Good afternoon Luke
We are fortunate in New Zealand to have good guidelines which when followed ensure the requirement of section 27 Bill of Rights but the system falls short when there is no accountability to the Rule of law and therefore we bring this to your attention in view of your review of charges for Barbara and Janine
We believe that it is timely to remind you of your obligations , specifically to two sets of guide lines
Paragraph 15 “As prosecutors, Crown Solicitors are ministers of justice and serve the public interest. Crown Solicitors must be independent and free from compromising influences or loyalties when providing services as Crown Solicitor.”
In undertaking a prosecution for an unidentifiable organisation you have demonstrated a clear disregard for the bill of rights and it would appear that you are acting against the public interest, and terms of office
paragraph 16 “Unless granted dispensation by the Solicitor-General, for a specific case or class of cases, Crown Solicitors and lawyers in the Crown Solicitor firm may not (4) act for the prosecutor in any private prosecution.
- The RNZSPCA is a private prosecutor it is an incorporated society.
- The name of the prosecutor was changed by you last week without any evidence from the fictional prosecutor Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland)
- The actual prosecutor for which evidence can be produced is the Auckland SPCA which was dissolved earlier this year.
Crown Solicitors Regulations 1994
In my OIA which came back yesterday there is evidence that there is no such dispensation and that a group of crown solicitors have taken it upon themselves to act on a pro bono basis or sometimes for partial fees as you put it for the SPCA
Therefore it appears that crown solicitors in representing the SPCA are not just doing this against their terms of office they are also apparently acting against the law
Of great concern is that not only are you representing a private organisation , between 2 November 2018 when the charges were filed and last week 16 July 2021 , 2 years, 8 months & 14 days you represented a fictional organisation
paragraph 17 The Crown Solicitor must comply with all directions and instructions and observe guidelines issued by the Solicitor-General from time to time including, without limitation, the following:
17.1 Prosecution Guidelines.
17.2 Victims of Crime – Guidelines for Prosecutors.
17.3 Media Protocol for Prosecutors;
The principles in the media protocol include
5. When communicating with the public through the media, prosecutors are guided by
five principles. These are:
5.1 Not making remarks that may prejudice fair trial interests or the perceived objectivity of the judge.
5.2 Supporting the administration of justice and the integrity of the criminal justice system;
You represent yourself as “ the crown”
In the introduction the attorney General states “New Zealand is fortunate to be served by a public prosecution service that is professional, open, fair and responsible.”
This is what the court relies on when a crown solicitor stands before it and there is also an expectation that the crown solicitor is working for the rule of law not against it .
The guide lines set out
As per (c) the person who filed the charging document is Kevin Plowright of the fictional Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland)
Kevin was employed by the Auckland SPCA for some 10 years you would think he would know the name of his employer
This from the constitution of the RNZSPCA 17/6/2017
This means that The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated (registration number 222889); was under the approved organisation umbrella but the fictional Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) was not .
Not only did it not have any powers under the animal welfare act it did not exist in any manner or form.
While the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) was able to file a multitude of charges and seize animals and keep two ladies under severe stress for 3 years, 11 months, 22 days from the date of the first visit , it would not have been able to have opened a bank account or obtained a 5 dollar loan so how did it come to instruct a lawyer and why did the lawyer not check the name and the legal existence of his alleged client ?
There are built in safe guards in our justice system for private prosecutions to ensure integrity the act makes the following definitions
The RNZSPCA is not a statutory public body it is an Approved Organisation see the submissions of Neil Wells Here
By handing this to the Crown solicitor, it effectively entered the system through the back door and by passed the scrutiny and safeguards of section 1.
One would have hoped that the registrar would have picked up the duplicate charges, the unidentified animals and most of all the false name of the prosecutor.
The file would have been assessed by a judge in 2017 and assessed whether it is an abuse of process. 3 (b)
There was never a summons issued the charge sheets were simply mailed to the Janine and Barbara after a fund raising appeal ( despite using Anita Killeen’s Pro bono service ) and after wide spread publicity that the ladies were going to be charged
Charges were finally filed in December 2018 and the ladies appeared in court right on Christmas 1 year, 2 months, 4 days after the first dogs which they were charged with were taken
As former police Prosecutor I must question that length of time. Dogs legitimately seized would have the evidence on them then why I sit necessary to charge people over a year later after search warrants , acquiring pedigree papers etc.
The animal welfare act makes it clear that under section 127 if the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal or the need for the animal to receive treatment from a veterinarian make it necessary or desirable to remove the animal from the land, premises, or place or the vehicle, aircraft, or ship.
So why were dogs taken and placed in the pound for 2 weeks before they were seen by a vet?
The charging documents themselves “except if the prosecution is a private prosecution brought by an individual, —(i)the name of the prosecuting organisation” something that does not exist cannot be an organisation
Back to the prosecution Guide lines
THE SUPERVISION OF PROSECUTIONS
It is quite clear that the prosecution has had no supervision at all . dogs were snatched the ladies publicly humiliated and vilified and then the charges were trumped up and the book thrown at them.
We know from our communications with the chief inspector of the RNZSPCA that the prosecution did not come through the RNZSPCA and it appears to be collusion between two former inspectors Kevin Plowright who left 3 July 2019 and Greg Reid Left SPCA 21 May 2019.
Kevin Plowright passed the file to Luke Radich who despite the claim in the law society law journal that
… did not scrutinize the file at all as evidenced by the glaring errors on the charge sheet alone all serious point which need to be proved and cannot be proved.
THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE
The decision to prosecute Is based on
5.1.1 The evidence which can be adduced in Court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction – the Evidential Test; and
5.1.2 Prosecution is required in the public interest – the Public Interest Test.
The decision to prosecute was driven by the need to cover up the snatch of valuable dogs . while there is a lot of verbal evidence about Faeces and urine smells there is very little if any evidence of any arm to any dogs other than the harm which was inflicted when the SPCA officer panicked one dog when they opened its enclosure with a sledge hammer .
If the prosecution had been brought a year earlier it would have been far more credible and I cannot comprehend why the interview was not about any matters which were relevant to the subsequent charges.. I thought that was very odd. And why their associates and friends all had SPCA raids and why all their former clients were contacted. This is more about destruction of reputation than about justice.
Under the evidential test there is a requirement that an individual is identifiable .. here the prosecutor was not identifiable , in the disposal proceedings it was totally undefinable until it came to pay day and Luke Ravlich must have realised that it is impossible to collect a cost award payable to a fictional organisation and then changed the name at the cost application stage .
If this was a genuine move then why not supply affidavits and a transparent method of changing the name of the prosecutor why leave it to a week before the trial ?
Unlike the disposal proceedings which were a civil prosecution and had the standard of proof “the balance of probabilities’. This is a criminal proceeding s and the standard of proof is Beyond reasonable doubt .
It is quite clear that no one has ever scrutinised this file for evidence and while most of us think faeces and wee is disgusting dogs will roll in it.
Timing is every thing and I am sure there are a lot of mums out there who have found their babies in a cot with shit all up their back , probably doesn’t happen as much with new disposables but in my days we would see massive blow outs . if some one had come along at the wrong time the headlines would have rad .. child found in poo covered cot .
This does not mean that the child is not cared for it is just a snapshot intime.
Public interest considerations for prosecution
The ladies have already had trial by press, Barbara is well over 80 , her life has been devastated by this she has endured several operations while waiting for trail and her health has deteriorated.
If we are talking cruelty to animals then the cruelty that has been inflicted on these ladies far outweighs any perceived transgression of the law .
They appear to be suffering from Post-traumatic stress due to the excessive number of SPCA raids, they have also been subjected to people coming on to the farm and interfering with the dogs , they are not a puppy mill but have been falsely portrayed as such and in the end this is all about $$$$$$
The SPCA has been less than honest , dogs were taken without proper documentation signatures were forged, the redaction was by the SPCA we do not know who signed it no one had authority to .
This should open the door for a full investigation into the ability of the RNZSPCA to hold public law enforcement powers
Consideration should be given to the Public interest considerations against prosecution
5.9.1 Where the Court is likely to impose a very small or nominal penalty;
The ladies have already been destroyed, they will never recover from this , their precious imported blood lines have gone , they have already been lumbered with massive lawyers costs and court costs , their health has deteriorated
5.9.2 Where the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by an error of judgement or a genuine mistake.
There are in essence two incidents one in October 2017 the other in May 2018 neither showed any animal with any serous health issues and no animal was taken because of health issues, and I do have to question how you asses behaviour when the dogs raised by compassionate women are confronted with a massive team of men wielding sticks
5.9.3 Where the offence is not on any test of a serious nature, and is unlikely to be repeated;
The mere fact that the RNZSPCA returned 5 dogs unlawfully taken to the ladies and they have been left to run their farm and care for the remaining dogs is evidence that they are good animal owners
5.9.4 Where there has been a long passage of time between an offence taking place and the likely date of trial such as to give rise to undue delay or an abuse of process unless:
• the offence is serious; or
No it is not having faeces and urine in a she happens all the tiem call at any SPCA
• delay has been caused in part by the defendant; or
No the delay is not caused by them it was well over a year before they were charged
• the offence has only recently come to light; or
No this does not apply
• the complexity of the offence has resulted in a lengthy investigation
Determining whether an animal is ill should not take years to investigate
Luke I will be brining this to the attention of the solicitor general as this has been a case of extreme cruelty to humans. I hope that you would not do this to your grandmother.. If you had checked he files on day one you could have saved a lot of suffering by these ladies .
Leave a Reply