Open Letter to Court of Appeal NZ Manager Maryanne McKennie: Breaches of the NZ Evidence Act 2006

 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRY

Attn: Maryanne McKennie, Court Manager/Registrar

Dear Maryanne McKennie,

I am writing this as an open letter in response to your email dated 25 March 2026.

In your correspondence, you state that the Court considers my matters "concluded" and that no further responses will be provided. However, I must draw your attention to the fundamental principles of the Evidence Act 2006, which the Court is statutorily bound to adhere to.

Specifically:

• Section 7(1) of the Act mandates that all relevant evidence is admissible.

• Section 132 regarding Common Bundles implies that documents filed are treated as "read" and must be considered by the fact-finder.

The Court’s previous judgments claimed that a specific copy of the blog in question was not received. I have maintained that this evidence was provided to the Registry. For the Court to "conclude" a matter while failing to acknowledge or "read" evidence presented to it constitutes a significant breach of the very Act that governs judicial proceedings in this country.

The duty of a court to adhere to the evidence presented is not optional; it is a pillar of a just determination as outlined in Section 6 of the Act, which aims to promote fairness and enhance access to the law of evidence.

While you defend the "professionalism and integrity" of your staff, integrity in a judicial context requires a transparent accounting of the evidence submitted by a party. Simply closing the door on correspondence does not resolve the underlying failure to consider the evidence that was placed before the Court.

I am making this response public because the adherence to statutory evidence rules is a matter of significant public interest and goes to the heart of the integrity of our judicial system.

Sincerely,

Nicola Watkins

My response to your email Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 11:02 AM that you defend your staff unreservedly whilst failing to acknowledge the mishandling of evidence in breach of our legislation is that you are just one more person on the gravy train of the NZ Government funded servants who can't be bothered doing your job properly.

Mōrena

 Defamation Re: Notification of judgment - CA685/2024 & CA855/2024 Nicola Watkins v Highmark Homes Limited

Thank you for your email. The Court has issued two detailed judgments regarding your proceedings. As noted in Chris’s email of 23 March, there is nothing further for the Court to consider. Your matters before this Court are now concluded, and no further responses will be provided to your continuing correspondence.

 

I reiterate my staff have always acted with professionalism and integrity in their interactions with you over the years your proceedings were active in this Court.

 

Ngā mihi

 

Maryanne

 

Maryanne McKennie Court Manager/ Registrar | Court of Appeal | Te Kōti Pīra o Aotearoa Phone: +64 4 914 3540 courtofappeal@justice.govt.nz

Notes to the Beehive - Press Release

Sur.ly not: The Court of Appeal made a mistake?

In the context of the New Zealand Evidence Act 2006, the requirement for a court to "adhere" to or consider evidence is found in these areas:

1. The Fundamental Principle of Relevance (Section 7)

The core of the Act is that the court must consider all relevant evidence unless a specific rule excludes it.

• Section 7(1): States that "All relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is— (a) inadmissible under this Act or any other enactment; or (b) excluded under this Act."

• This implies that once evidence is deemed relevant and admissible, the fact-finder (the Judge or Jury) is legally required to take it into account when making a determination.

2. General Exclusion / Weighing Evidence (Section 8)

This section outlines the Judge's responsibility to evaluate evidence before deciding whether to admit it.

• Section 8: Requires a Judge to exclude evidence if its "probative value is outweighed by the risk that the evidence will have an unfairly prejudicial effect." By extension, if evidence is not excluded, the court is adhering to the rules of the Act by allowing it to be part of the case record for consideration.

3. Use of Documents and Common Bundles (Section 132)

In civil proceedings, there are specific rules about "reading" or considering documents that the parties have agreed upon.

• Section 132: Deals with documents included in a common bundle. When documents are filed this way, they are generally treated as "read" into the evidence of the proceeding, ensuring the court adheres to the evidence presented by both parties.

4. Judicial Directions and Warnings (Subpart 6)

The Act explicitly commands how a Judge must "read" or interpret certain types of evidence for a jury.

• Section 122: Requires the Judge to give directions about evidence that may be unreliable, ensuring the court (and jury) adheres to proper standards when weighing what has been presented.

By defending staff conduct while failing to acknowledge the documented handling of evidence, the Registry is prioritizing internal optics over statutory duty. Public servants are accountable to the legislation that governs them, and simply declaring a matter "concluded" does not erase a failure to adhere to the Evidence Act 2006.

I look forward to receiving your redacted response and a more appropriate and legislatively correct version so that I may update this blog and assure the NZ Public Justice is being seen to be done in our Justice System and that the staff are well aware of the legislative mandate they operate under and are remunerated for in kind.

Regards

Nicola Watkins 

Nicola Watkins vs Highmark Homes Limited: Public Evidence & Case Archive

• Watkins vs Highmark Homes: The Truth, The Whole Truth

  • The complete chronological breakdown of the 9-year dispute, including original evidence of constructive dismissal.

• Mike Ross Blogex: NZ Public Report (Spamdexing & Judicial Ignorance)

  • An analysis of the "Mike Ross" fake persona and proof that the Court of Appeal Registry was in possession of the blog evidence they claimed not to have received.

• Mike Ross Law Blog is Fake: Identity Hijacking Exposed

  • Evidence demonstrating how search engine manipulation was used to prioritize a defamatory blog over factual court transcripts.

• Access to Justice: 2026 Triennial Review Case Study

  • My formal submission regarding the failure of the New Zealand legal aid system and the "pay-to-play" barriers for self-represented litigants.

• Open Letter to Chief Justice: A Call for Judicial Accountability

• A direct appeal regarding the systemic failure to investigate perjury and the handling of evidence by court registrars.

• Constructive Dismissal and The Law

• How the Court of Appeal breached its obligation to review evidence and the complaints manager response

• What more do I have to say? Sur.ly Mike Ross is not an adsense dollars recipient and a fake? Our courts would not be so naive would they?
  

• https://watkinsvshighmarkhomes-nzjustice.blogspot.com/2026/03/open-letter-to-court-of-appeal-nz.html