Dud Judges don’t like it up them

The Sensible Sentencing Trust, currently battling with the Privacy Commission and Pedophile Human Rights Commission has decided to launch a website highlighting dud judges…and boy aren’t the judges upset by it all.

Here’s a hint for them, stop cuddling crimes, hugging pedophiles and start sentencing people to the maximum not the minimum they can think of.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust plans an assault on the judiciary with a website designed to “out bad judges”.

The victims’ advocacy group says it will launch the website this month but has already set its sights on two judges involved in bail decisions over which it has raised concerns.

The fresh online assault on judges has brought disapproval from government ministers, with Justice Minister Judith Collins and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson speaking against it. The judiciary have also expressed dismay over the move, with opposition from Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue.

An internet domain registry search shows the judgethejudges.co.nz site has been registered by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It is not connected to this week’s Judging the Judges news series in the Herald. 

Trust spokeswoman Ruth Money said it would be based on information sourced by the trust, victims of crime or from members of the public.

“It is a website called Judge The Judges where we are using publicly available information.”

She said greater access to court information was needed to better inform the public.

“At the moment, unless an on-to-it [news] reporter is in the court or a victim has contacted us we are not there to capture what is going on.”

Don’t you just love the Herald, all serious about the Sensible Sentencing Trust judging judges, and distancing themselves from their own series this week doing exactly the same thing.

Judges currently in the trust’s sights include Judge David McNaughton, who is criticised for bailing Christie Marceau’s killer. Justice Mary Peters is another named by the trust – she sentenced a father who broke the legs of his baby daughter to home detention. The sentence was appealed and the man jailed.

There are plenty more..Judge Raoul Neave springs to mind.



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Random66

    Great move by the SST. I bet the judges will hate this because to a degree it will bring accountability. Now the judges will know their decisions will in themselves be judged by their friends, acquaintances and the public in general. No longer will they be able to just quietly move onto the next case without a thought to the trail of mistakes they leave behind them. We will know and we will judge.

  • Phar Lap

    Time the judge on The Fat German court case,.the convicted felon who is trying to lie his way out of his deportation to USA ,for once made a common sense decision,to fast track the jerk out of NZ.

  • blokeintakapuna

    I would to see the judiciary held accountable for anyone released via the same standards that employers have with OSH laws and the compliance and liabilities employers have with their staff/people they are held accountable for during work time.

    Surely the same standards could be upheld by the judiciary… In fact there should be a higher standard the judiciary needs to uphold, because those being released on parole are often recidivist offenders… And if the parole board / judiciary were held liable for any harm these recidivist offenders caused, I recon NZ would see far fewer riskier individuals being released upon our unprepared, innocent, defenceless society.

    What about the offenders human rights? They gave them up when they first committed the crime and only reinforced why they need to remain locked away with their repeat offending.

    Ohh …and change the fuckin’ law so that fines and prison terms are expressed as a “minimum” not a “maximum” and uphold the minimum as just that.

    • Peter Jenkins

      Excellent post blokeintakapuna, you have nailed it in all respects.

      As an aside, I have some involvement with this project, and it will not all be negative – we are aiming for a 50/50 balance of good and bad judges, so that those of the judiciary who deserve praise for their performance will get it. And, difficult as it may be for some of you to believe, some of the judiciary actually do a good job, and we want to highlight that as well as the poor performers so that those that are listening to their employers (us) are encouraged

      Peter Jenkins

  • Mr_Blobby

    Winging, sooking and crying from all the usual vested interests.

    Its called accountability and transparency morons.

    How about this “take your skirt off, cancel your manicure, grow a mustache and harden the fuck up.”

    • Catweasel321

      Dude, do you realise you’ve just laid bare your Freddie Mercury fantasy for all to see.

      • Mr_Blobby

        What the fuck is a freddie mercury fantasy when it is at home. The only closest gay on this sight is the whale.

        • Catweasel321

          A half dressed, moustachioed guy thats ‘hardened’ up.
          Remember, ‘Save the Gay Whales’

  • Jman

    Judge Phillipa Cunningham springs to my mind

  • Catweasel321

    Still bearing a grudge against judges I see.

    Unfortunately this is all too common amongst those with past criminal convictions.