Following on from our post earlier today we have been contacted by a number of people, who we assume are in someway, affiliated with Dr Miles Wislang or ACC Forum.
Last year we posted a number of articles on Dr Wislang, his son Arron and their founding and ongoing sponsorship of www.accforum.org, the most notable of which was “www.accforum.org, exactly where did it all begin?” (only because of the number of hits it received).
A caveat; over the past twelve months we have also received numerous emails, all of which used various fake Gmail accounts, from obvious impostors claiming to be Dr Wislang threatening to sue. Todays corresepondence however was somewhat different; it was more measured and simply asked us to “at least take a look, please take a look” at an online post detailing one aspect of the Dr Miles Wislangs case.
We indeed did and whilst we are certainly not about winning the hearts and minds of Accforum and its members we are however very much about exposing corruption and injustice.
With that in mind all three readers (email correspondents) have claimed that their decision to email us was in response to our post “The Scott Watson Case, Kristy McDonald QC and yet another serious conflict of interest” in which we had noted a curious association between three New Zealand solicitors who are on the New Zealand Government and law Society payroll; in various capacities.
Our post also noted their connection/association and a series of conflicted interests surrounding the Scott Watson case, the office of Christchurch’s Crown Solicitor, the New Zealand Law Societies disciplinary bodies, and the New Zealand Real Estate Agents Authority.
After so many unusual and reasonable, albeit highly charged emails, then perusing the web page they had all linked too we thought it worthwhile reproducing the content as it did indeed involve one of the aforementioned law Society incumbents and REAA employee: Barrister and deputy REAA Tribunal Chair, Ms Kate Davenport:
The Kate Davenport Disaster – Accident or Design?
When Dr Wislang appeared before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal for the agreed sole purpose of making submissions as to penalty on a simple charge he had already admitted to, he did so trusting that the Tribunal would conduct its hearing of him competently, in good faith and according to proper procedure and the principles of ordinary fairness.
He had no expectation whatever, even from his worst dreams, that he would have to defend himself against a maximally more serious replacement charge, completely unsustainable in law, trumped-up and irregularly laid against him by a prosecutor who, with the full cooperation of the Tribunal itself was hell-bent on proving it in order to have him struck off the medical register and barred from the practice of medicine, not temporarily, but for ever after.
Almost incredibly, that is what Dr Wislang was faced with on the day; a prosecutor-turned-hijacker of the Tribunal’s proceedings whose charge-drafting and personal prosecutory maxims and potential excuses for her glaring misconduct in her prosecution of him can be justified by only one law; Murphy’s.
(The facts proving Ms Davenport’s prosecutory incompetence and presumptuouness are ones all agreed to by the active parties to the proceedings of judicial review by which Dr Wislang afterwards attempted to have the Tribunal’s adverse ruling on his medical competence quashed and to thereby rescue as much as possible of his professional reputation. Those facts are to be found on this website in the Exhibits part of the Record of those proceedings which was submitted for his appeal to the Privy Council)
After its determination of a patient complaint against Dr Wislang, the Complaints Assessment Committee of the New Zealand Medical Council employed a legal assessor to help formulate the simple charge against him of practising without a practising certificate; a misdemeanour which, under the Medical Practitioners Act 1995, amounted to “professional misconduct”, not a striking-off offence. That legal assessor was a Ms Bronwyn Klippel, barrister, of Auckland, who competently completed her work and billed the Committee for it in May 1999. The Committee then quite properly laid the charge before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and, as required, arranged that Dr Wislang be informed of that and supplied him with a copy of their charge.
After it had laid its charge the Committee hired a lawyer to prosecute it before the Tribunal. That lawyer was Ms Kate Davenport, a 40-ish Auckland barrister with experience in medical disciplinary matters. It was the result of Ms Davenport’s bizarre usurpation of the power, vested by the Act in the Committee only, to formulate and lay charges against medical practitioners, that things began to go horribly wrong in the Tribunal’s proceedings and for Dr Wislang.
Not content with being simply the prosecutor of the Committee’s charge laid before the Tribunal and admitted to by Dr Wislang, Ms Davenport, seemingly spontaneously, drafted a charge all of her own, emphasising her later-admitted sole authorship of it by writing it beneath the letterhead not of the Complaints Assessment Committee, but of herself as a lawyer in sole private practice.
By its heading, Ms Davenport’s replacement charge purported to be an amendment of the original charge. It wasn’t. In reality, it comprised the original charge cleverly combined with, but in a certain way neutralised by, an entirely new booby-trap charge which, if admitted by or proven against Dr Wislang would have exposed him to the penalty of being struck-off as a medical practitioner; which proof of the original charge would not have. This new charge was one which, on the facts of the case, could not and should not have ever been brought against Dr Wislang.
Of course the Tribunal should never have accepted Ms Davenport’s charge as being properly conceived or laid or in any other way sustainable. The Tribunal, even if it did not recognise the procedural impropriety of Ms Davenport’s laying of her charge before it, ought to have immediately detected its grave flaws and, under the exclusive power given to it by the Act, immediately rejected it or amended it back to the original charge. But the Tribunal did not do this, despite its chairperson Ms Wendy Brandon of Auckland, being, like Ms Davenport, a barrister.
It is a matter of record that the Tribunal in its supposed hearing of Dr Wislang’s submissions as to penalty on his admission of the original charge only, went on to entertain Ms Davenport’s bogus charge for a whole day, that is, for more than half the total time of its hearing. The Tribunal’s acceptance of Ms Davenport’s charge resulted in the proceedings being transformed from an adversary hearing into a highly irregular inquisitorial one resulting in, amongst other mistakes, a grave mis-assessment of Dr Wislang’s medical competence.
The inquisitorial attack against Dr Wislang began with Ms Davenport taking two swipes against Dr Wislang’s professionalism and general reputation. As to his professionalism, Ms Davenport early on laid before the Tribunal an affidavit which she had personally solicited only the day before from a visiting Australian doctor from whom the original patient complainant had sought and accepted surgery after leaving Dr Wislang’s care. That affidavit was, of course, somewhat critical of Dr Wislang’s treatment of the patient, but on unsustainable grounds already dismissed by the Health and Disability Commissioner of New Zealand. The affidavit also canvassed, from only one point of view, the question of whether the provider of the treatment as Dr Wislang had given his patient needed to be a registered medical practitioner. The above points Ms Davenport attempted to make much of-all to Dr Wislang’s detriment-before the Tribunal, until on Dr Wislang’s counterings they were ruled irrelevant. But the spirit of Ms Davenport’s prosecution had already branded itself as misguided and misguiding, if not actively malicious.
Ms Davenport’s second attempt to discredit Dr Wislang with irrelevant documentation was even more inappropriate, inasmuch as she passed up to the Tribunal a photocopy of a New Zealand law report of a famous case in which Dr Wislang had sued for a writ of certiorari, in 1971 in the Supreme Court in Wellington, the Tribunal’s predecessor the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. The case had no relevance whatever to the case before the Tribunal and in proffering it as “evidence” against him Ms Davenport was plainly attempting to paint a picture of Dr Wislang as a recidivist troublemaker against the medical establishment, and thereby set the minds of the Tribunal members against him.
Of course Dr Wislang quite properly objected to Ms Davenport’s bringing up of the two abovementioned documents and after a brief exchange of submissions on their admissibility obtained the Tribunal’s ruling that they would be wholly disregarded.
Ms Davenport’s next attempt to discredit and entrap Wislang came when she asked the Tribunal that Dr Wislang be put on oath for oral evidence to be taken from him. The chairwoman of the Tribunal unhesitatingly agreed to this course and Dr Wislang took the oath. This prompted a veritable barrage of questions from the Tribunal members, including lay persons, many of them going to his medical competence. As this wholly improper inquisition proceeded Dr Wislang twice inquired of the chairwoman Ms Brandon whether or not his competence had become a matter for investigation by the Tribunal. Ms Brandon confusedly assured him that it had not, but allowed the inquisition to proceed.
Given the denial of Ms Brandon of her agenda on the point, who could have been more surprised than Dr Wislang when in her written decision for the Tribunal she ruled as adversely as possible on his competence?
Such fishing trips as conducted by a Tribunal such as Ms Brandon’s fall within the description of the legal term Surprise, inasmuch as they are sprung on the accused; with all the worse results for him being, as Dr Wislang was, a legally unrepresented layman.
No less an authority than Sir William Wade has recently reaffirmed that:
“It is fundamental that the procedure before a tribunal, like that in a court of law, should be adversary and not inquisitorial. The tribunal should have both sides of the case presented to it and should judge between them, without itself having to conduct an inquiry of its own motion, enter into the controversy, and call evidence for or against either party. If it allows itself to become involved in the investigation and argument, parties will quickly lose confidence in its impartiality, however fair-minded it may be. This principle is observed throughout the tribunal system, even in the adjudging of small claims before social security local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals by a departmental officer. Naturally this done not mean that the tribunal should not tactfully assist an application to develop his case, particularly when he has no representative to speak for him, just as a judge will do with an unrepresented litigant.”
Professor Sir William Wade and Christopher Forsythe in 9th Edition, 2004 of “Administrative Law”, first published in 1961 and which has established a reputation for itself in the foremost rank of classic legal text books and is frequently cited with approval in the higher courts
Not only did the Tribunal appear ignorant or, in the alternative, contemptuous of Sir William’s highly authoritative prescription, but as the record of the proceedings shows, in its impromptu, unauthorised and unwarranted inquiry into Dr Wislang’s medical competence it appeared to permit and do everything it could to lead him down the garden path and into the incinerator of Ms Davenport’s rabid attack on his person and professionalism.
Surely there must be an apt phrase to sum up the parts played by Ms Brandon and Ms Davenport in the Wislang case. We won’t deprive our readers of the pleasure of finding it for themselves.
MS DAVENPORT MIS-INTERPRETS
It is one thing for a prosecutor to attempt to run a false charge of her own making before a statutory tribunal. It is entirely another for her, when caught doing it, to compound her error by attempting to defend her charge by invoking a blatantly erroneous interpretation of a section of the Act which she claims as her speciality and under which the prosecution is proceeding.
But this is exactly what Ms Davenport did when Dr Wislang, a mere layman who, when the flawedness of her charge became apparent to him, challenged its validity in submissions he made directly to the Tribunal in writing during its 3 week adjournment of its hearing.
Ms Davenport’s defence of her charge was, to the very end, doggedly irrational. The end came when, in response to Dr Wislang threatening the Tribunal with proceedings of judicial review for a ruling on the invalidity of Ms Davenport’s charge, employed a legal assessor of its own who summarily confirmed his opinion of the falsity of the charge and recommended the Tribunal amend it back to the original one. This the Tribunal did, but, as already stated, not before entertaining it for a full day of hearing.
One may well ask why Ms Davenport’s charge, which was a nullity because of its total lack of foundation in fact and its having been illegally laid by Ms Davenport, was not immediately recognised such by the Tribunal and promptly rejected, and the original charge reinstated.
Throughout the 3 week adjournment period that the Tribunal permitted the false charge to persist, the Tribunal favoured, even encouraged, Ms Davenport’s attempts in her several written submissions about it, to justify her false charge.
In those submissions Ms Davenport invoked a bizarre, unheard-of interpretation of Section 9 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995. Ms Davenport’s argument ran thus:
1. A person is not a registered medical practitioner unless they are the holder of a practising certificate.
Dr Wislang’s counter to this was that only a registered medical practitioner can apply for a practising certificate, and be issued with one.
Dr Wislang submitted, as a corollary to the above, that as he was not at time the holder of a practising certificate, if Ms Davenport’s interpretation of Section 9 was correct, he was not a registered medical practitioner at all, and therefore did not come under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and stood not to be called up or heard or judged by it; a manifest absurdity.
2. For a practitioner not to hold a practising certificate was a breach of conditions of his medical registration.
Dr Wislang’s simple response to this was that (i) there never had been any condition applied to his registration or to any practising certificate he had held, and (ii) that holding a practising certificate is not a condition of medical registration, nor ever could be.
Had not the absurdity of Ms Davenport’s arguments been exposed first by Dr Wislang, and later confirmed by the Tribunal’s hastily hired legal assessor (Auckland barrister, Mr Raynor Asher QC), the apparent blindness of the Tribunal to the illegality of Ms Davenport’s charge could easily have caused Dr Wislang to have been struck off the medical register, as provided for by Section 109(1)(f) in combination with Section 110(1)(a) and Section 110(2)(b) of the Act; none of which sections could, on the facts, have ever applied in Dr Wislang’s case.
MS DAVENPORT’S DE-REGISTRATION DESIRE
The grossness and persistence of Ms Davenport’s misguided campaign to have Dr Wislang convicted of her false charge and to be struck off the medical register needs some explaining. Some interesting pre-hearing background, further to that below concerning Dr Wislang’s ex-patient, may help this obviously burning desire of Ms Davenport to be better understood.
Dr Wislang’s pre-hearing admission to the original charge had deprived Ms Davenport of anything substantively adverse to prove against him, leaving her with, as her only legitimate activity, the making of submissions as to the penalty to be imposed on him by the Tribunal. So what was she thinking of?
Given Ms Davenport’s prosecutory extremism and antipathy to Dr Wislang as evidenced by her trumped up charge and various of her submissions and asides recorded in the transcript of the Tribunal’s hearing, one can only wonder what were the pre-hearing instructions to her by her client, the Complaints Assessment Committee: To have Ms Davenport, without any authority under the Act, draft and lay a new and patently illegal charge against Dr Wislang? To peddle her weird interpretation of Section 9 of the Act in support of that charge? To try to have Dr Wislang diagnosed as mentally unfit to practise on the report of the psychiatrist Ms Davenport was so eager to have Dr Wislang examined by on recommendation of the Tribunal? To conduct the witch-hunt she did in search of evidence against him to warrant him to be struck off, never to be allowed to practise medicine again?
We think not. Surely, no reasonable and responsible Complaints Assessment Committee would for one minute have entertained the notion of instructing her to carry on against Dr Wislang in the way she did before the Tribunal. But in so doing, under the Committee’s instructions or not, Ms Davenport has surely sullied the integrity and public image of the Committee’s parent body, the Medical Council itself.
The failure to date of both bodies to publicly distance themselves from, if not condemn, Ms Davenport’s prosecutory incompetence and imprudence is, to say the least of it, disconcerting. But the complete failure of the New Zealand High Court and Court of Appeal, and eventually the English Privy Council to even comment on them, is utterly dismaying.
One does not require to have an especially suspicious or nasty mind to wonder if there was perhaps some third person, not a member of the Committee, who had some agenda of their own that they wished to promote against Dr Wislang by secretly further inflaming Ms Davenport’s arguable dislike of him. Not surprisingly, there is some evidence, undenied by Ms Davenport and her client the Complaints Assessment Committee, which strongly suggests that there was.
MS DAVENPORT’S OTHER CLIENT
The patient who complained against Dr Wislang to the Medical Council had, as the first step of the investigatory and assessment procedure required by the Act, his complaint referred by the Council to the Health and Disability Commissioner.
In the course of making his complaint he had consulted Ms Davenport in her private practise and no doubt had obtained advice from her about how to proceed. But he had been disappointed by the ruling of the Health and Disability Commissioner that there was to be no action to be taken concerning his allegation that Dr Wislang had treated him without informed consent and that his treatment was incompetent.
Naturally the complainant was unhappy with that outcome. But in the course of his complaining it emerged that Dr Wislang was not the holder of a practising certificate during the course of his treatment of him. It was that lack of a practising certificate, and only that lack, upon which the prosecution of Dr Wislang was able to proceed, from the result of which the complainant must have expected to gain some satisfaction.
Come the day of the hearing before the disciplinary tribunal, the complainant was seen sitting outside the entrance to the hearing room by Dr Wislang’s friend at hearing who heard Ms Davenport reassuring the patient that she would ensure that Dr Wislang was struck off the medical register. This conversation was attested to in an affidavit put before the High Court as evidence in support of Dr Wislang’s application for judicial review.
Upon inquiry by Dr Wislang to the New Zealand Law Society concerning Ms Davenport’s prior professional involvement with the complainant and her current role as prosecutor, Dr Wislang was told by an officer of the society that there was no sustainable objection to Ms Davenport’s role as prosecutor by virtue of her professional association with the complainant as a client. This Dr Wislang accepted.
However, Ms Davenport’s virtual undertaking to her client complainant to get Dr Wislang struck off on her amended charge which she must have known was untenable at law, lends considerable weight to a judgment of her as being personally badly motivated, in concert with her client, towards Dr Wislang.
For a prosecutor being retained by the Complaints Assessment Committee of the Medical Council of New Zealand to make such statements as described above in the situation she did, that is, within earshot of members of the public, is to be regarded as professionally unbecoming if not reprehensible.
One need look no further for a clearer indication of a prosecutor’s malice towards an accused person, in this case Dr Wislang.
Is there any evidence to suggest that Ms Davenport, in thinking up and so incompetently drafting and then laying her illegal amended charge against Dr Wislang, was not completely incompetent and unconscionable, but knew that what she was doing was wrong?
We believe there is. With Ms Davenport being a master of laws with honours and having sub-specialised in medical disciplinary cases for a number of years, and thus being very familiar with the Act under which she prosecuted Dr Wislang, to propose that she was unaware of her wrongdoing would be to strain to breaking point the belief of any reasonable person. We leave it to our readers to sum up and pass judgment for themselves on the strangely misguided antics and culpability of Ms Davenport in this sordid affair as those go to her competence, professional integrity, barristerial ethics and personal morality.
THE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
Now what, you may ask, was the view taken by the New Zealand medical disciplinary establishment of Ms Davenport’s caperings in the Wislang case? Well, we regret to inform you that view is considerably less than encouraging of confidence in the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (now incorporated within the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal) as a competent and impartial charge-amending, hearing and judging body.
Amazingly, with her bizarre behaviour as prosecutor in the Wislang case disapproved by no comment publicly from the Medical Council, the Tribunal or even one of the five involved courts right up to the Privy Council, Ms Davenport-mark the Perfect Woman-now sits on that self-same Tribunal as its deputy chairperson.
Her recent appointment as a member of the Committee of the Auckland District Law Society is, given the doubts one must entertain on at least her competence, is only somewhat less alarming.
How many other trumped-up charges of her own or others’ creation Ms Davenport has prosecuted in like style in her heydays before the Tribunal, is anybody’s guess. Perhaps in the interests of at least the vulnerable and now justifiably anxious doctor population and public of New Zealand, an audit of the cases she has conducted before it would not go amiss.
Dr Wislang had the courage, and public-mindedness to make the fallout of Ms Davenport’s chicanery in his case the subject of a revealing application for judicial review in the High Court of New Zealand. But how many of his colleagues if similarly accused and judged would be fearful of following such a course or have already had their hopes for justice dashed and their courage ground out of them by beholding the anti-statutory prosecutory machinations of the likes of prosecutor-turned-judge Ms Davenport?
The grossness of the errors and incitings of Ms Davenport in the Wislang case cannot leave one but pondering how Dr David Collins QC, Wellington barrister and present chairman of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on which Ms Davenport now sits as his deputy, can rationalise and abide her presence on it.
Dr Collins can of course claim not to have known about her weird activities as prosecutor in the Wislang case, but he now has the opportunity to easily rectify that by perusing, online, the record of his predecessor Tribunal’s proceedings against Dr Wislang, and to act according to his highly expert professional judgment, conscience and duty to ensure the competence and visible integrity of the Tribunal whose chairmanship he has inherited.
Whatever Dr Collins does or does not advise be done about Ms Davenport, one can be reasonably sure that if Dr Wislang comes before his tribunal on any future charge, in the light of her demonstrated incompetence and likely bad motivation in her prosecution of Dr Wislang in 1999, he would ask that Ms Davenport be disqualified from sitting in judgment upon him.
On the same grounds so should anybody else.
Lauda Finem’s opinion
Having read the case file and transcripts of the hearing we here at Lauda Finem are inclined to believe Dr Wislang, in so far as his allegations against Kate Davenport are concerned.
Davenport quite obviously, and somewhat brazenly, attempted to rewrite the charges against Wislang, Then argued, falsely, that he had in fact plead guilty to her amended charge, when he clearly, on the evidence, hadn’t.
She was also certainly conflicted in appearing to represent both the Medical Council of New Zealand’s Complaints Assessment Committee and at the same time, somewhat surreptitiously, her invisible client the man who in the first instance brought the complaint against Wislang, Mr Styiianou.
Davenport on the evidence, in our opinion, intentionally set out to unlawfullyfully ‘beef up‘ the charges against Wislang and in doing so was not at all adverse to making spurious allegations as to Wislang’s character, conduct and professional competency in both written submissions and viva voce at the hearings.
On many of these occasions Wislang called Davenport on this bad behaviour, behaviour which seems, to us at least, something akin to a signature style when reviewing various other cases that have been attended to with Davenport’s sleight of hand:
Wislang: I agree with her [Davenport, when she says] “It is also clear that the costs of this prosecution has been unduly delayed – can I say compounded – by the avalanche of paper and requests which have been generated by Dr Wislang.”
That is perfectly true. It is also perfectly true that that avalanche of papers – a request which I was obliged to generate and
get responses to from the Tribunal, and even Ms Davenport – was not my fault. It was the fault of Ms Davenport herself, who promoted the false charge in its amended form which has now been withdrawn.
Following the tribunals Judgement, in which its author states amongst various other very inaccurate observations (perhaps without any foresight of a concept that was to facilitate complete disclosure. A very public forum called the ‘internet‘ with its ability to disseminate information rapidly):
Dr Wislang then advised the Tribunal that he would be appealing it’s decision. In preparation for this appeal Dr Wislang wrote to the Medical Council on a number of occasions in late 1999 requesting copies of documents. In particular, and of interest to us, any/all legal advice or assessment they had requested and or received.
Naturally, it appears to us, that Wislang was attempting to establish the legal basis with which the CAC, or Medical Council and or Tribunal had sought to attempt the unlawful rewrite of the charge against him (clearly an abuse of process): and just as importantly who, if anyone, had been responsible for giving them that advice/recommendation.
Wislang’s request for information was broad, yet specific enough to have included requiring the disclosure of the legal opinion sought and obtained by the tribunal from Raynor Asher QC. The full unedited written legal opinion that purportedly forms a very small/brief part of the tribunals substantive judgement, as is set out at page 9, paragraph 3.16 (above).
Wislang’s requests, however, continued to hit a brick wall; one very thick brick wall in particular, one that was bottle blond in colour.
In a very strange move the Medical Council repeatedly and inexplicably kept referring Wislang’s letters, requesting disclosure, on to none other than Kate Davenport ; Davenports response?
That there was no written advice(s) on record; sought or given and that even if there were they were subject to privilege….talk about covering all bases. Davenports behaviour throughout the hearing and her response to Wislang’s request (right), in our opinion, makes a mockery of justice, due process, the rules of disclosure and natural justice.
More importantly, however, it clearly makes Wislang’s case for accusing her (Davenport) of being a bold faced liar….
Just who was it that recommended the unlawful ‘extension’ of the charge “in the circumstances”, with at best an incompetent interpretation of the Act; or for our more experienced audience, a sleight of hand that was nothing short of a constructed abuse of process.
Just who was it that first countenanced the argument for it? Davenport of course……she must have had friends in very high places to have escaped this one….but we’re not finished!
We have also noted the involvement of New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation and Mr Alan Thomas (the man who, we believe, was falsely accused and convicted in the Takapuna bomb plot), in these proceedings.
Alan Thomas, a close friend of Wislang’s, attended one of the hearings as a support person. The Accident Compensation Corporation were involved in so far as they had alleged repeated and unsuccessful requests for the medical records of the complainant, Mr Styiianou. But as we all know that particular government owned corporation can’t be trusted to tell the truth
This then might explain Dr Wislang and Alan Thomas’s involvement in establishing the now notorious www.accforum.org , which in turn was involved in the Bronwyn Pullar affair. Its such a small world, especially for New Zealander’s who are fighting for justice.
Wislang’s www.accforum.org has over the years been responsible for perpetuating injustice, myth, hearsay and falsehood against many others who have been innocent victims and yet Wislang in an extraordinary act of hypocrisy, on yet another of his sites www.thewislangcase.com wants the whole world to witness the injustice perpetrated against him. All well and good but we would suggest that Dr Wislang clean up www.accforum.org and stop throwing shit at others lest he wind up wearing some of it himself.
Wendy Noelle Brandon is now General Counsel for Auckland Council. Wendy’s previous roles include Legal Counsel, Acting Chief Legal Advisor and Senior Ministerial Advisor at the Ministry of Health in Wellington. She has a background in litigation, both as a barrister and in private practice. Wendy has served as a director of Kordia Group Ltd and NZ Red Cross and was appointed to the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal in 1996 where she served as Chair until 2003.
The Honourable Justice Asher (Raynor Asher QC)
Justice Raynor Asher graduated BA LLB (Hons) Auckland Law School in 1972, Senior Scholar in Law. He was the New Zealand Harkness Fellow to the United States in 1973-74 and graduated LLM, University of California (Berkeley) in 1974. Justice Asher was a partner at Kensington Haynes & White and Kensington Wallace, (later Kensington Swan) from 1976-86, and in 1986 commenced practice as a barrister. In 1992 he was appointed Queen’s Counsel. From 1996-98 he was President of the New Zealand Bar Association, and then President of the Auckland District Law Society between 2002 and 2003. He took on the appointment of Vice President, New Zealand Law Society from 2003-05 and was appointed to the High Court bench in 2005. Justice Asher is based at the Auckland High Court.
The Honourable Justice Collins (Dr David Collins QC)
Justice Collins graduated LLB (Hons 1st class) in 1975; LL.M. in 1976 and LL.D. in 1993 from Victoria University, Wellington.
He was admitted to the NZ Bar in 1976, State of Victoria Bar and High Court of Australia Bar in 1986 and appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2000. He was appointed New Zealand Solicitor-General on 1 September 2006. He has held a variety of roles in the Wellington District Law Society and New Zealand Law Society. Justice Collins has been an Honorary Fellow at the Faculty of Law at Victoria University and Executive Vice President, of the World Association of Law and Medicine. He was appointed to the High Court on 16 March 2012 and sits in Wellington.
Note: in the below references, bibliography and related articles we wanted to see wherever they (the mainstream media) would alter content: and they did: you have to laugh;
Wislang case documents file (www.thewislangcase.com)
Crown Law chief David Collins QC both spent over $65,000. (Idiots in Power)
SOLICITOR GENERAL APPOINTED JUDGE (Kiwis First)
Auckland Council condones corruption (Anti-corruption New Zealand)
Executive team (Auckland City Council)
Wendy Brandon is a lawyer, a battle-hardened – NZ Herald
Terror contempt charges dismissed (stuff.co.nz)
Administrative Justice in the 21st Century
by Martin Partington, Michael Harris
ISBN 1901362663 / 9781901362664 / 1-901362-66-3
Publisher Hart Publishing Limited
- The Scott Watson Case, Kristy McDonald QC and yet another serious conflict of interest (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- High-profile lawyer guilty of professional misconduct (radionz.co.nz)
- Forgery sees real estate agent stripped of licence (nzherald.co.nz)
- Hart in second overcharging row (nzherald.co.nz)
- Barry Hart guilty of misconduct (stuff.co.nz)
- Dotcom house raid dissected in court (stuff.co.nz)
- Hearing told lawyer should be struck off (radionz.co.nz)
- Dotcom granted access to $6m (radionz.co.nz)