18

That's the entire point of a summary proceeding. You're allegedly found committing an offence, that isn't worth the court's time to hear but nevertheless requires some penalty. The only way to "unambiguously deny liability" is by requesting a hearing and denying liability in the notice of this. The court doesn't care what you say to everybody else, it ...


14

If I unambiguously deny liability but do not ask for a hearing can the informant refer the mater to the district court for unpaid fines without a hearing having taken place? Yes, but not before they serve you with a reminder notice. Once they have done this, they may "provide particulars" of it to the Ministry of Justice (subsection 3), from which point, ...


7

Dale M is correct. Lawyers get calls all day long from people who want free advice and have no intention of entering into a paid representation. That is what your letter sounds like. I write separately just to add that you may have better results if you make explicit that you are aware of their rates and prepared to pay them. Even then, though, it may be ...


6

Lawyers run businesses. Like most businesspeople they prioritise their clients on their profitability. On the face of it, your letter probably has you classified as a tire kicker.


5

We don't know the circumstances. It could be that his business didn't owe any taxes, or that he did clever things to avoid having to pay taxes (legal tax avoidance), or that he did illegal things to avoid having to pay taxes (illegal tax evasion). In the UK, it is possible to run a company completely legal without having to pay taxes: You must make no ...


5

Private prosecution is allowed in New Zealand, so one possibility would be to conduct the prosecution yourself. You could either do that as a case of destruction of property, or under the Animal Welfare Act. It is not guaranteed that your charging document will be accepted (for example, if your document lacks the required content). An alternative would be to ...


4

It is possible that you could be required to testify in a coroner's inquest, or in a criminal trial (if it were later determined that a crime was committed despite first impressions to the contrary). You could also conceivably be called to testify in a civil trial concerning, for example, insurance payment eligibility. But, it is also quite likely that none ...


3

From the picture, I believe those to be domestic geese rather than ducks. This is not needless pedantry; it is necessary pedantry because the Wildlife Act 1953 classifies geese as "Wildlife not protected" but ducks (relevant species) as "game". If they are game you need to abide by the relevant Fish and Game Council regulations (from a quick look it is legal ...


3

According to Wikipedia Vicarious Liability is a type of liability under the doctrine of "Respondeat Superior" (an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment). Now, in the first case that you have mentioned, the employee was on duty and was supposed to be under the supervision of the supervisor. ...


3

New Zealand has ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You must submit a request in writing and the Refugee Status Branch processes the claim. While yopur claim is being processed, ...


3

You believe wrong - that is not what without prejudice means and it won't do what you want. Without prejudice only has meaning within the context of an effort to negotiate the resolution of a dispute. So far, so good, you have a dispute and are trying to negotiate a resolution: this letter can be marked without prejudice. What it means is that this letter ...


3

I've been called back to the police station a week after the event, to make a statement. Constable said (paraphrasing) the circumstances seem pretty cut and dried at this point so the coroner is unlikely to require any court proceedings. However that could change if more information came up. Coroner's Court in New Zealand may take up to 12 ...


3

Yes it affects them. Judges are pursuing their vocation as a career and there are career paths within the judicial system just as there are in every other career. Screw up too many times and your career ends at your present level. Judges are also professionals and most take professional pride in doing their jobs well. Having a decision overturned is ...


3

In the U.S., the answer to this question would be no, it doesn't affect the judge at all, other than as a matter of personal pride. Judges cannot be removed from office or penalized in any way professionally for having their judgment reversed on appeal. Indeed, about 99% of the time, if a decision of a judge is overturned on appeal, on remand, the case is ...


3

To what standard does the evidence need to be convincing so that the judge is satisfied that a jury could “reasonably convict” the defendant? The High Court expanded on the answer to this question in Mitchell, the decision you cited, at [32]: [In R v Kim [2010] NZCA 106] the Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of “insufficient to justify a trial” in ...


3

Greendrake's answer says that a country can declare any jurisdiction it likes. This is true, but in practice it is the convention that a country should claim jurisdiction only over its territory and its citizens. The point about "citizens" is normally not pushed, as when you go to a foreign country you are normally subject to its laws rather than those of ...


3

I take that to mean that section 14 alone should not be construed to give a department the power to sue under sub section (1), nor the ability to be sued under sub section (2). Rather, if some other law, or some other section of that law confers such a power or ability, section 14 indicates how the power should be used, that is, gives the proper procedure. ...


3

Barring any specific statute the relevant law is the tort of negligence. To succeed Alice must prove Bob: had a duty to Alice, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to Alice, and Alice was, in fact, harmed or ...


3

The applicable law is the New Zealand Anti-Money Laundering law. The regulations describing exactly what is covered don't mention Bitcoin cleaning, but the "wire transfer" and "currency exchange" bits probably cover such a thing. I certainly wouldn't like to be the test case. There was also this case in Europe.


2

Immigration reports that "You can claim asylum when you arrive at an airport or seaport in New Zealand by telling an immigration official or a member of the Police. You may hire a Licensed Immigration Adviser or lawyer to help you argue your claim". That means you ma when you entery, or you may wait until you've contacted an attorney. Making the claim and ...


2

Yes. Kim Dotcom is alleged to have committed a crime against US law. The US requested his arrest by NZ authorities with whom they have an extradition treaty. He has now had his extradition hearing and the NZ court is satisfied that, under NZ law, he should be extradited to face those charges. You do not have to be a citizen of a country to offend its laws. ...


2

I believe in most jurisdictions the payment of the difference can be enforced, though there are usually some mitigations built in for the debtor, and the time limit for enforcement (statute of limitations) may be shortened. In particular, in Germany the situation is roughly: The invoice itself usually only carries limited legal weight. It is important for ...


2

This presumes the business did not have an exemption from certain taxes or meet criteria allowing them to have a net zero tax liability. The business is liable for the tax, and as the operator of the business, the person you know is almost sure to have criminal liability for avoiding tax payments. Given that this normally involves falsifying documents, ...


2

In New Zealand, public road is public road, whether built or not. You don't have any ability to claim it your own by adverse possession or by any means except for outright purchase. In particular, you must allow others to use it and you cannot deter them from doing so. If you want the gorse controlled your way, you need to do it yourself by taking on the ...


2

No If they do not earn a reward they can give legal advice but they cannot represent you. From s24 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 24 Reserved areas of work for lawyers and incorporated law firms (1) A person commits an offence— (a) who, for gain or reward (whether direct or indirect) and not being a lawyer or an incorporated law firm, ...


2

In context, the answer is clearly not. The precise reason that this is the case, requires a somewhat more sophisticated theory of what is going on than the Economist article cited seems to provide. The most useful analogy to apply to a situation when a river or forest or some other non-sentient being is given legal personality would be the relationship of a ...


2

The availability varies by jurisdiction, but the general mechanism would be a writ of procedendo: A writ which issued out of the common-law jurisdiction of the court of chancery, when judges of any subordinate court delayed the parties, for that they would not give judgment either on the one side or on the other, when they ought so to do. In such a case, ...


2

You would apply again. The court has not accepted the filing, it has not issued a judgement of any kind. Since no filing has been made, no filing has been made i.e. the process never commenced.


2

To add something to the answers provided, it may be the case that they have malpractice concerns. I have no idea what you're going to ask them, but I can imagine a lawyer worrying about him giving you strategic advice, you implementing it (either correctly or incorrectly), and then finding himself liable somehow if you fail in the case. If not malpractice, ...


2

Were there any laws broken? That will be a matter for the judge and the jury. However, in the total context, there are certainly grounds for charges to be laid: 209 Kidnapping Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who unlawfully takes away or detains a person without his or her consent or with his or her consent ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible