Nicholas Simcox of Napier Police bullies Whistleblower because he refuses to investigate serious fraud.

I was just going to bed and checked my emails  and saw the  following from  Nicholas Simcox , I will respond by way of open letter and again copying in the prosecution section .


From: SIMCOX, Nicholas [mailto:Nicholas.Simcox@Police.Govt.NZ]
Sent: Monday, 29 May 2017 8:29 p.m.
Subject: Blog 24/05/2017

Evening Ms Haden

I am writing to advise that by attaching the letter from the Ministry of Justice to your blog, you have again breached the suppression order. You need to remove this letter immediately. You have also breached your Court bail conditions and if you do not remove the post, you run the risk of being arrested for breaching your conditions of bail and will be put back before the Court.

I will be filing a further breach of suppression order charge for your next Court appearance date on 7 June 2017.


Nicholas SIMCOX | Detective | CIB | Crime Squad 4 | NAPIER

My  open letter response to   Nicholas Simcox is

I am very disappointed in your ability to investigate.

It proves to me  why in  over 11 years the police  have not been able to progress the serious fraud   that I have reported with regards to   a fraudulent application for law enforcement powers  under the animal welfare act .

You have charged  me  with four counts of  breaching a suppression order made under the lawyers and conveyancers act  act.

You have quoted the sections as being  breaching an order made under section 240 (1) (c)

I asked for a copy of the order and you sent me  an almost  entirely redacted document  see here alleged suppression order

I hate to have  to tell you how to do your job but the way it works is that there has  to be an order before any one can breach the order.

I would be surprised if   the   office of legal council   from the MOJ  sent this letter to you , it has not been addressed to the police and I would hope that a lawyer would know   that  if a statute states

 240 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

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:

(a)an order prohibiting the publication of any report or account of any part of any proceedings before it, whether held in public or in private:
(b)an order prohibiting the publication of the whole or any part of any books, papers, or documents produced at any hearing:
(c)an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person.
Basically this means that an order has to be made by the tribunal  under “a”  ” b”  or “c ” so where is that order ?

In the on line  version of the document of the document  you appear to rely on ,the full text can be read   it is found here  ..published on the tribunals web site ,( which I found only after you provided me with the   case number) you will note that   there is no order under section 240 (1)  ( a )  (b)  or (c)  so I am really confused as to how you came to inserting an alleged  charge under section  240 1 (c) in the charge document as such an order was never made.

You appear to rely on this document letter to police from justice   which  you gave to me with the persons name  inserted.  Dis you then not breach a suppression order as well .  I note that this is a letter from the  case manager to   their lawyers  not   a complain to the police . You have not  advised how you got to have the complaint , there appears to be no complainant.

The other little technicality is that  no one can breach an order which has not been made .


(1)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).

Please urgently provide me  with the order that you are referring to  .  If you cannot provide an order then you will have to withdraw the charges.

Keeping a practitioners name confidential for the purpose of the tribunal is restricted to those  involved in the processes.  I was not part of that process , I speculated  the identity of the   lawyer  from a new item  and you have  helped  confirm that it was him.

Please read the full   decision  it will show you  the kind of person Mr M  is  and will also reveal to you that the only orders made were

Consequential Orders

[29] We consider that it is proper for the order for repayment of the fee rendered to the complainant by the practitioner, in the sum of $3,648.94, be refunded to the complainant.

[30] We decline to make an order for compensation to cover the costs of subsequent legal advice for the complainant. There are a number of reasons for this. The invoices include attendances at the Citizens Advice Bureau, attendances in relation to the matters for which the complainant will have received value in terms of general legal advice which she would have been required to pay for in any event. Finally, we do not wish to encourage complainants to engage counsel once a complaint is made, given that they are then represented by the Standards Committee counsel and there is a risk of duplication of costs and unfairness thereby to the lawyer concerned. We accept that in this case the complainant was somewhat impaired, however we do not consider this ought to change our approach in this matter.

I suggest that you  also read my bail conditions  it states that  I was not to publish his name  , I therefore would like you to  clarify the   threat of arrest  .   I have not published his name.

I would   further  By way of discovery like to know who the  complainant was  as  who ever it was ,has made a false complaint .  there is no evidence of a complaint and a clerk for the tribunal is not in any position to   dictate to you the   act and section which they  think were breached that letter   is an internal communication,  the only breach of a suppression order is by the  person  releasing that letter to you  and you by releasing that letter to me .

Please do not confuse suppression with  publication  it could be career limiting. I think your out of your depth..It pays to research.

I will be pursuing damages if you do not  immediately provide me with a copy of the order made under section 240 (1) (c) .

If you cannot produce it then  you will have to  withdraw the charges as I cannot breach a fictional order . I will be suing for damages  you are seeking to damage my reputation .

I see your threats as bullying  I have not breached bail  I was bailable as of right and should not have had any  restrictions imposed , the restrictions are that I  must not publish his name or his clients name in relation to he suppression order . I don’t even know who his client was  so how could I possibly breach that  .

Any way in charging me with  the sections you have the charge should read   “did breach a non publication order “.  but  that is where you come unstuck there is no order  and neither is there an offence for breaching suppression  if there was a suppression order .

I look forward to receiving a copy before 10 am tomorrow morning

Go and catch a few real criminals  or spend some time looking at   the fraud complaint which relates to  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand I will help with a daily blog to provide you with the evidence you should be looking at .

regards Grace Haden



Leave a Reply