Ellen Dolour France

Family business

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!

Judicial fraud

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 [2015] 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 [2014] NZHC 1767 that was the subject of several interlocutory applications before the trio:

Judgment of France, Wild and Cooper JJ [2015] NZCA 426 Judgment of Duffy J [2014] NZHC 1767
[8] NR appeals Duffy J’s decision to dismiss his application for judicial review of the four interlocutory decisions of the District Court, and also applies for leave to bring a second appeal to this Court from Duffy J’s decision not to set aside each of the restraining order and the costs order… [10] Five applications in this appeal are for decision: (a) The appellant’s application filed on 20 August 2014 for leave to appeal against the decision of Duffy J not to set aside the restraining order. That plus the measure of partial success that he has achieved in the appeal as against the main application is enough to lead me to conclude that there is no basis for an award of indemnity costs. Instead, it should be replaced with costs for a category 2… [177] The restraining order made in the District Court is set aside.

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 [2015] NZCA 426 Judgment of Duffy J [2014] NZHC 1767
[7] Justice Duffy allowed both appeals, reducing the duration of the restraining order from five years to 12 months and the costs order from indemnity to scale costs. The Judge dismissed the application for judicial review as moot. [178] The relief sought in the judicial review proceedings is declined on the ground those proceedings are moot.

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:

[96] …I consider that [Sharp J] was wrong. There is no evidence to link [Mr N] to this act [of harassment]…

[100] …Thus, there are no reasons for [Sharp J’s] finding that [Mr N’s] legal demands/communications were specified acts. [101] [Mr N] claimed that some of the relevant communications were privileged… Unfortunately, those claims were not properly addressed…

[152] …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]. [153] …It is unsatisfactory that Ms M’s evidence was unchallenged without [Mr N] being warned of the consequences of that…

[164] …[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…

[169] …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…

[170] …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…

[172] [Mr N] complained that there was no evidential basis to support the mode of evidence relying on the use of screens [by Ms M]… [173] 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 [2015] NZCA 426 Judgment of Duffy J [2014] NZHC 1767;
Mr N’s notice of appeal
[6] Justice Duffy heard together three matters relating to the harassment proceeding:… (c) an application for judicial review of four interlocutory decisions of the District Court… [8] NR appeals Duffy J’s decision to dismiss his application for judicial review of the four interlocutory decisions of the District Court, and also applies for leave to bring a second appeal to this Court from Duffy J’s decision not to set aside each of the restraining order and the costs order. [2] Mr R represented himself in the District Court proceedings and in the proceedings before this Court. There is some overlap and duplication in the way in which he has approached matters in this Court. However, for the sake of clarity, I propose to set out each challenge that he makes to the District Court decisions. [3] They are:… (c) A judicial review against four interlocutory decisions of the District Court, as well as the decisions made on 9 May 2013 in relation to the making of the restraining order and the costs order by Judge Sharp.
1. I, [Mr N], the Applicant/Appellant in the proceedings identified above, give notice that I am: (a) Appealing, under s 11 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972, to the Court against the judgment [2014] NZHC 1767 given on 29 July 2014 in the High Court at Auckland insofar it applies to CIV 2012‐404‐6851 (a judicial review of the harassment proceeding); and… Appeal of the judicial review: 3. The appeal mentioned in para 1(a) above applies to: (a) The denial to grant relief in the judicial review; and (b) Any findings made by the High Court to the effect that any of the District Court’s decisions in question were correct. While it appears to me that no such findings were made, I include the corresponding ground of appeal (para 9 below) out of abundance of caution.

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 [2015] NZCA 426 Mr N’s submissions
🙁 3. Given that the 2nd respondent failed to cross‐appeal the judicial review, her proposed cross‐appeal of the duration of the restraining order and costs is moot. Even if she, hypothetically, succeeds in her proposed cross‐appeal, the Court of Appeal will still have to remit the matter back to the High Court, as the decision of the latter to decline relief in the judicial review was predicated on the partial success of the Appellant.

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:

[10] …The criticisms that [Mr N] has made of the procedures that were followed in relation to the interlocutory applications and the main application have led me to conclude that the best approach to this appeal is for me to look at whether there was something that supported the making of the restraining order, rather than to look at whether the decision of the District Court is supportable or not…

[132] 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

[137] …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.

[147] 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…

[175] 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

[176] The appeal is allowed in part… [178] 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.:

(a) Restoration of the restraining order made by the District Court against [Mr N];
(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) [2002] 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
[1] The application for recall of the Court’s judgment of 10 September 2015 was referred to us on 22 October 2015. [2] The application is contemptuous in the scandalous allegations it makes against Judges of this court. [3] The Court declines to deal with the application which, in any event, is against a judgment in which the appellant was substantially successful. The Registrar is directed to return the application to the appellant. [4] This is the second occasion on which the Court has had to direct the return of scandalous material from the appellant. We think it appropriate to put the appellant on notice that further contempt is likely to be the subject of a firmer response.

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.

See also

  • 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.