be cheating. The proof is there and is readily accessible. The media aren’t there because they haven’t yet been effectively called. The politicians have been informed of what’s going on but they don’t need to worry because the media won’t tell the flock.

    So who will inform the flock?


    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ oalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 9th June 2007 @ 10:28 am

  11. Julie,

    LOVE the wolf.

    Stay healthy and happy,

    Comment by Mark Shipman — Fri 15th June 2007 @ 2:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar