Open letter to Luke Radich of Kayes Fletcher Walker

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.

  1. The RNZSPCA   is a private prosecutor it is an incorporated society.
  2. 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)
  3. 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

Criminal Disclosure Act 2008

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 ?

Criminal Procedure Act 2011

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


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  

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-27.png

… 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 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