Transparency New Zealand

If you were to look up the word Convict you will find that an overwhelming number of dictionaries give the definition as

Convict 1. Declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.

Convict 1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:

con•vict  verb (used with object)
1.to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trial: to convict a prisoner of a felony.
2. to impress with a sense of guilt.

Why it matters
Electoral Act 1993 55 How vacancies created

The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—d) if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice;

The offence with which Banks was charged is an offence punishable with imprisonment of 2 years .
Definitions

It is interesting that currently our legislation does not have a definition for convicted but up until 1 July 2013 the crimes act 1961 carried such a definition which was repealed on that date this definition read.

3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment’‘—For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—

(a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or

(b) He is found guilty on indictment; or

(c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44 or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or

(d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.

I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation

The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.

Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced.. Yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this.

The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty.

Since our legislation no  longer  defines  Convicted  we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning

There are many examples in legislation which point to the fact that convicted still means guilty e.g.

Criminal Procedure Act 2011 section 147
4) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may dismiss a charge if—

• (a) the prosecutor has not offered evidence at trial; or

• (b) in relation to a charge for which the trial procedure is the Judge-alone procedure, the court is satisfied that there is no case to answer; or

• (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.

So how could a jury convict any one if this is something that is only in the realm of a judge and done after being found guilty?

The reality is that this makes sense only if to convict and to find guilty are one and the same thing.

The plot thickens when you read the judgement R v BANKS [2014] Paragraph 6

[6] The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.

The crimes act definition of convicted still existed at that time as it was not repealed until 1.July 2013

The criteria for section 3 crimes act Print/Download PDF (5.5MB)or see it on it own Crimes Act 1961 S 3 are therefore the criteria which apply to this decision and he question is was he found guilty on indictment.

The answers to that are again in the decision

[2] The indictment reads as follows…

[3] I have found Mr Banks guilty of the charge

The only possible outcome in that case is that John Archibald banks is convicted

We have brought this to the attention of the court by way of memorandum, this was filed at about 3.15 pm Friday 6 June 2006
memorandum for registrar.
We will keep you posted.
Perhaps the government in the meantime would like to attend to the definition of Convicted.

Good afternoon Attorney General

Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand

Request to Attorney General under section 58

This is not just any ordinary trust AWINZ claimed to have law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act.

In the detailed document attached I have shown how the application for Law enforcement powers was fraudulent and it has been covered up by the creation of several trusts and groups of persons posing as trusts.

The charities commission directed my complaint to you .

This is a matter which touches the heart of corruption in New Zealand s I have found that in 8 years it has been impossible to expose this perfect fraud.

I will be attending an international anti corruption conference this month I am therefore publishing my request on the transparency web site so that it is transparent .

Regards
Grace Haden

I have just taken time to look at submissions for the animal welfare bill  and  within the multitude of pages I find a  submission by Neil Wells . Neil Wells evidence text [PDF 258k] and  Neil Wells  supp  [PDF 141k]

In the  submission  he starts off stating

I agree with the general policy statement that the Bill will “improve the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.”

Transparency ?  run that past me gain  ? wasn’t  it   Mr Wells  who made an application to the minister for approved status  using a  false name ?

Did he then not run  this enterprise himself   using the councils staff and resources while not  disclosing that there was no one else involved ?

So why does he  not list his experience of 10 years running  an approved organization?  and why did  he not even mention the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand? ( AWINZ ) .

I rather suspect that he has not mentioned AWINZ because  it would not read well saying

I was the author of a Private Member’s Bill presented to Parliament by Hon Pete Hodgson in 1998, which was later joined with the government’s Animal Welfare Bill (No. 2).

I served as an Independent Specialist Adviser to the Primary Production Select Committee during the consideration stages of the Bills.

I  applied for approved status  for an organization which did not exist and which was actually me using a pseudonym.

I  ran the approved organization for 10 years using the Waitakere  city council staff and resources  , prosecuted and  banked the proceeds into a bank account   which I  operated in the  name of AWINZ .

I suspect that if he had written that  some one might have said..  there is something wrong here.. perhaps  conflict or interest   even and some  one might  say  “hey is it OK to write legislation for your own business plan and advise on it and implement it under a false name   then cover up using the court. ? ”

At Point three of his main submission Wells states

A statute is only as good as the procedures available for enforcement of its provisions, the detection of offences, and the prosecution of offenders.

3.1 Enforcement and prosecuting authorities
There are three types of enforcement and prosecuting authorities — the Police, the Ministry for Primary Industry, and approved organisations.

3.2 The Police
While every member of the Police is deemed to be an inspector the Police rarely take complaints related to animal welfare breaches and instead refer the complainant to the SPCA.

3.3 MPI
MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.

3.4 Approved organisations

It appears odd to me  that Neil Wells does not  mention his own first hand experience  with running an approved organization .  but for once I  find myself agreeing  with Mr Wells he states

MPI does not have the resources to be able to deliver national enforcement and prosecution services on its own for all animal welfare complaints and is totally dependent on approved organisations. This creates an enormous risk for government.

It transpires the MPI could not even  discern the difference between  a legal  person and  a fiction, a truth and a falsehood .   The falsehoods  from Mr Wells as to the existence of  AWINZ were  swallowed hook line and sinker  and   each obstacle was overcome with   another  tall tale . he goes on to say

There is currently one approved organisation that is authorised to recommend the appointment of Inspectors and through those appointments, to enforce the Act and prosecute offenders — the Royal New Zealand SPCA.

But he doesn’t mention  AWINZ Mr Wells using council  staff which had been offered for use  by his associate  Tom Didovich  without apparent  authority from the  council hierarchy . Wells points out how rare it is to have private law enforcement authorities

There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of animal welfare law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia.

Mr Wells   using the council  staff  and resources prosecuted under the  guise of the fictional AWINZ  and  pocketed the money into an account only he had access too, funds  which he has since used to  haul me through court  so as to cover up the  criminal activity associated with AWINZ.

If we were to adapt the model  which Mr Wells had  set up there would be no need for  funding as it   ensured that public assets were used for private pecuniary gain. I am sure that  any   accountant would tell you that there were serious flaws with Mr Wells model  and to prosecute through an  authority which has no legal existence  ensures that there is no accountability to the public and no one can hold you accountable as  there is no identifiable and sue able person to  take on. the dangers of  this relationship are  expressed by Mr Wells in  this comment

Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of criminal law (animal welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability.

I could not agree more  , when an organization can  increase its income through prosecution  and  incidentally giving people a  criminal conviction  it  becomes very serious , take that one step further  and if there is no organization and the law enforcement authority   is in reality  just one  person  who has obtained law enforcement powers  using a false identity then it has to be SERIOUS , especially when    council, MPI, ministers, OAG  all go out of their  way to cover this up or turn a blind eye to it.

The statements he made  in  his submisson shows  just how serious the matter with regards to the  fictional AWINZ was

The Law Commission in its paper Delivering Justice For All (2004) commented that “the operation of the criminal justice system is the responsibility of the state.” Judge Garland in R v Balfour said that “the SPCA was effectively standing in the shoes of the government.”

In reality therefore  Neil Wells was one person standing in the   shoes of the government , so when I asked the question  why AWINZ did not exist, it was  far easier to  crucify me than it was for any government department   to say  Oops we gave law enforcement authority to  a fictional organisation.

AWINZ has proved that there was a lack of accountability , we still do not know   who  was regarded to be the organisation no one can identify the real people  actually involved.  we know that  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts Neil wells and  Tom Didovich posed as the organsiation and claimed the law enforcement powers as their own  but there is not one document which can be produced from any legitimate source which  supports that claim.

Incidentally it Was Tom Didovich who  supported Wells application  on behalf of Waitakere city council

When the application for approved status  was made there was no trust deed, there was no group of people who had decided to apply for approved  organization  status, there was just Neil Wells and his own business plan for making money .  In 2006 when I discovered that AWINZ did not exist , Neil Wells   tried to contact  four people  who he had spoken to in 1998 who had been recruited  by Didovich  for the possibility of forming a trust with council  to facilitate the delivery of animal welfare services.

Council paid for this through Didovich , but  the persons never met as a trust.  In 2006 there was not a trust deed ( it was claimed to be missing )  and I have conclusively proved that these persons did not form a trust until three months after the application for approved status  was made and that they were not the approved organisation .

Graeme Coutts , Nuala Grove and  Sarah Giltrap were all recruited because of their station in life or perceived station in life , they never met as a trust  and never applied for  approved status  , they were not  the law enforcement authority .

Under Item 17 clause 35 Mr Wells   describes the pilot scheme set up by him to trial   animal welfare in councils , he again fails to mention that it was set up at his  instigation and that this led on to the fictitious AWINZ  being created.

While I commend Mr Wells concern for little furry things  he has  had no such compassion for Humans  especially  when it came to me and my family.  Wells has totally destroyed my family  and  financially stripped me.   Mr Wells in my opinion  is nothing but a criminal at large  who has used the  courts to pervert the course of justice  so as to  conceal his criminal offending.

I do not believe that any one can treat humans and animals  differently , to be cruel to a human ( yes I have suffered at Mr Wells hands for 8 Years )  makes a mockery of the perception of being humanitarian .

If AWINZ had been legitimate ( it was not ) I would have expected Mr Wells to have made mention of it.  His  manner of dealing with AWINZ , or should I say avoiding it in his submission   , to me at least  proves  his guilt .

I think that it is about  time some one dealt with the reality  that AWINZ was nothing more than a name Mr Wells had given himself, he  had  used others to cover up , when they realized how serious things had become ,they could not  back out  for they too had committed  offences through him by  being party to a raft of offences  from being accessory after the  fact to  parties tothe  the offence of using the court to pervert the course of justice.

this was done through a tactic  called

DARVO – Acronym of “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender”.

I was the  whistle blower and  was made out to be the villain   Wells became the Victim picked on by this deranged woman   .  It is a powerful strategy   and   it works in New Zealand especially when you   can show that  you are kind to animals.

Well I am kind to animals and  to humans.. hasn’t helped me.

The victim stance  is a powerful one  . the victim is always morally  right  neither responsible  nor accountable and forever entitled to sympathy

I can prove everything I say   and I am speaking the truth  , I will again send this to Mr Wells and draw this to his attention   so that corrections can be made .

Again I will ask him to provide evidence.. that is the one thing  that those who make things up always lack. If you want  evidence from my side  all you need to do is ask  I have truckloads of the stuff.

I have the petition  calling for a commission against corruption

I asked to circulate it at the   certified fraud examiners meeting and was declined, have approached political parties for support and was declined. I took to the streets and got support .

I now have a petition ready to go its   done  signed  and all it needs  is a minister to  present it .. therein lies the  rub .

have tried a few who  site  conflict of interest   ( what the hec ??? )  but  I obviously have not yet asked those who have  stated that they support the call for a commission  against corruption  so lets  see    who will be  true to their cause.

Today I was sent a link to Lauda Finem  , really good read and  right on the button .

Guess the difference between Australia is chalk and cheese .. or  if you like  Wine and Milk .

New Zealand  can be likened to the small cute child  who thinks they can get away with murder, there is a story to cover every scenario  and we dont look at facts for  the basis of our research instead we look at statistics and other ( carefully selected )  peoples opinions.

This  mode of is evident in the research which Transparency International New Zealand  does . The shinning light  of Transparency International  New Zealand is Susan Snively..In fact I rather suspect that she is the only person  involved an that the others are just there as window dressing .( hence no minutes )

Susan is an economist    Wikipedia defines an  economist as a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy.

In a recent  radio  interview Play now Susan identifies her sources of information , it clearly puts her in the “apply theories and concepts from economics”  category, she speaks of  working from statistics and no where is there any real evidence of actually having spoken  to  the people  who  would be involved  i.e. the women  who she claims are the victims of domestic abuse  or the employers who  she alleges  are  losing  out because of  it.   In other words her  study  research and     outcomes are derived    from second hand information  and  delivered as” fact”

Last Friday  Steve Hart  published his interview of Susan Snively  of transparency International well worth listening to , I will  go through the interview and respond  later.

It is significant to note that she refers to the funding , ( the funders are shown  here ), the corner stone platinum  funder is the office of the auditor general the same  auditor general   who has refused to investigate the misappropriation and misuse of council resources and  the  fraudulent application to  the minister for law enforcement powers and the subsequent issuing  of  coercive law enforcement powers to an organization which does not exist in any legal manner or form.

The  ministry itself plays cat and mouse  and is actively  involved in concealment of corruption  see   MPI conceals corruption by playing cat and mouse   and  MPI apparently condone Neil Wells deception with regards to the fictional AWINZ

Compare that to the resignation of the  Australian state leader  over a $3200  bottle of wine, while Len Brown is still in office  despite having   received  $750,000  from an  unidentifiable  un locatable  private secret trust .. I am told Police investigations are continuing, since the police are not really conversant with trusts  dont hold your breath   .

I think that   the call for a commission  agaisnt corruption cannot  be   soon enough  and it should be an  election issue .

In the mean time   any MP wishing to make a stand agaisnt corruption  in New Zealand, I have a petition ready to go .