Home > Issues > Human Rights > Complaint about Paul Rishworth QC

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

Complaint about Paul Rishworth QC (slightly edited)

Peter Zohrab 2020

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

Complaint to New Zealand Law Society

 

  1. First email to Paul Rishworth

  2. First email from Paul Rishworth

  3. Second email to Paul Rishworth

  4. Second email from Paul Rishworth

  5. Third email to Paul Rishworth

  6. Third email from Paul Rishworth

  7. Fourth email to Paul Rishworth

  8. Fourth email from Paul Rishworth

  9. Complaint to 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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:

 

 

-- Hamill, Jasper (2019): "Men are more disadvantaged than women in the UK, US and most of Europe, scientists claim." Metro, 4 Jan 2019.

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

13 September 2020

Top