Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 10.18.49

In New Zealand the law is often an ass; Judge “chipolata” guilty of indecent exposure?

Saunders au naturel with his cunny pleaser on display. We wonder if the Judge was “hiding in the bushes” prior to the photo that has made him famous for 10.5 cms. Shaved because a bush would make his pecker disappear.

Above and below LF readers will find the images that the New Zealand Herald, Fairfax’s Stuff, and every other msm operator in Aotearoa did not want their Kiwi readers to see. That being a Judge of the New Zealand District Court cavorting between the petunia’s with his tockler and nutsack hanging low and exposed to the Internet for children, grandadphiles, nuns and priests surfing for naturalist porn, and anyone else who wants to view an old dude with what seems to be a “half chubby out of the cubby”.

The Kiwi MSM’s response to this little scandal is quite disturbing, more so given that various other international media outlets have now also published the images. The UK’s Daily Mirror published everything:

The law really is an ass! Pictures of a naked JUDGE holidaying at a nudist retreat used online to promote the resort to fellow ‘naturists’

Having sex with 16 year old girls is legal. Having sex with any number of 16 year old girls at the same time is legal.

Renting prostitutes is legal. Renting 18 year old prostitutes is legal. Having a prostitute party every Friday is legal.

Swinging with the missus, and her getting done anally, and being filmed is legal. Watching the missus with her consent being gang-banged by fifty blokes is legal. Watching porn is legal, but it saw High Court Judge Robert Fisher investigated for doing it on Court computers.

But exposing yourself in public is not legal. Is exposing yourself on the Internet legal. Well it probably is unless you send the images of yourself to intended persons that have no interest in your privates, but this does indeed happen on most dating apps. Just because it is legal however does not make it “proper”, particularly if you are in the business of Judging others on their excesses and lifestyles.

Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 10.12.17

Judge David Saunders wearing his “emperors” cloths, playing the gentlemans game of penistanque. He seems to be playing with himself.

The real axe to grind with this case is that this particular Judge has a bit of a chequered past involving hypocrisy and likely favour toward sexual offenders. Let us do what the MSM wont do. Bring to our readership the connection of his identity to his behaviours in Court, and how numerous persons have noted his proclivity to go easy on sexual offenders.

Mr Saunders [his title before becoming a Judge] has let off the hook one of the good ol boys “prominent New Zealander”, All Black Grahame Thorne, of a serious sexual assault case that occurred in the victim’s own home. He also gave Thorne permanent name suppression even though virtually every one in New Zealand knew Thorne’s identity thanks to kiwi blogger Pete George; and a considerable number in Australia, largely thanks to Darryn Hinch, the Human Headline;

Victims Must Come First

Derryn Hinch

THERE’S AN ANGLE to lifting suppression orders on sex offenders that  opponents seem to miss – or conveniently ignore.

The publication of the name and photo of a convicted offender may not only alert people to possible danger and prevent future attacks. It may encourage other past victims of that predator to come forward.

Read more:


Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 11.30.42

Ex MP & Kiwi All Black Grahame Thorne, beneficiary of Judge’s judicial discretion

The Otago Daily Times reported the following about the case on 5 May 2014.

A prominent man has escaped conviction and identification on an indecency charge, almost two and a-half years after the offence was committed.

The man, now in his late 60s, appeared before Judge David Saunders, of Christchurch, in the Dunedin District Court yesterday and accepted a sentence indication of discharge without conviction, on payment of $6500 reparation to the female complainant.

Judge Saunders also indicated final name suppression. He said it was accepted the man had ”carried a bit of a cross” in the time since the matter first came before the court.

The case, ”which was going to be diverted”, had taken on a life of its own and had greatly affected the man and his family, Judge Saunders said.
Counsel Jonathan Eaton QC, of Christchurch, described the matter as going through ”quite an extraordinary process” since starting in Central Otago with diversion.

Almost three years later, after a Court of Appeal hearing, the case was being resolved in ”almost a similar way”, Mr Eaton said.
The man was pleased to put the stress of the prosecution behind him. Crown counsel Robin Bates said the Crown did not consent to either application (for a discharge without conviction and final name suppression), but neither did it oppose the applications.

It was a matter for the court, applying the correct principles, he said.
Of relevance was the offence happened in the woman’s home, there was some abuse of trust, premeditation and harm caused to the complainant.

In deciding to grant a discharge, Judge Saunders said he wanted to be clear it was not a case of ”chequebook justice”, or of the man getting any special recognition because of who he was.

Rather, it was a logical recognition of the facts.

The judge said he had tried to convey that, although the complainant had been affected, when looking at the matter objectively and taking into account the range of behaviours which came before the courts, the offending was at the lower end of the scale of seriousness.

Taking all factors into account, his view was a conviction would be disproportionate to the overall events in the particular circumstances of the man, his family and his work situation.

And he said such a finding could apply ”even if it had been the mythical Joe Bloggs in the dock”.
On the question of name suppression, Judge Saunders said he accepted fully the concept of open justice applied.

The case had been dealt with in open court and he had decided publication of the man’s name and the circumstances of the matter would bring ”undue consequences” to the man himself and to others.

He ordered final suppression of the man’s name, occupation and former occupations, anything likely to lead to his identity, or cast speculation on any other person of a similar class or type.

Then there is the case of taking the side of a sex offender against the victims, two girls under twelve, Saunders not wanting one of the victims to read out her impact statement. This from the Christchurch Court News on April 10 2014;

A judge has grudgingly allowed one child sex abuse victim to read her statement in court, after the victims had declined a restorative justice meeting where they could have confronted the offender.

The offending against three young girls by Shane Vincent Roy Dennis, now aged 54, took place more than 20 years ago.
Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders today sentenced Dennis to 10 months of home detention, 200 hours of community work, and ordered him to pay $1000 to each victim.

Dennis had admitted 11 charges of indecent assault, and one of inducing a girl to do an indecent act. All related to girls aged under 12 at the time. Dennis now works as a truck driver in Whangarei, where helps care for his sick wife. He will continue to work and the emotional harm reparation payments to the victims will be made at $75 a week.

Judge Saunders said it was a case where restorative justice would have been beneficial but the offer had been declined by the victims.
He questioned why one of the victims now wanted to read her victim impact statement in court, where the defendant did not have a chance to reply effectively.

“I’m not comfortable about it now,” said the judge. “This doesn’t have a sense of balance about it. There’s no opportunity for formal interaction or apology. I am not sure what she is trying to achieve.”

The Crown prosecutor Mark Zarifeh replied: “It is part of the process, part of the healing for her. That’s what the law provides.”

Judge Saunders then allowed the 29-year-old woman to read her statement. She said she had suffered mental and emotional injuries as a result of the offending. She had taken up drinking, taking pills, and smoking dope from the age of 11, and was addicted by 14. The offending had caused her to have difficulties developing proper trusting relationships with men. She had been on medication to prevent anxiety and panic attacks. “He took away my childhood,” she said.

Judge Saunders noted that Dennis only had one conviction – for drink-driving in 1993 – since the end of the sex offending. A prison sentence would only be for the purpose of deterrence and denunciation, because he would not qualify for the Kia Marama sex offenders’ programme, nor the shorter 10-week programme in prison.

Pre-sentence assessments described him as a low or moderate risk of reoffending. His guilty pleas had spared the three women the indignity of having to give evidence at trial.
He said the offending had involved instances of touching, rather than sexual violation which involved heavier penalties. Dennis had been aged from 27 to 33 when it occurred.

Judge Saunder imposed strict conditions as part of the home detention sentence. Dennis will be forbidden to use alcohol or illicit drugs, and will only be allowed contact with anyone under 16 if he has direct supervision from an informed adult approved by the probation officer. He will have to undergo alcohol and drug assessment and treatment if required.

Source: Links and additional reporting available in Bibliography below:

The MSM also had a field day with the above case:

Judge’s handling of abuse victim slammed

14th April 2014

A Christchurch judge has been criticised for his reluctance to allow a sexual abuse victim to read her victim impact statement.

However a spokesman for the judiciary has rejected the criticism, saying it displayed a lack of understanding about the restorative justice process and the judge’s decision.

Shane Vincent Roy Dennis, 54, was last week convicted for offending against three young girls aged under 12, which took place more than 20 years ago. Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders sentenced him to 10 months’ home detention, 200 hours’ community work and ordered him to pay $1000 to each victim.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar criticised the judge’s reluctance to allow a victim to read her victim statement in court.

During sentencing, Judge Saunders questioned why one of Dennis’s victims wanted to read her victim impact statement. He cited the victim’s unwillingness to engage in a restorative justice programme with Dennis, and said reading the statement didn’t have “a sense of balance about it”.

Judge Saunders said he was “not sure what the victim was trying to achieve” and reading the statement did not give Dennis opportunity to respond or apologise.

He agreed to allow her to make her statement after Crown prosecutor Mark Zarifeh argued to let her, saying: “It is part of the process, part of the healing for her. That’s what the law provides.”

McVicar said being questioned in court would have compounded the already difficult task the woman faced in voicing her trauma. “I can’t imagine what this woman would be going through just to make this statement,” he said. “This is the one opportunity she would have had to speak.”

The 29-year-old said in her statement Dennis had stolen her childhood. She had suffered mentally and emotionally, taking up drinking and drugs, and had issues developing relationships with men. She was on medication for anxiety and panic attacks.

McVicar said he had not seen any evidence the restorative justice programme worked, and it could even be harmful for victims of sexual abuse.

“In this instance [it] is totally inappropriate. It has no place in cases of sexual abuse,” McVicar argued.

“For the judge to even think restorative justice was appropriate shows how out of touch he is, restorative justice would simply have been another opportunity for the offender to cause incredible emotional harm to his victim.”

Neil Billington, a spokesman for the judiciary, said the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s criticisms misunderstood the restorative justice process as well as the judge’s decision.
He said restorative justice had been shown to be an increasingly effective process for victims, with 77 per cent saying they were satisfied with their overall experience and 80 per cent of victims saying they would be likely to recommend it to others in a similar situation.

Billington said contrary to the Trust’s claims, the restorative justice process also included dealing with sexual offending, subject to clear guidelines to protect victims.
”The sentencing judge has also been unfairly criticised by the Trust. The judge granted the victim her wish to read her victim impact statement at the sentencing, as she was entitled, but inquired whether she might have wished to have undertaken this through the offer of restorative justice made earlier by the defendant.

”The defendant had acknowledged the harm he had caused and his wish to offer amends in a meaningful way. In such circumstances, restorative justice would have been an option, though it remains the right of the victim to decline, as occurred in this case,” Billington said.

The sentencing judge was well aware of the rights of victims, which were provided for in law.

Billington said in the last fortnight Judge Saunders had dealt with two cases of serious sexual offending where the defendants did not acknowledge or wish to make redress for their offending and imposed lengthy prison terms, with the mothers of the child victims being given permission to address the court.

Source: Sunday Star Times (

Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 11.38.05

Ruth Money

Ruth Money of Sensible Sentencing had this to say at the time about Judge Saunders “reticence” to allow a victim to address the convicted perpetrator.

Judge Saunders YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE! The law allows for victims to read a victim impact statement – how dare you question this victims right because they didn’t want an RJ meeting with the offender – not many people want to meet the person who sexually assaulted them. You should stand down immediately – Ruth


Screen Shot 2016-02-23 at 11.35.00

Garth McVicar

On the “Who Judges the Judges” Website Kiwi sensible sentencing campaigner Garth McVicar had this to say about Judge Saunders recidivist pro sex offenders stance;

Offences: Sexual abuse

Sentence: Ten months home detention, community work, $1000 reparation.

Christchurch judge David Saunders has had a formal complaint laid against him following his reluctance to allow a victim her legal right to read her statement in court.

The victim had declined to take part in a restorative justice meeting which annoyed Judge Saunders who said he was not comfortable with her decision, “This doesn’t have a sense of balance about it. There’s no opportunity for formal interaction or apology. I am not sure what she is trying to achieve.”

Crown Prosecutor Mark Zarifeh replied “It is part of the process, part of the healing for her. That’s what the law provides.”
Victim impact statements are enshrined in law. They are not and never have been linked to a requirement to engage in any restorative justice process. Judge Saunders should know that.

The public of New Zealand expect our judges to know the law, respect the rights of a victim to say no to restorative justice and not attempt to pressure, humiliate or intimidate a victim into a decision. Worryingly this is not the first time Judge Saunders has put pressure on a victim in this regard.

Source: s

Judge Saunders also recieved this ragging from the “No Minister” Blogspot over his preferential treatment of Grahame Thorne;

Another Dud Judge Who Misses the Bit About “Seeing to be Done”.

“A Prominent New Zealander” my arse.

A former person of note in a field, yes.
A person with some subsequent exposure in media, maybe.

One who has had setbacks in life, yes, plenty have had much worse

However to call that C” lister at best, a prominent citizen is stretching credibility.

Coward, arrogant, sleazy, wannabee, disgusting, predatory, and extremely fortunate all fit the person Rodney Hide alluded to, ‘prominent’ definitely not, apart from in his own warped mind.

How many 60 yo men in the Southern Lakes District would be under suspician because this POS who thought “she should have been grateful” are now under suspicion because a cowardly Rolf Harris type who always thought he could not be touched, has got away with it, so far.

Judge David Saunders, Sir, what would you be thinking if it was your current squeeze who was assaulted in such a personally destructive and disgusting way.
So he pleaded guilty because he was assured he would get off scott free, I mean what was $5000 dollars of blood money and another $1500 in counseling.

What about the next one, form is temporary talent is permanent, so there will be a next one just as almost certainly there were previous. Leopards do not change their spots.
How many others have stayed silent from embarrassment, fear, loathing or whatever.

It is decisions such as you made that equate to those in The BBC and elsewhere that empower, protect and promote sickos like that “Prominent New Zealander”.

It is not the fear of prosecution or the fear of punishment that stops me revealing the name of this disgusting bastard it is the financial cost that will accrue to my family in just getting due process.

Derryn Hinch you are a good bastard, I wish I had your courage. It is very sobering that the bastards locked you up in the same wing of the same facility where the cnut who killed Jill Meagher was incarcerated.

I also echo the call to Maggie Barrie to use Parliamentary Privilege, extraordinary measures are needed and entirely justified.

Judge Saunders you just accomplished dud 101 with a merit pass.

Source: about.html


Jarden-200906 DK Judge David Saunders presiding over Kevin Moana Jarden case on historical charges of rape and sexual violation dating from 1988. news Dean Calcott story

Photo of Judge David Saunders, originally taken whilst presiding over Kevin Moana Jarden case on historical charges of rape and sexual violation dating from 1988.

But then there’s more about Judge Saunders, complete with his photograph. On 15 April 2015 the Christchurch Press reported this about Judge Saunders “dressing down” a man who was taking photographs of a convicted person;

A Christchurch man was hauled before a judge after he was discovered taking courtroom photographs destined for a controversial Facebook page outing criminals.

Police seized Timothy James Cummings’ cellphone and removed him from a courtroom at the Christchurch District Court on Tuesday morning after an officer spotted him taking photographs from the public gallery. He admitted taking the photos immediately.

Courtroom guidelines state cellphones cannot be used in the public gallery, while media have to apply to the court to take photographs and recordings of proceedings.
Police spoke to the the North New Brighton stay-at-home-father and found he was taking photos of a defendant in the dock. They said he was intending to pass the information to a Facebook page he followed which aims to raise awareness about criminals in Christchurch.

The page has previously been criticised by Dr Ian Lambie, of the University of Auckland’s clinical psychology department, who said trying to “ostracise, ridicule and shame” convicted offenders could do more harm than good. Addressing Cummings before the court, Judge David Saunders ordered him delete the photos from his phone before letting him leave. He warnedhim his actions could have been in contempt of court and led to a jail sentence.

The maximum penalty for contempt of court is 3 months’ imprisonment or a $1000 fine.
Saunders said the judiciary was more than aware of people attempting to “air their grievances” on social media.

The man admitted it was “a stupid thing to do” and he was not aware of rules around taking photographs in court.
All details relating to the defendant photographed were suppressed.

Source: taking-photos-in-court

But wait there’s still more on Judge Saunders “connecting with” rapists in a meaningful way. In this report on the website “Apartheid Fort New Zealand” the following account of an injustice at the hands of Saunders occurs yet again;

Another District Court Judge F**ks Up Again!

Lawyers’ fees + $5,000 (if the victim is an Indian or a Pakistani)

Graeme Stuart Redmond, A Kirwee farmer, couldn’t keep his farming tool in his trousers, but managed to find the right lawyer. Graeme raped a 15-year-old member of the minority community, believed to be an Indian or a Pakistani girl, got himself a “good” lawyer, wrote an apology letter to the girl, offered $5000 emotional harm reparation and was sentenced to eight months home detention by the evil judge.

Who was the Defence counsel? It was Jonathon Eaton QC, of course. The lawyer who specializes in looking after the old boys after they rape a minor.
“He said the incident was an example of a gross act by an intoxicated man with ill judgment. He realised it was wrong and stopped, then apologised to the girl the next morning.”

[“Hey, he apologized, didn’t he? And the girl must have enjoyed it, too. She was just a darkie, and must be grateful for the fun, and the money.”] What did the Crown prosecutor say? “Redmond could have had no reasonable idea that the act was consensual,” or words to that effect. Who was the Crown Prosecutor? They could have placed a vibrating sex aid with the batteries running out in the courtroom instead, and no one would have noticed the difference.

The *&^%$#@ Judge

Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders reportedly said that he had “accepted Redmond’s remorse and generous offer of reparation, and it was evident he had support from the people in court,” NZPA said.
Uh… so next time all rapists should ask members of their extended family and school friends, too, to attend the court. Right?

“He said Redmond, who held official positions in the local community, had good references, and this was an isolated incident from a man with good character.”
[“In short he was one of the good old boys! And the victim just an Indian girl who couldn’t make her mind up, no doubt. She might have even asked for it”.]

“Earlier in the sentencing Judge Saunders spoke directly to the girl’s father and encouraged him and the family to attend a restorative justice meeting.”
The judge then revealed that the family was considering leaving New Zealand [and returning to their country of origin.]

That’s one way for apartheid New Zealanders to repatriate “colored” immigrants.

No name suppression in this case, because Jonathon Eaton QC didn’t think it was necessary to hide the identity of a kiwi HERO!

Source: new-zealand/

In yet another story of this nudist Judges strange behavior relating to what he thinks is serious offending, he “caught” a women on minimum income lying to the Court in a means test, relating to arrears of rent, and somehow it got reported in the New Zealand Herald on 28 September 2013 where the Judge is the hero. Go figure, no inside bullshit going on here;

A West Coast woman who was means tested in the Greymouth District Court on Thursday, found out she had been in the wrong place at the wrong tme when she asked her son to buy tobacco in the New World Supermarket on Monday. The judge was next in the queue.

Jacqueline Anne Galland was before the court over a $2000 debt that she owed to a previous landlord.
The Tenancy Tribunal had ruled that Galland skipped away from a rental property leaving unpaid rent and so much rubbish that it cost the property owner $1000 to clean it up and resulted in him taking fve trailer loads of rubbish to the dump.

In all, Galland owed the landlord $2014, but she alleged to the tribunal that she could only aford to pay him $2 a week.
The landlord asked that Galland be means tested by the court. Her allegaton that she had no discretonary income was bearing out in court – untl Judge David Saunders asked how much she spent a week on cigaretes.

Galland said she did not smoke and did not she provide her son, who she supports, with cigarete money.
“But you asked him to get $62 worth of tobacco in New World on Monday,” Judge Saunders said.

“No I didn’t,” Galland replied.
“You were standing there beside him and told him what to buy,” the judge said.
Judge Saunders: “Your son has a bald head and has a passion for cars, because he also bought a car magazine?” Galland: “Oh, that. That was Wednesday and it was his (the son’s)

girlfriend’s money.”
Judge Saunders: “Wednesday was last night. It was Monday, and you were with your son because I was right behind you in the queue.”
Upon fnding that Galland was paying $25 a week of a $3000 fnes bill, the judge substtuted 180 hours of community work and ordered that the $25 a week go to the former landlord untl the $2000 was repaid.


On June 19 2012 Judge Saunders again draws the limelight with the Court News reporting on the following case relating to him “dressing down” persons in his Court for not dressing up;

‘Down with everything’ approach to court brings result

By David Clarkson

A 22-year-old man’s total opposition to everything about the criminal justice system has ended with all charges against him being dropped.
He would have walked out of the Court House free yesterday – if he had bothered to turn up.

He refuses to acknowledge the court, refuses to stand, goads judges by calling them by their first names, and will not do anything he is told. Instead of going into the dock when his case is called, he prefers to sit in the public seating with his bare feet propped up on the seats on front.

The last time he was at court he was the centre of a melee inside District Court 6 when he refused to co-operate and refused to stop talking. Six police, prison officers, and court security staff held him down and then dragged him to the cells.

Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders yesterday agreed to a crown request to offer no evidence and discharge the man on the remaining assault charges and withdraw more minor charges of disorderly behaviour and Summary Offences assault.

The man has Asperger’s syndrome and has had a history of behaving defiantly and erratically all through the court process.

His name is not included in this report because of the psychiatric background and because he was part way through the process for a psychiatric discharge when the case came to an end. There was a suppression order on that hearing.

The man was charged with assaulting his partner, who he continues to live with. She did give evidence but she wanted the matter dropped.

The man is so difficult to manage that no lawyers have been able to handle the case, but Mark Callaghan was appointed as an amicus curaie – a “friend of the court” to assist with the hearings.

When the man spoke for himself, he was allowed to read a 10-page rant to the court at an appearance in custody last year when the court had sittings inside Christchurch Men’s Prison.

The rant said he was peaceful and “a free man on the land” and threatened to sue the judge and the courts for the time he spent in custody. He also threatened a million dollar claim if there was any violence against him.

He also tried to do his rant at an appearance at the court at Nga Hau e Wha marae where the judge would not let him have his own way. That led to another scuffle and the lesser charges of disorderly behaviour and assault that were withdrawn yesterday.

Callaghan had persuaded him to come to court yesterday to have everything dropped, but the man did not turn up and the hearing went ahead without him. He phoned during the hearing to tell Callaghan that he was at home at Rolleston and would not be coming in.

It is understood the Crown had decided it was not worth a difficult three- day trial for a minor assault charge, so Judge Saunders dismissed the matter.

Judge Saunders said, “He has been seen to have an unusual personality.”
Dropping the charge would end the matter. “It’s better to just draw a line under it,” he said


In another sex case Judge Saunders sounded like he believed the evidence of a convicted rapist when sentencing him. The Herald article dated 14 February 2008 is below and was reported on the NZ website seeking Justice for wrongly convicted man Peter Ellis;

Judge ‘uneasy’ about jury’s guilty verdict in rape trial

Christchurch – A judge today jailed a 48-year-old unemployed man for five years for the rape of a drunk woman, even though he had “considerable unease” about the jury’s verdict.
Imposing the sentence on Kevin Patrick Leahy in Christchurch District Court, Judge David Saunders said he knew that the case would be appealed, the

Christchurch Court News website reported.

“The jury rejected what you (Leahy) said, but while I found this surprising I must respect their verdict,” he said.

“Despite any considerable unease I have as a trial judge, I am bound to go with the jury and sentence today.”

The jury returned its guilty verdict on January 28 after the three-day trial. Judge Saunders expressed his views at that stage and did not enter the conviction, but asked for further submissions which were heard today.

The submissions included a bid by defence counsel Mark Callaghan to have Leahy acquitted because the crown had failed to prove its case.
He said the evidence had been unreliable. The woman had blacked out after drinking beer and whisky. She had been still functioning but had no memory of the episode.

She could not recall going for help even though she got minor bruises when she fled through a bathroom window.

Pip Currie appeared as crown prosecutor at the trial and at the hearing today. She said it had not been a weak case that had been put to the jury, which had to decide whether Leahy could have had a reasonable belief that the woman consented.

The woman had voluntarily consumed the alcohol over several hours, and Leahy had not plied her with the drinks.

She had told the court she would not have engaged in intercourse without protection, so did not consent.

Judge Saunders said: “She was still functioning even though she can’t remember. He thought he had the green light, but it could have been an orange light – or even a red one.”

Source: 0214_nz_herald_judge_uneasy.htm

In yet another case where Judge Saunders seeks to throw his weight around in matters that whilst need addressing, pale into insignificance against his apparent understanding and leniency to blokes that like to get their tockler out, throw their tongues down woman’s throats, and rub their cock against a woman’s arse, or penetrate a woman whilst she is intoxicated. Yes Judge Saunders beats up on teenage and female bail condition breacher’s sending them to prison;

Christchurch’s underworld grapevine is probably buzzing by now with the idea that 2009 is going to be a bad year to breach bail. Christchurch District Court Judge David Saunders gave a public “smarten up” message to people at the courts today.

Four of them were immediately turned around and headed back for the cell door, the Christchurch Court News website reported. The last one, a young woman, made a very cursory bid for continued bail, and said, “sweet as” when she was remanded in custody to Monday.

She was already heading for the cells when Judge Saunders announced his decision.
The frst case was a woman who had been arrested for a breach

of a community work sentence and Judge Saunders noted that his own handwriting on the fle showed there had been a tangle of successive addresses – and the woman was now living somewhere else.

She said she was meant to be bailed to the third address but neither the court nor the Probation Service had any record of that change being made.
Judge Saunders said people who fagrantly disregarded their obligations under bail could expect custody remands.

A young man had been arrested for failing to keep to a bail condition not to touch alcohol during his remand. He admitted the breach.

“I want you and other people in this court to understand that breaches of bail are being taken seriously. I am not going to continue to sanction people’s breaches of bail this year.”

The young offender was remanded in custody overnight, and Judge Saunders may reconsider his bail on Tuesday.
The next case copped at least a week’s remand in custody. Seventeen-year-old Norton Lindsay Adams must have realised he was in trouble when Judge Saunders looked at the fle and referred to its “chequered history”.

Adams was arrested in November for a burglary and breached his bail on November 13 and 18. He was then arrested for an assault on November 22. He was remanded in custody and released on bail in December with a curfew and a fnal warning, but breached and ofended again — breaking a liquor ban.

Judge Saunders said he had had enough warnings, and enough breaches, and remanded him in custody to next Monday when he will be allowed to apply again for bail.

The judge then told the fourth bail breacher not to hold her breath about continued bail.

“She’s been bailed, breached it, and is now facing further charges while on bail,” he said.

The woman expressed her hope that Judge Saunders would not be the judge for the hearing.

Then she said, “sweet as” while he remanded her in custody to next Monday.


Finally Judge Saunders is a prominent member of the Parole Board allegedly specializing in sexual offenders. In this article about a Christchurch based programme that has the sex offenders doing gardening Judges Saunders is at the open day discussing the damage that sexual offending does in the community he allegedly serves;

Kia Marama offers a 33-week programme. Inmates meet in groups of 10, where they learn how to change their behaviour and reduce risk of reofending.

“For some it’ll be around arousal patterns, reducing sexual preoccupation,” says Ms Green.
It’s not just talking; they get outside in the vegetable gardens, with much of the produce going to organisations like the City Mission and Women’s Refuge.

Among the visitors at the open day was a long-serving judge and Parole Board member.
“We know that the impact of their ofending is so signifcant that it is important that we don’t allow people to leave here without having the ability to change their behaviours and not put other young people at risk in the community,” says Parole Board member Judge David Saunders.

Inmates are encouraged to put something back into the community.
Many of the 150,000 shrubs and trees from the unit’s nursery will be planted in Christchurch’s red zone, or along Canterbury river banks afected by dairy run-of.

“These are people who have caused a lot of harm; they are very aware of that,” says Ms Green. “This is their chance to give something back to society.”
The inmates we spoke to say it’s much easier to change in Kia Marama than in the general prison population, and the programme equips them to handle life on the outside when they’re released.

“For some it’ll be around arousal patterns, reducing sexual preoccupation,” says Ms Green.
It’s not just talking; they get outside in the vegetable gardens, with

much of the produce going to organisations like the City Mission and Women’s Refuge.
Among the visitors at the open day was a long-serving judge and Parole Board member.

“We know that the impact of their ofending is so signifcant that it is important that we don’t allow people to leave here without having the ability to change their behaviours and not put other young people at risk in the community,” says Parole Board member Judge David Saunders.

Inmates are encouraged to put something back into the community.
Many of the 150,000 shrubs and trees from the unit’s nursery will be planted in Christchurch’s red zone, or along Canterbury river banks afected by dairy run-of.

“These are people who have caused a lot of harm; they are very aware of that,” says Ms Green. “This is their chance to give something back to society.”
The inmates we spoke to say it’s much easier to change in Kia Marama than in the general prison population, and the programme equips them to handle life on the outside when they’re released.

Judge Saunders was not named by the Herald for a very good reason. The New Zealand Herald’s journo and editor Shayne Currie knew full well Saunders past leniency on sex offenders, and with the nudity thing, and photos been taken of him nude with his shaved cock, and “come hither” smirk, they were well aware that the public would want the Judge gone.

But the Herald reporter couldn’t help himself, he, as NZ herald journo’s are inclined,  give’s readers a clue that would lead to the identification of the Judge in the following manner ;

“The judge has been in the headlines before, attracting criticism for giving a high-profile New Zealander name suppression in a controversial case.”


From that hint and the fact that the Judge was from the South Island, we managed to pick up the link to the story about name suppression of “prominent New Zealander gets name suppression” involving Judge Saunders, and from there we went to the name suppression breaching stories on Pete Georges “Your NZ”, and then the Internet did its thing, information sbnowballing until we had the pictures in our hands. Another huge thankyou to the NZ Herald and Pete George’s twin set and pearls knitting circle.

If you are reading this story, please grab the link and send it to everyone you know. People have rights to have a Judge before them that does not preach his way of life in sentencing of sex offenders.

Whilst what he is doing in his spare time is legal, it is certainly not in keeping with his office, and he should resign immediately.

One wonders how many other lawyers and Judges knew of Saunder’s “social life”.

Don’t get us wrong – we are not preaching any kind of rebuke to nudists as in Europe’s nudist beaches are everywhere, as they are in Australia. What we are saying is that a Judge holding a secret about a proclivity for nudism does not sit well when he shows particular leniency for sexual offenders.

This is simply because a victim, and family victims, can scream and rightly so, “the judge is a that way inclined” and would they be wrong to do so? That’s why Judges have the “guidelines” they do.



David “chipolata” term=Chipolata

Categorised in: ,

Comments are closed here.

%d bloggers like this: