I refer back to my post Open Letter to Tracy Phillips GENERAL MANAGER SPCA INSPECTORATE. I have had several people ask me why identity is so important so let me explain .
Under our laws only real or legal persons have the ability to sue or be sued.
It is important that is some one sues you that you know who this person is as the law would be one sided if they can attack you but you cannot defend back .
If an unknown person or a fictional person wins a court case they can used the decision against you to be enforced but you wont be able to take action against them as fictional persons are effectively invisible and cannot be sued .
Lawyers appear to be totally lax with regards to identity issues , yet it is the most fundamental fist step , the establishment of the parties to a dispute .
So in the case of the prosecution of Barbara and Janine the charges read
The Animal Welfare Act is unusual as the offences are generally Strict liability which means that when the prosecutor makes the allegation that you have done something that you did not necessarily mean to do the act of doing it makes the offence complete and there is no need for the prosecution to show that you had any intent ( mens rea) to do the act.
There are two types of Person
Real people.. that is like you and me who live and breathe and invariably have a birth certificate and eventually a death certificate.
Legal persons.. statutory persons set up through legislation such government departments and or recognized through legislation through being registered as a Crown entity , company , trust incorporated society etc.
To ascertain whether a person is a real or legal person you check on their existence and registration in the case of the RNZSPCA you can find its details here Incorporated Societies Register you will find it on page 4
search on the name Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and you will see this
As we have seen Kevin Plowright and Lauri Davis produced a receipt for the first five dogs which were taken
The SPCA Auckland inc is defined in the constitution of the RNZSPCA
The constitution of The RNZSPCA makes no mention of a royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or a royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals( Auckland) which are he names used by the alleged prosecutor .
Therefore the ” prosecutor ” in this instance is not a legal person and cannot sue or be sued .
The only person who is involved in the prosecution is Kevin Plowright who has handed it to the Probono Lawyers for the Auckland SPCA who happen to have a massive conflict of interest in being he crown solicitors office and who have taken this on contrary to the provisions of their terms of trade.
Kevin Plowright ceased being an inspector under the animal welfare act 21 June 2019 so for the past year the file has been in the hands of lawyers who are scrambling like crazy to cover up their oversight of not checking the legitimacy of the prosecution .
It is far easier to aggressively pursue Barbara and Janine than for the Manukau crown solicitor to admit that they stuffed up
In the law society Law talk publication 2 march 2017 it states “
“We are very grateful to have a significant commitment of pro bono litigation support from Kayes Fletcher Walker, the Office of
the Manukau Crown Solicitor. The firm support the work of the Pro Bono Panel in a number of ways including by acting as instructing solicitor, by providing legal opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met, as well as appearing in court to assist Panel members
on cases. The pro bono work that Kayes Fletcher Walker provides is a significant factor in the ongoing success of the Panel initiative and contributes to ensuring the consistency and high quality of SPCA
Auckland’s prosecution files“
Well Kayes Fletcher Walker .. why did not one check to see who the legal entity was which is listed as the prosecutor and why did you seek disposal of dogs in a file intituled
The court is told that the application is being made on behalf of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland (“SPCA”}
but when Barbara and Janine take their appeal to the court intituled in exactly the same manner as the original matter the judge states
“[3] The respondent, the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the SPCA), is an approved organisation under the Act and responsible for prosecutions. “WALLACE & ANOR v THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND (SPCA AUCKLAND) [2019] NZHC 1599 [10 July 2019]
When the pro bono lawyers decide to pursue cost the name suddenly became important and they had an inspector who was not employed by the RNZSPCA sign a document alleging that the name for a charge which she did not lay should be changed to the The Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated’. WALLACE & ANOR v THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED [2020] NZHC 1618 [9 July 2020]
Laurie Davis’ application was supported by documents from Andrea Midgen , the document was neither sworn or certified true , a copy was sent to the court and the court totally accepted it , unbelievable !.
Kevin Plowright was an inspector under the animal welfare act . He was employed by the Auckland SPCA
Leave a Reply