HIGH COURT REGISTRY

By virtue of the powers invested in the High Court of New Zealand under section 106 of the Human Rights Act, the appellant respectfully asks please would the High Court at Rotorua have regard to sec. 38 of the Human Rights Act. 1993.

The appellant says the decision was arrived at without the hearing of all available evidence. The appellant states there is additional available evidence that the Tribunal has not heard. That had that evidence been put before the Tribunal, the Tribunal might have otherwise had, regard to sec. 86 (1) (2) (c) (e) and (g) of the Human Rights Act.
The appellant respectfully asks the High Court at Rotorua to hear witness Barrister Peter Birks of Rotorua in respect to the authenticity of the appellants signature on certain documents allegedly signed by the appellant. Documents Barrister Birks and Solicitor Mary-Jane Thomas witnessed produced by the defendant at a by consent meeting between the parties, held at the Rotorua RSA during September 2001. That regard is given to sec. 86 (3) of the Human Rights Act 1993.

 

The appellant says his Human Rights are been violated.
The evidence the Privacy Tribunal Chairperson had earlier ordered the defendant produce. A copy of all the documents the defendant witness for Defence Force, had produced at Rotorua.
The appellant believes under the powers invested in the High Court under sec. 105 of the Human Rights Act and because the decision of 2^nd October also set out a member of Defence Force had conveyed misleading information to the Privacy Commissioner. A misleading statement stating the appellant had been given his vaccination certificates.  The appellant was deprived of proper representation throughout the Privacy Review Tribunal hearings; the Office of the Privacy Commissioner might otherwise have accorded proper representation had the Commissioner not been so mislead.
That the Chairperson had earlier made an order ordering the defendant to hand up all the documents produced at the meeting at Rotorua. The appellant asks the High Court to consider sec. 105 particularly having regard to technicalities pertaining to the calling of witnesses arising out of the Chairpersons orders made during a telephone Tribunal hearing.
The appellant request the High Court hears evidence in matters affecting his Regular Force contract and has regard to sec. 22 (b) (d) (2) of the Human Rights Act 1993. Regard to a binding contract between the NZ Defence Force (Army) and the Appellant in respect to the constitution of a lawful discharge process requiring in its constitution under law, all that, that is lawful.
The appellant suffers an ongoing loss of benefit sec. 88 (b) of the Privacy Act 1993, arising under conditions setout within the Regular Force employment contact entered into in March 1964.

The appellant asks the honourable High Court on its own motion under sec. 109 to please hear the evidence of Barrister Peter Birks.

The appellant seeks to appeal a number of other sections of the decision handed down on the 2^nd October; he seeks additional time after the hearing of witnesses, to prepare documents before a hearing in those matters.
That the appellant has received correspondence dated 16^th October 2002 from Ms Michelle Donovan, Legal Officer, Investigations for the Privacy Commissioner, in part expressing that a barrister would represent the Privacy Commissioner in the event I elect to appeal that decision.

 

………………………………………………………..