- Family business
- Judicial fraud
- Removal of documents from the court record. Threats to a party
- See also
Ellen Dolour France, a known judicial fraudster, often acts in tandem with another fraudster – her husband Simon France, a judge of the High Court. In 2016, when Ms France was the President of the Court of Appeal, she assigned Simon to hear the appeal that alleged fraud on the part of Ellen. Simon went to great lengths to whitewash the wrongdoings of his wife. He managed to fabricate, attribute to the appellant and dismiss three entirely fictitious appeals. Well done, Ellen and Simon!
Ellen France does not hesitate to blatantly lie in her judgments in order to advance her ulterior agenda. Judge for yourself. The left column in the below tables shows excerpts from the judgment  NZCA 426 of Ellen France and two other judges, John Wild and Mark Cooper. The right column shows excerpts from other relevant documents. You can click on an image to view the entire document.
Below, Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper blatantly lied about the very substance of Duffy J’s judgment  NZHC 1767 that was the subject of several interlocutory applications before the trio:
|Judgment of France, Wild and Cooper JJ  NZCA 426||Judgment of Duffy J  NZHC 1767|
Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper continued to lie, grossly misrepresenting the denial of relief in the judicial review as a fundamentally different (in legal terms) dismissal of the application:
|Judgment of France, Wild and Cooper JJ  NZCA 426||Judgment of Duffy J  NZHC 1767|
The falsity of the trio’s statement about “dismissal” is evident from the plain wording of the judgment of Duffy J, who not only has not dismissed any of Mr N’s judicial review claims, but expressly acknowledged the validity of many of those claims, for instance:
 …Thus, there are no reasons for [Sharp J’s] finding that [Mr N’s] legal demands/communications were specified acts.  [Mr N] claimed that some of the relevant communications were privileged… Unfortunately, those claims were not properly addressed…
 …the court should… give a full and explicit warning of the legal consequences that flow from a failure to cross-examine the witness. Without that being done, it is difficult to hold the consequences of not cross-examining against [Mr N].  …It is unsatisfactory that Ms M’s evidence was unchallenged without [Mr N] being warned of the consequences of that…
 …[Ms M’s] solicitors had overlooked the need to file a notice of opposition…It is hard to see how a court can be critical of someone in [Mr N’s] position for doing no more than to rely [in his procedural objections] upon well established principles…
 …I consider that [Sharp J] was wrong to be critical of [Mr N] for “repeatedly arguing a lack of specificity of allegations in the substantive harassment application”… I have some sympathy with [Mr N’s] complaints about a lack of specificity…
 …at the hearing of 9 May 2013 [Mr N] found himself facing a case that included additional specified acts to those that he knew of in November 2012, he complained. He sought an adjournment to give himself time to prepare. This was understandable. No one would want to deal with arguing on the spot against legally complex specified acts…
 [Mr N] complained that there was no evidential basis to support the mode of evidence relying on the use of screens [by Ms M]…  There was no evidence to support the application for Ms M to give her evidence in an alternative way… [Mr N] should not be criticised for objecting to the way in which the mode of evidence ruling was reached…
Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper continued to blatantly lie, grossly misrepresenting both Duffy J’s judgment and Mr N’s notice of appeal:
|Judgment of France, Wild and Cooper JJ  NZCA 426||Judgment of Duffy J  NZHC 1767;
Mr N’s notice of appeal
So why did Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper lie about the substance of Duffy J’s judgment and Mr N’s appeal, to the effect that both concerned only four interlocutory decisions of the District Court? Why did the trio failed to mention that both Duffy J’s judgment and Mr N’s appeal also concerned the restraining order and the indemnity costs order? The answer is simple. The corrupt judges of the Court of Appeal were making a case for Ms M in order to allow her to proceed with her cross-appeal despite that it was moot and abuse of process from its inception:
|Judgment of France, Wild and Cooper JJ  NZCA 426||Mr N’s submissions|
We could not provide a relevant excerpt from the trio’s judgment because Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper completely omitted absolutely all the facts, the arguments and the law Mr N relied upon, and allowed Ms M’s application for cross-appeal without even mentioning that Mr N opposed that application!
Let us explain Mr N’s submissions in detail.
While Duffy J had not dismissed any of Mr N’s judicial review claims and, in fact, had expressly found that many of those claims were meritorious, the judge denied relief in the judicial review proceeding CIV 2012-404-6851 on the premise that Mr N had partially succeeded in his appeals CIV 2013-404-2702 and CIV 2013-404-3172. Duffy J stated, effectively, that because she had entirely replaced the District Court judgments with her own fresh one, the judicial review was not applicable to her findings and was therefore moot:
 Regarding the judicial review of Judge Sharp’s decision on the main application, the success that [Mr N] has achieved in the appeal [CIV 2013-404-2702] makes any assessment of the same subject matter in a judicial review proceeding moot…
 …Whilst the refusal to reject the late notice of opposition may have deprived [Mr N] of success with the strike-out application, there is no practical benefit in traversing the lawfulness of that decision now. It has had no direct impact on the findings that I have made in the appeal against the main application.
 The interlocutory decision on 9 May 2013 on the mode of evidence has no direct impact on the findings that I have made regarding what I found to be specified acts under the Act…Thus, that decision is spent…
 The outcome of this appeal against the costs order [CIV 2013-404-3172] now makes any assessment of the same subject matter in a judicial review proceeding moot…
 The appeal is allowed in part…  The relief sought in the judicial review proceedings is declined on the ground those proceedings are moot.
Having failed to challenge Duffy J’s findings on the judicial review 6851, Ms M sought the following judgment from the Court of Appeal on her proposed cross-appeals of Duffy J’s judgments on appeals 2702 and 3172, verbatim1§6 of APPLICATION BY [Ms M] FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL CA461/2014 of 26-Aug-2014, and §3 of the draft NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL BY [Ms M] attached to that application.:
(b) Restoration of the costs award made by the District Court.
It is patently clear that by challenging appeals 2702 and 3172 but not judicial review 6851, Ms M has abused the process. Effectively, she sought to nullify or otherwise undermine the result of the judicial review by a collateral attack. If Ms M wished to challenge Duffy J’s judgments on the appeals 2702 and 3172, the proper course for her was to also cross-appeal the judgment on 6851.
Indeed, the denial of relief in the judicial review 6851 was predicated on Mr N’s success in having Sharp J’s judgments thrown out. If Ms M had been granted the relief she sought (that is, if the Court of Appeal had overturned Duffy J’s decisions on the appeals 2702 and 3172 and reinstated Sharp J’s judgments), then Duffy J’s decision to decline relief in the judicial review would have become manifestly unfounded and unjust.
Having being unable to openly and lawfully rebut Mr N’s arguments, Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper simply rigged the game to nail Mr N regardless of the law, the facts, the evidence, precedents, the truth, or anything else. The judicial falsehoods as to the substance of Mr N’s appeal and Duffy J’s judgment were calculated to facilitate the misrepresentation of Mr N’s legal position in order to deceive the public.
Removal of documents from the court record. Threats to a party
Mr N brought the above (and other) fraudulent machinations of Ms France, Mr Wild and Mr Cooper to the attention of the Court of Appeal in his recall application. The application alleged apparent bias on the part of the trio and relied on the binding precedent Man O’War Station Limited v Auckland City Council (No 1)  NZPC 6. Pursuant to the precedent, the recall application ought to have been adjudicated by a panel of three judges. The judges who had been alleged to be biased “obviously could not sit”2§4 of the Privy Council’s judgment.. Ms France, then the President of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, assigned herself to the recall application and dealt with it alone.
A competent, independent and impartial judge in Ms France’s shoes would have followed the law (Man O’War) and stepped down. An incompetent but not necessarily dishonest judge would probably attempt to adjudicate the application, lacking both independence and impartiality in judging his/her own case. But what, in your opinion, a judicial fraudster would do? Correct. He or she would quietly order to get rid of the inconvenient recall application, and would threaten a reprisal if Mr N continued to pursue his allegations. Let’s see what Ms France did (below is her entire secret minute):
|Minute of France J, 27-Oct-2015|
So what obscure “firmer response”, precisely, did Ms France threaten self-represented Mr N with? A knife or a bullet in his back, or some other, more “civilised”, option available to an unscrupulous judge in Ms France’s position? We leave the readers to guess.
- Complaint of 11-Jan-16 about France J (as to her professional incompetence and lack of integrity).
References [ + ]
|1.||↑||§6 of APPLICATION BY [Ms M] FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL CA461/2014 of 26-Aug-2014, and §3 of the draft NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL BY [Ms M] attached to that application.|
|2.||↑||§4 of the Privy Council’s judgment.|