gareth@kfw.co.nz
Good afternoon Gareth .
I believe you represented the CROWN this morning in the sentencing of Janine and Barbara in a private prosecution brought by what appears to be inspectors acting in a must unethical if not unlawful manner . the sentencing has been reported in the press at this link
I have heard that you accused me of being the new owner of the german shepherd dogs and by way of privacy act request I would like to know how you established that alleged fact or if in reality you are not too concerned with presenting fiction to the court.
It worries me that you tried to implicate me in these proceedings, I can assure you that my cat would not be happy with me adopting dogs.
Was this statement a reflection of the facts which you rely on for bringing what you have called a “crown prosecution” or were you simply trying to discredit me to the court.
By way of privacy act I would like to know the source of your information or an explanation as to why you made this alleged fact up to knowingly mislead the court
I will also be more than happy to publish your response or are you going to ignore me just as you did when I snet on the email below redirected to you when Natalie went off on study leave
It appears to me that you do not rely on facts as this was not a crown prosecution for reasons stated below.
I look forward to hearing from you but guess I should not hold my breath
regards Grace Haden
From: grace>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2022 1:22 pm
To: complaints@mpi.govt.nz
Cc: natalie@kfw.co.nz; board.secretary@spca.nz; info@investus.co.nz; jane.holland@bellgully.com; julie.sellar@bupa.co.nz; bobbie@onla.co.nz; david.heald@bakertillysr.nz; ‘Senator Malcolm Roberts’ <senator@malcolmrobertsqld.com.au>
Subject: complaint with regards the RNZSPCA totally ignoring prosecution guidelines ,MOU and bill of rights lack of accountability to the public attachment referred to is located at this link
For the attention of Mr Ray Smith
Copy for the board of the RNZSPCA and crown solicitor’s office and senator Malcolm Roberts
During the formation of the One SPCA, due to lack of apparent supervision some inspectors saw an opportunity to obtain high value dogs.
This apparent “copycat” tactic has been reported on in Australia by Senator Malcom Roberts https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/is-the-rspca-a-charity-or-a-dodgy-business/ published in June 2021 “Much of RSPCA’s revenue is gained from seizing animals from their owners under the rouse of falsely claiming that the animals are not being treated appropriately. A common feature of the RSPCA’s approach involves the RSPCA harassing owners who appear to have fewer means and lack the ability to challenge the RSPCA in court.”
In 2017 Volkerson Kennels were the top breeders of German Shepherds, this was due to the unique imported blood lines of their dogs.
There are two main suspects Kevin Plowright and Rhys Heatley, a Waikato District Council Dog Control Officer.
I believe that these men , who have both since left their respective employment used this tactic to secure the specialist traits of these dogs to set up their own business.
Heatley through the Council, ensured that all the dogs at Volkerson were identified by their microchip numbers. Vets were called in to ensure that all microchip numbers were recorded on their farm of the dogs and all dogs identified.
They then liaised with their contacts at the New Zealand Kennel Club for the pedigrees of the dogs. We have to ask What does their pedigree have to do with things? Well Everything, apparently , when it comes to selecting a dog for your business venture.
In August 2017 Head Inspector Plowright and his associate 2nd in Charge Lauri Davis who is either ignorant or in on it, called at the farm and coerced Barbara who was then aged 78 to hand over 5 dogs on the pretext that they had too many dogs.
Since when does the SPCA have the power to do that . this was simple coercion and testing the water of compliance and getting a base line of stock dogs for the deceit which was to follow
Barbara and Janine live on a large rural property, the property does not have a restriction as to the number of dogs they can have. Too many dogs would only be an issue for the SPCA if the dogs were not being cared for. Barbara has been breeding German Shepherds since 1960 , the farm is typical of a farm with old buildings and sheds .
Plowright claimed that the areas the dogs were being kept in were not suitable and directed them to build new kennels which they did.
Before the kennels were completed he returned. He came on 12 October 2017 with Laurie Davis and Nicole, and decided to take more dogs. They made no mention of this on the day but returned the following day with a document printed with the VOLKERSON kennel name and a lot of blank spaces which Lauri Davis filled in with the dog’s names and reason they were taken.
It is clear from the Body camera footage that they were taking as many dogs as they could . The dogs were numbered 1-15 and the document seen on the Body Worn Camera has never been produced instead a blank list with just the dog’s names was left for Barbara and no reason as to why the dogs were taken .
On the 13th October 2017 they were accompanied by SPCA Vet Jess Beer who from the body worn camera footage 13;00;53 appears to be able to spot ear infections from 20 meters away – an external examination, she is a self-declared SAFE activist and an associate of the “ independent “ vet who gave evidence at the hearing and who had prepared her brief of evidence even before charges were filed and without ever having visited the scene
On 13 October Jess Beer can be heard asking if they should record microchip numbers and both Plowright and Davis respond “no no no”. and this is where the deception began .
They go round the farm like kids in a candy shop and miraculously select the imported blood lines while leaving other dogs which have domestic lineage. There are other charges in court eventually for dogs simply identified as two males in the cattle yard .
Time is everything you can take a dog to the corner dairy and leave it outside , it is an entirely different thing to leave it there overnight . Not one of the charges the ladies were to face took into account the temporary nature of the situation the dogs were in nor the fact that it was recorded the day earlier that these dogs were not in that location
In all 15 dogs were taken, 2 Bitches were in whelp.
From here, we do not know what happens to the dogs, as there is no list of microchips seized, no list of village numbers, no time of arrival at the SPCA and no time and date of examination by a vet.
It is very possible that dogs were swapped out and that the dogs which were seen by the vets were not the dogs seized.
This is supported by the fact that the dogs were disposed of before charges were filed and Barbara and Janine were prevented from visiting their dogs or having their vets provide a second opinion.
The vet reports show that one dog was “Sable” which is not a colour which Volkerson has also long haired dogs became short hair and vice versa.
The charges were such that they were relevant to the time of seizure so the next quest ion has to be “why did they have to wait over a year for the charges to be filed .
In fact the charges were only filed after all the disposal Hearings were out of the way. Was this is so that the dogs could not be referenced or held as evidence? I suspect that dogs were disposed of but those dogs were not the valuable blood lines which had been selected , those had long gone.
One example is a dog called Monty ,Monty was microchipped, Yet he was microchipped at the SPCA and recorded.. no doubt this was a dog which then became “ Monty”
In November 2017 Janine was interviewed , generally the issues to which the charges relate were not raised in the interview
The interview was all about coercion to surrender page 28 “I can mention there’s no course of action decided at this stage. Anything can happen from here” Lauri Davis on page 30 states “And we need you to understand, we, you know, we seized 15 dogs from your property on the 13th of October. That was purely failing to comply with instruction. There, you know, we could’ve taken a lot –“
Kevin Plowright page 37 states “We’re here because of failed compliance. It’s the only reason we’re here.”
Page 42 makes very strong suggestions of confidentiality if dogs are surrendered.
Section 130 has provisions for dealing with lack of compliance the legal provisions do not include coming in and taking them the law and the legislation was deliberately ignored.
From the interview it is very clear that the charges were dreamt up after the dogs had been seized and the expected surrender did not eventuate . The inspectors had made up their mind that the dogs were not going to come back despite the new kennels having been built and the chief inspector of the Auckland SPCA Greg Reid was bold enough to say so
There was never any notice of noncompliance and their own body worn camera footage shows the new kennels ready in November 2017, six and half weeks before the deadline of 31.12.2017. There was no non compliance and any action would have failed, they wanted the dogs and the path taken was the only one available to them some of these dogs blood lines were selling over seas for up to a million dollars
The two bitches in whelp produced some 20 puppies, the number is not known and fluctuates when looking at records as pups disappeared, were allegedly eaten and then a dog with a totally different village number showed up in the records as deceased. One pup was born in a crate, the mother had already whelped 7 puppies at VSA, in the back of a moving SPCA van. DOA at Mangere.
Pregnant bitches were x-rayed.
There were charges with regards to having not cared for sick animals; these dogs were in the Pukekohe Pound for 2 weeks before being vet examined, therefore this must mean that by default the RNZSPCA is guilty of having had the dogs in their care and not having tended to them.
By default Charges should then be brought to the RNZSPCA for having seized dogs which they claimed were ill . By having those charges proved it naturally follows by default that the RNZSPCA must also be guilty of having sick dogs in their care and not providing them with care .
These dogs which were allegedly covered in “Faeces” stained fur were in that condition when they were examined on the 27th October 2017, they were seized on the 13th October 2017. This means that if they were allegedly ill to start with, this would not have exasperated the situation and if they were in that condition on the 13th why allow this to continue ?
As a former Police Prosecutor I am very aware of the chain of evidence and I would have expected to have seen business records showing the microchip numbers of the dogs seized on the day. A chain of evidence as to where the dogs were for every second until examined by a vet. I would have wanted to see the vet make a statement ”I checked the dog’s microchip number and recorded it as and I found “ instead we don’t even know what time they were examined or when they arrived at the SPCA.
Reference is made to SPCA village numbers but there is a disjoint to the actual identification of the dogs seized
The seizure itself was a circus, there were two dogs in the hay barn, on forcing open the liftable bolt with a concrete builders block and leaving things for approximately 10 minutes (as shown on Body Worn Camera footage) a dog was found in a crate tied up in a most unnatural contrived position. Plowright had made a show of not being able to get in, but his body camera footage, exposed a brief glimpse of Rhys Heatley inside the shed having entered from the opposite end.
We have provided a chronology of events as per attached showing stills from the BWC footage . Through the gap in the doors captured on Plowright Body worn camera is a shot of Heatley inside the shed Enhancement of the shot brings out the outline of a dog walking beside him. From there Plowright whacks the door with a brick and there is considerable delay before the constrained dog is discovered
The back doors through which Heatley gained entry are left open . It’s the small details which give them away
This dog was allegedly euthanized due to the injury on her leg which in itself begs belief as amputation, tendon surgery (Prof Andrew Worth Massey University Working Dog specialist) could surely have been considered and how an area not even an abrasion became a festering wound can only be attributed to a swap out of animals or bad veterinary practice.
Most importantly, Janine and Barbara were never allowed to have a second opinion on any of the allegations and their vets were not welcome, this would no doubt have undone the whole plan and proved that the dogs which were at the SPCA were not the Prized Volkerson dogs . Independent follow up from the SPCA records and DNA testing will prove this
It was only after the interview failed to secure surrender of the dogs that they began collating evidence for charges
In January 2018 disposal proceedings began and the crown prosecutor was engaged
In March 2018, a search warrant was executed we have extensive body worn camera footage of the search and it was a free for all fishing expedition and all evidence that Janine and Barbara had collated was taken and has never seen the light of day again, the search warrant was invalid but apparently that doesn’t count highly now days nor the fact that their computer was taken, cloned and accessed their emails months later. No inventory was ever provided beyond a very short document with less than half a dozen items
In all there was an excessive number of interactions and “ visits “ Plowright was convinced that dogs were being hidden, anyone associated with the ladies had a visit and this ensured that no one supported them as their friends were all afraid that they would be targeted next. In December when Janine was visiting a friend with one dogs and her pups Plowright pulled out and started exercising his powers . Several days later the lady had a visit from dog control who had been asked to go there and pick up dogs :- she did not have any
In May 2018, 6 dogs were at the rear of the property. They had been on a training run and were resting while their kennels were being cleaned. This raid was instigated by Dog Control who through hearsay evidence of Plowright, allegedly phoned Plowright after getting a barking dog complaint from a neighbour over a kilometre away. Heatley and Plowright went in through the rear of the property from the neighbouring farm and interfered with the scene while the rest of the crew detained Janine and stopped her from going back for the dogs.
It was alleged that the dogs were left without water it is suspected and highly probable that the water was tipped out when the scene was interfered with . Plowright’s BWC shows him walking up to the dogs and he states: ” take a photo of that one, it is tangled”. With that, the dog stands up and walks away. How did Plowright know it was tangled from that distance? If he left it tangled then this is not a very SPCA thing to do again it is strangely similar to the scene in the hay barn.
The dogs were taken and Heatley can be heard to say on BWC “you’re going to stay with me for a few days” after the dogs are loaded into his vehicle on 18 May 2018 at 14:30 pm. If Heatley had done his job, the dogs would not have committed any offence under the Dog Control Act but the language of Plowright on the way to recover the dogs, just proves he was on a mission and revenge for not surrendering certainly comes to mind.
We do not have a time of the dogs arriving at the SPCA nor what time they were examined by the vet, which brings up the question as to identification of the dogs at the SPCA, why did the dogs go with Heatley and which dogs actually arrived at the SPCA and why were dogs being paraded around at the Mangatangi fire station was there a big reshuffle going on ?
The charges were filed in November 2018, after the second lot of dogs had been disposed of. Both sets of dogs were disposed of to the Auckland SPCA
The disposal applications were made by the crown solicitor herself in the name of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland (SPCA Auckland). Both judges accepted that the organisation was the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland (SPCA Auckland) registration number 222889 which is listed in the constitution of the RNZSPCA as a member society .
The registration number of the RNZSPCA is 218546 both organisations are separate legal entities and had their own respective boards .
All documents all action was undertaken in the name of the Auckland SPCA
The dogs were disposed of by the Auckland SPCA and at a time before charges were filed and the ladies were not advised of what they had been charged with, even when the charges were filed, they were not fully and fairly informed and the identity of the dogs which are specific to the charge was never proved.
The chief inspector of he RNZSPCA in 2019 become involved in returning five more dogs which had been taken By Plowright in 2019 without documentation and without supporting evidence , she claimed to have no knowledge of the proceedings and resigned not long afterwards
In the first disposal, the puppies which were neither seized nor the subject of charges were disposed of under Section 136, when there is no provision for this and they were disposed of unlawfully by the crown solicitor. This shows the lack of detail and regard for the law exercised by the crown solicitor’s office
The name of the prosecutor was then swapped out and the prosecutor became the RNZSPCA this was done without any apparent jurisdiction of he court to make this change and without consent of the board of the RNZSPCA to take on this prosecution which they had no oversight of.
Andrea Midgen the CEO of the Auckland SPCA and later the CEO of the RNZSPCA , used the scenario for its fullest fundraising potential and the kennels were labelled a puppy farm leaflets went to many households in the country and the case received much publicity which resulted in death threats to Barbara
The Waikato dog control officer , Heatley did not file any reports and more significantly we can show through his own Facebook posts that he received one of the puppies from first seizure which puts him into a situation of having been bribed in his position as a public servant
No witness statement was provided by Heatley and he was not available for cross examination. This is despite that crown solicitor stating that the statement was still to come, this is a crucial witness statement deliberately withheld.
It was not obvious until the hearing, that Heatley and Plowright had been on the property before they “discovered the dogs out the back” and Heatley needs to explain the dog in the picture in the hay barn and if a dog was tangled when he was in there, why he left the animal unattended.
In reality if the call on the second occasion had been taken by Heatley and he had dealt with it under the Dog Control Act there was no offence and no reason for removal of the dogs as no offence would have been made out , instead the ladies are being threatened with prison
Filing of charges
The charges were filed by Plowright. It appears that there was no internal oversight of the filing of the charges and Luke Radich , crown solicitor allegedly formulated the charges which were 79 in total.
In my day this was called throwing the book at someone . The prosecution guidelines were ignored as was every safeguard which the law provides
The procedures and policies for prosecution in the SPCA were not adhered to
There was no oversight from the board or management it appears that the prosecution was solely in the hands of Plowright and the now compromised crown solicitor which was acting against the direction in the terms of office where they should not be undertaking any private prosecutions
Not only was this a private prosecution but there was no authority from the board which was allegedly the prosecutor as required by section 12 Criminal procedure act.
The MOU and the technical standards were ignored and there is no evidence of the SPCA National Inspectorate being involved
There is no evidence that either the inspectors or the crown solicitors office adhered to the prosecution guidelines and the bill of right was totally ignored
As was the Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Procedure Act
This legislation has built in safe guards for private prosecutions because the crown solicitor became involved and intituled the documents with the word crown, the prosecution did not follow the path for private prosecutions .
No section 187 document was filed
If the charges had been through a robust oversight it begs belief as to how they came to be filed in the name of fictional entity the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Auckland )
Section 13 of the criminal procedure act states that the act must be complied with and to have a crown solicitor lending credibility, to what appears to me, to be criminal offence on the part of the inspectors, and by ignoring statutory provisions which are intended to give protection to defendants is dangerously close if not actually , perverting the course of justice and act in which the crown cannot be complicit
Trial process.
The matter was to be trial by jury, but this changed at the last moment. Barbara was not allowed a support person, I know that because it was to have been me.
This was not a public hearing and it was not fair due to the lack of compliance with the Bill of Rights and the Prosecution Guidelines and Criminal Procedure Act.
Barbara saw her solicitors for the very first time that day, she had paid for lawyers when they suddenly pulled out, it appeared to me that they had been threatened. A lot of pressure was put on Barbara, now aged 83 to enter a plea of guilty.
The crown solicitor took on the prosecution and ignored every safeguard that is there to protect defendants.
The documents were even intituled at one time the Queen V and even the exhibits for the trial were labelled crown exhibits. This is deceptive and misleading and gave the prosecution an appearance of having been through robust and accountable
The Solicitor General’s guidelines were totally ignored, so much so that the charges were filed in the name of a fictional organisation. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland).
The Auckland SPCA is defined in the constitution of the RNZSPCA as being its own separate legal entity.
It is quite clear that neither the Auckland SPCA or the RNZSPCA board consented to the prosecution being undertaken and there has been no independent oversight.
The book has been thrown at the ladies to make the matter complicated and overwhelm them as was the mountains of alleged evidence which then never saw the light of day.
Janine was prevented from referring to the vet reports and the body worn camera footage which would have supported her evidence.
There were two sets of evidence books the second was introduced during the hearing and differed from the original booklet provided to the defendants before the hearing
The crown solicitor totally ignored the legislative framework under which he was supposed to work and treated the matter as a crown prosecution rather than the private prosecution which it was. He changed the category three charges at the 11th hour so that they could go before a judge alone, this is because he had not filed the pre-requisite documents for a trial by jury.
Evidence was deliberately withheld in the hearing and no body camera footage which would have proved the innocence of the ladies was withheld as were the vet reports.
Not one business record was produced, so there was no chain of evidence and in the end the Judge preferred the evidence of the SPCA and the crown solicitor because she felt that there would have to be too many people in on it.
The reality is that the vets may have been totally honest with their findings, it is just that the dog they examined was not the dog which was seized.
This is a well-orchestrated scenario, it will lead to a serious miscarriage of justice if the ladies are sentenced.
Action after the hearing
When the decision was delivered I had Janine go through the body camera footage and we have found that using their own evidence we can show that that the court was consistently misled in the end it came down to the judge preferring one story rather than the other because of the reputation attributed to the prosecutor and crown law
We have compiled many discrepancies the largest one of all is the scene in the shed which with the devil being in the detail is limited to a few frames inadvertently captured By Plowright
We urgently request intervention as this can only set a precedent for the SPCA to walk up to any one and say we will give you confidentiality if you hand your animals over, otherwise we will crucify you.
We hope that you can take this seriously as the SPCA has to have accountability to the public. It may well be that the new board of the RNZSPCA is as horrified with this as we are and decide that they have been set up as well
In that case they need to urgently advise that the prosecution was never authorised in their name
Request for MPI
To that end, we seek, aside from a full investigation, all business records which will trace the dogs from the minute they were seized until they were disposed of.
An investigation as to who the prosecution agency was and establish the identification of the dogs disposed of to the “ forever homes “
This has the potential of impacting on the ability of the RNZSPCA to hold approved status and it appears that the fundamental requirement of accountability to the public has been missing as they do not even acknowledge the rights under the bill of rights
Regards
Grace Haden
VeriSure
Because truth matters
BOdy worn camera footage has been uploaded to https://vimeo.com/user178471461
Leave a Reply