Posted by: transparencynz | May 24, 2017

Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions

The officer in charge  prosecutions, copy to minister of justice

This morning I appeared in the  Napier district court

I have been charged with four counts  of ” while a suppression order was in place  Published the name of a person who has been  granted  name suppression”

I have been  bailed  to appear in two weeks time The conditions are to live in the house where I live any way  and not to publish the name of the Practitioner and his former client  with relation to the suppression order .

the  four offences being  as this  one  but on the dates 

18 April 2017  the  post being Was XXXXXXX censured ? is this why this animal welfare lawyer has gone?  ( now sanitized to  comply with bail conditions )

9 May 2017 Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs

17th May 2017 Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

22nd May  2017 Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower

The problem is  in the discovery  which you have supplied me  does not support the charges .  letter to police from justice        alleged suppression order

As a former police prosecutor  I identify the matters which you have to prove  as being

  1. that there was a  legal suppression order
  2. that the suppression order was with regards to the person named
  3. That I knew it was the person named  referred to in  the  article and not just speculation

to that end  you were  to provide me by way of discovery a suppression order, this is the first issue

If you were to search the lawyers and conveyances act  you will note that   there is no scope   for  suppression orders in that legislation .  The word suppression only appears three times see this 


This makes it clear that  there can be no orders for  Name suppression  under the lawyers and conveyances act 

Yet the charge sheet clearly states  that there was a suppression order and I breached it .

The alleged suppression order  that was supplied to me  was almost  totally redacted   showing only two paragraphs

From the redacted version  I  presume that   you rely  on paragraph 28  for  the existence of a  order   yet it states only

” [28] Given that there is no risk to the public posed by this practitioner in the future,we consider that the combination of factors referred to above do, in this unusual set of
circumstances, justify the permanent name suppression of the practitioner, his former client and any identifying details.”

this left me to wonder if there  was an order some where else in the document.   How that I had a court number I ws able to search the tribunals web site and located the full underacted   document the on  the Justice web site  see this link here

reading this document we note that the law society opposed the  the suppression  application  and under   orders   there is no mention of any order  in terms of section 240(1) (c)  and it could well be that the suppression was given   for the purposes of  their published  decision    only.

As such there appears to be no evidence of existence   of an order under section  240(1) (c)  being

240 Restrictions on publication

(1)If the Disciplinary Tribunal is of the opinion that it is proper to do so, having regard to the interest of any person (including (without limitation) the privacy of the complainant (if any)) and to the public interest, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:……

(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.

Since  no such order exists  so it would appear that I have been wrongly charged as  no one can breach an order which has not been made and  section 263 states

Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, acts in contravention of any order made by the Disciplinary Tribunal under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 240(1).

Until  I received the  discovery today I was unaware of  the content of the decision  I was merely commenting on a news item on the law society web site .  “Name suppression granted to censured lawyer

I was not at the hearing  and the information I had was nothing I gained from any  tribunal process but knew from my own involvement with mr X

Mr XXXX is in the habit of telling the  government and other people what to do and they accept that what he tells them  is true  Because he was a barrister. he continually gives false information and again he  has made out  to the case manager  for the tribunal * that there was a decision in his favour when none existed.   As Usual No one checks .

the full version of the decision states

He has been an advisor to Government.

His reputation with  government is such that  he is trusted  to the point that  the trust in him  allows him to perpetrate offences   such as making a fraudulent application to the minister of agriculture for a fictional trust to   be granted law enforcement powers  under the legislation  which he advised on  and wrote to facilitate his own business plan

I have 12 years  of experience of this   and this again is an example of mr XXX saying jump and every one says how high  and again he   gets to  get away with  his crimes. This time he has had me charged when there are no grounds   and because  he says so.

If only 1/10th  of the  effort had gone into him that has gone into me then he would be behind bars.

I will be providing transparency to  this matter through this site  using this  site . I am a whistle blower and in 11 years the police have not acted yet   mr X writes to  the ministry of justice and  within two weeks I am charged with  four offences I could not have  committed .

I look forward to   whistle blowers being taken seriously , I don’t care about mr XXX  health  he did not care about me when  he destroyed my family and repeatedly tried to bankrupt me, his dirty tactics  are un unprecedented.    His ability to call  the authorities to  action show the the regard they have for him and  how   the bias  wold   possibly have prevented investigations in to his  very public fraud  .

I note that this week is anti bullying week  and I can assure you I feel bullied.

Your officers have to ensure that the ingredients of an offence are met  and they fall well short  even to the  extent of supplying me a  redacted document when the full version is publicly available.

Request to prosecutions

Due to your lack of  evidence  I request that

  1. the charges are withdrawn forth with
  2. That I receive an apology
  3. that the police deal with the historic file   relating  to the fraudulent application for law enforcement powers
  4. the use of the  civil court to conceal criminal action
  5. and the identity fraud  practiced   using  various AWINZ trusts.
  6. there is more  e.g. misappropriation of charitable  funds   but   in the fist instance  please  provide the order or  withdraw   the   charges.

Should you continue with the prosecution  I  will be pleading not  guilty  and  will seek indemnity costs for my legal representation  . loss of income  and stress caused.

regards Grace Haden



*as provided by police in discovery

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.