Complaint to New Zealand Law Society
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dear sir/Madam
I am writing to complain about the refusal by Paul Rishworth QC to
act for me in the matter detailed below.
-
I am complaining that he must have known at the start of our
email exchange that he was busy in his practice and was not prepared
to consider this matter, so he failed in his fiduciary duty to inform
me of those facts at the first opportunity -- i.e. about one month
earlier than he actually did so.
-
I am complaining that the above-mentioned delay raises the suspicion
that he was in fact trying to protect Paul Hunt from legal action
--acting against my interests.
-
The above suspicion is supported by the fact that all his comments
to me on the matter were negative in tone and he made no positive
suggestions as to how I could actually proceed, given my concerns.
-
His final email failed entirely to address the final formulation
of my cause of action, which was based on the Human Rights Act (1993),
s. 5(1)(a).
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
(4b)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Non-Reply
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:43:41 +0000
From: Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
To: peter@zohrab.name <peter@zohrab.name>
Hi Peter
I don’t think there is a cause of action for judicial review
of a website for the impression it may create. It is theoretically possible
for a cause of action where an agency has explicitly fettered its discretion
by precluding, as a policy matter, any action of a type that it is legally
required to consider engaging in. But I cannot see website impressions
getting anywhere near to that level. And the point could only be raised
if a complaint of that type were made and the policy was invoked to
refrain from investigating/receiving it.
Most importantly, I am busy in my practice and while I do some pro
bono work, this is not a matter I would be prepared to consider.
Paul
Paul Rishworth QC
signature_1081290578
Level 7, 2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010
T: 021 546 599
W: britomartchambers.nz
(4a)
From: Peter Douglas Zohrab <peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz>
Reply to: "peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
Date: Wednesday, 12 August 2020 at 4:49 AM
To: Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Non-Reply
Dear Professor Rishworth,
Could you please reply to my question below?
Regards,
Peter Zohrab
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Re: Non-Reply
Date:
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:57:13 +1200
From:
Peter Douglas Zohrab <peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To:
peter@zohrab.name
To:
Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
Dear Professor Rishworth,
As a male and as a Men's Rights Activist, I have a legal right and interest
that the Human Rights Commission (which my taxes help to fund) use its
website (which is arguably by far its main method of fulfilling its
legal duty to advocate and promote respect for, and an understanding
and appreciation of, human rights in New Zealand society (HRA 1993,
s. 5(1)(a))) to create the "impression" that men's rights
are just as important as women's rights.
It completely fails to do that, as I could demonstrate by analysing
its internal structure, past actions and website in detail, and this
has the downstream effect that various organisations in society, including
the education sector, the media, the public service, the police, the
courts, the legal profession and Parliament all treat Feminism (undefined)
as the state ideology and view men's rights as laughable or otherwise
to be ignored.
Is that a cause of action?
Regards,
Peter Zohrab
(3b)
Paul Rishworth wrote on 1/08/2020
6:10 p.m.:
Dear Peter
No it is not actionable. There is no cause of action for judicial
review of a public authority based on an impression given by a website
or its pronouncements. There would need to be a legal right or interest
affected on the part of a particular individual and it is hard to see
how, in principle, this could ever be the case based on impressions
as to ideology.
Yours sincerely
Paul Rishworth
Paul Rishworth QC
signature_1081290578
Level 7, 2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010
T: 021 546 599
W: britomartchambers.nz
(3a)
From: Peter Douglas Zohrab <peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz>
Reply to: "peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
Date: Saturday, 1 August 2020 at 4:35 PM
To: Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
Subject: Non-Reply
Dear Professor Rishworth,
You have not replied to my two previous emails. It is a serious matter
if the Human Rights Commission is not fulfilling the purposes set down
in its Act -- apparently because it prioritises particular ideologies,
such as an (undefined) Feminism and the doctrine of Diversity. Could
you please tell me if this behaviour on its part is actionable. If not,
what was the purpose of Parliament passing the Act?
Yours sincerely,
Peter Zohrab
(2b)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
Re: Pro Bono legal action against Chief Human's Rights Commissioner
Date:
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:10:34 +0000
From:
Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
To:
peter@zohrab.name <peter@zohrab.name>
You still can’t sue about a website and its impressions, and
it would be hard to prove the Human Rights Commission would merely go
through the motions. As you will know, they don’t decide complaints
of discrimination; the Human Rights Review Tribunal does. They can only
refer them to mediation. So the motions they go through are pretty circumscribed.
Setting up a mediation.
You can’t get judicial review in the abstract of these sorts
of vague claims.
A man with an actual claim has a right to complain to the Human Rights
Commission and to take it the Human Rights Review Tribunal if it is
not resolved by mediation.
Paul Rishworth QC
signature_1018870719
Level 7, 2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010
T: 021 546 599
W: britomartchambers.nz
(2a)
From: Peter Douglas Zohrab <peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz>
Reply to: "peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 4:42 PM
To: Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Pro Bono legal action against Chief Human's Rights Commissioner
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your reply. The website, however, is an advertisement
and information to potential claimants about whose rights the HRC would
be willing to receive. Members of the public are bound to rely on it
as a guide as to who the HRC is willing to help. An ordinary member
of the public might well get the impression from the website that women
-- but not men -- can have their claims supported by the HRC
Even I, who know that the HRC would receive a complaint about discrimination
against me as a man, am bound to get the impression from their website
that the HRC would merely go through the motions and would not take
it seriously.
Regards,
Peter Zohrab
(1b)
Paul Rishworth wrote on 10/07/2020
4:24 p.m.:
Dear Peter
I don’t think this would survive a strike out. The decision
as to how to structure a web site with headings would not be amenable
to judicial review. Even if it were, it could not be a review on the
basis of “natural justice” as you had no right to be consulted
or given notice about the website and opportunity to comment.
If the claim were that he has failed to separately categorise men
then that would be a claim of substantive rather than procedural error.
But, again, it’s only a website. No person’s rights are
affected. So I am afraid it would be a forlorn hope to win a case based
on the website headings. The heading “women” doesn’t
mean the Human Rights Commission would not receive a complaint about
discrimination against a man – in fact they would have to (and
refer it to mediation).
Kind regards
Paul
Paul Rishworth QC
Image removed by sender. signature_1748022973
Level 7, 2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010
T: 021 546 599
W: britomartchambers.nz
(1a)
From: Peter Douglas Zohrab <peter.zohrab@xtra.co.nz>
Reply to: "peter@zohrab.name" <peter@zohrab.name>
Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 4:01 PM
To: Paul Rishworth <paul@paulrishworthqc.co.nz>
Subject: Pro Bono legal action against Chief Human's Rights Commissioner
Dear Professor Rishworth,
I have a Law degree and I am a Men's Rights Activist. I studied NZBORA
at Law School.
Could you please reply as to the possibility of your mounting a pro
bono legal action against Paul Hunt, because of his discrimination against
men, in his role in the Human Rights Commission?
If you go to the HRC website home page (https://www.hrc.co.nz/),
and scroll down to the heading "Our Work", you will see that
one of the headings is "Women", but there is no heading "Men".
That can only be for reasons of Law or for reasons of fact. There
is no reason in Law to prioritise women over men -- quite the contrary.
I am absolutely certain that he has not researched Men's Rights, so
that he has no valid reasons in fact
to prioritise women over men. I am an expert in this area. He has simply
predetermined that women are more disadvantaged than men and predetermination
is a breach of Natural Justice, I believe?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Peter Zohrab
See also:
|
