Posted by: transparencynz | July 14, 2022

Request to Acting Crown Solicitor to correct a miscarriage of justice

I have received a response from the acting crown solicitor

This is my request to him to help resolve this serious miscarriage of justice

Thank you  Gareth   But I fail to  see what the  company or I for that matter has to do with the price of  fish

Please provide me the information on which you relied  I object to    being  named in proceedings  which I  was specifically excluded from and  prevented from  giving   vital evidence on behalf of the   defendants  relating to the  identity of the alleged  prosecutor

I am pleased to see that you are capable of research and hope that the following will assist in determining if you as crown solicitor acted legally or assisted unwittingly in something sinister

The alleged   prosecutor was the Auckland SPCA using an   incorrect name on the charge sheet . the charge sheets as evidenced by the charges for Mafia Zeta Paris Astro were in the name of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals {Auckland) the disposal proceedings before Judge Blackie and Lovell Smith were for THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND (SPCA AUCKLAND)

Both the lower courts in the disposal hearings    which were completed before charges were even  filed   showed that the dogs  were   disposed of the Auckland SPCA

The Auckland SPCA is a separate legal entity to the RNZSPCA   and is  defined the constitution of the RNZSPCA as a member society . see page 37 for definition

The Auckland SPCA was  dissolved in  early 2021  and there was never an amalgamation  of the Auckland SPCA into  the RNZSPCA

The RNZSPCA   gave 5 dogs back  through my involvement in 2019  and found that these dogs had been taken without  any due process or documentation   by Plowright . Plowright also  took puppies and returned them later all  very un-orthodox

There were also puppies unlawfully disposed of  under section 136 AWA   by your office   to  The Auckland SPCA when those dogs were neither seized not  subject to    charges .see the Lovell Smith decision, this was done through Natalie Walker acting as the Crown solicitor

Then there is the issue  that   the  crown solicitor  represented this matter as  a crown prosecution when it was a private  prosecution  even intituling   one document  as  the Queen V .  you will find if you go through the records that the RNZSPCA never instructed your office this came to your office through the Anita Killeen pro bono scheme with the Auckland SPCA . Radich had a cousin who was on the Auckland SPCA Board

Vital evidence  has been withheld   that is the evidence of the council dog control officer Rhys Heatley and puts this case on a par with the findings in the recent Hall matter .

The video  footage  from the inspectors body cameras have been uploaded  here

I have attached a clip taken from the Body worn footage mentioned above which when viewed slowly at 4 seconds in reveals this

Heatley and a dog inside the Barn

further enhancement  shows  a dog  alongside his  right leg  this  dog was the  dog which was allegedly euthanised  and it was tied  with a   rope which we have pictures of Heatley holding earlier

Heatley was also   at the second seizure  and it had not been disclosed that he had visited the scene prior to the  entourage   walking in .  More   body camera  footage which  will be made publicly available will show  Davis  saying the dogs are really very sweet.

As a former long serving police officer I can tell you from experience that abused  dogs are never sweet.

Plowright on the arrival  at the second scene   stands at a distance and says ” take a  photo of her  she is tangled ”  with that  the dog  walks away ..   did he have  great  eyesight? or did he know something about the condition of the dogs before his arrival .

Much was made of the condition of one dogs coat and the tipped over water bowls but he court was not told that this scene was a tainted scene due to people who had not given evidence having been there between Janine taking the dogs there in the morning and the being removed by the Inspectors.

Heatley was also essential as a witness due to allegation through hearsay that he as a dog control officer took a call on the morning and instead of carrying out his own duties he called the SPCA… why was this especially in view of him having received one of the unlawfully disposed of puppies, this has implications of bribery and corruption by a public official .

If he had carried out his duties as a dog control officer the dog control legislation would have legitimised what the inspector’s contorted to be unlawful .

I very much suspect that you were asked to  do the sentencing  and a lawyer must never  knowingly deceive the court   both  Walker and Radich know  exactly what is  going on  . Radich  has   fundamentally been part of the problem  

You will  find that instructions about disqualification    does not come from the RNZSPCA.  The RNZSPCA have only been involved  due to the return of the dogs in 2019 . They gave dogs  back and allowed   Barbara and Janine to own dogs for the  next three years without supervision now they allegedly ask for disqualification for 9 years , if Barbara and Janine were such a threat to dogs why leave them with some 50 dogs from 2017-2022 and then ask for them to be banned from owning them for 9 years !!. That simply does not make sense other than they have to be punished for the act of reporting this to the police

In the interview   it is made clear that   the dogs were taken due to numbers , there is no provision in the  AWA   for   numbers  so  when  the ladies refused to surrender the dogs  Plowright had to be creative and after searching high and low for things they could be charged on in the end the answer was to collude with crown law .

There are so many questions  like

  1. why  did the charges  relate to the day on which the offences occurred  but despite this charges were not filed for nearly one and a half years later
  2. why were the ladies not  told of the alleged charges   at the time  of being interviewed
  3. why was the reason for seizure not disclosed to them while the body worn cameras show reasons which have never been disclosed .
  4. Why  was there a  search warrant unlawfully executed and take all their  private notes and
  5. why was there a need to clone their computer .
  6. why was Heatley in the barn when Plowright claimed he could not get access, yet he saw and was told by Davis that Heatley was in there .. Look at the video it is revealing
  7. why did they need the pedigree papers and why were only the dogs with the imported bloodlines taken

The video also shows how the vet Jess Beer a , safe activist can diagnose animals at 20 feet just before the hay barn clip she can be seen diagnosing a dog in the distance as having an ear infection .

I would never have become involved if I did not believe in the innocence of these ladies , I actually went to the farm and saw the passion of their  desire to breed  champion dogs . The dogs were outstanding   champions and the winter  was  extremely wet and boggy. They were told to build suitable   kennels  but before they  could complete them the  inspectors who were  intending to take the dogs for ulterior reasons , took them  not because they were being harmed  but  to legitimise theft and get their hands on highly valued dogs

  They could not  have pulled this off without the use of the  crown solicitors office has been used to pervert the course of justice and did not act in accordance with  their terms of office

This was a private prosecution    it was never a crown prosecution and the RNZSPCA  has never instructed your office … does that not matter!!!!

I hope that you can see that you have  been used to front these proceedings  to  give it legitimacy and using  your  lack of knowledge as to the background to deal with the aspect that a lawyer must never knowingly deceive the court  , your colleagues have not been honest with you  because both of them would be deceiving the court if they had fronted the sentencing.

We have placed this in the hands of the police    I had a theft  complaint filed  earlier  in my investigations  and  we have now   got the police following up due to the discovery of this vital    footage

Another   matter which we   have   uncovered is that the  microchip numbers were not taken  and there is no evidence at all that   the dogs taken were identified correctly or were even dogs   which came from  the  seizure classic identity  fraud  but with  dogs.

Similarly  dogs went to the pound   I have  attached the vet reports which were deliberately withheld ..Mafia Zeta Paris Astro  I have attached evidence  by link   to  each of the names  as you can see the  information  came  directly from the AUCKLAND SPCA   .  

Logic prevails  that  if  the ladies were charged and found guilty of having  sick dogs   and the  dogs were taken from them and held untreated in kennels  for  4 weeks then the RNZSPCA   must also be   guilty of the same charges  because due to the evidence they knew the  dogs were sick but  did not wash or care for them for  2 weeks . this needs to be subject of charges against the RNZSPCA but what is the bet that the RNZSPCA will say that they never seized the dogs .

I hope that you can see that this is serious  Gareth     and   I  believe that   the evidence   I have provided to you   should  result in an application to the court to have this fraud on the court  and on the   crown solicitors office  rectified .

The ladies did not have a fair trial , it was no public or fair  and  vital   evidence was  withheld   manipulated or contorted .

You may wish to have a look at the video link I posted from Malcolm Roberts  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 the interest of transparency  I  have published this  email   please note that it  is  shared with overseas groups  who are interested in the corruption of  SPCAs  world wide  , you can play your part in justice by acting to correct the wrong doing by the office which you as acting crown solicitor represent

I look forward to seeing you act in accordance with your terms of  office and section 4 Lawyers and conveyancers act especially the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

I hope that you see merit in liaising with the solicitor  general  now that you know that  the terms have not been  complied with and a private prosecution    with no instructions  has been advanced to the stage where animals have been   disposed of  , destroyed and the lives of  two women ( and their families ) have been totally devastated  though   deceit .

I hope that I am not wrong in believing that you are the person to  bring about justice and resolution .

Regards Grace Haden

Response received

text reads :

Given that you are neither one of the defendants nor their legal counsel, I do not intend to respond to the content of your email.

my reply 6.23 pm

Thank you  I will publish your response  

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.