Transparency New Zealand

FYI request

Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

IN November 1999 Neil Wells who has now been acknowledged to have been a corrupt lawyer , made an application for the coercive law enforcement powers provided by the animal welfare act.

Neil Wells had drafted and advised on the legislation and basically wrote it to facilitate his own business plan see here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-conte…

He made a fraudulent application claiming legal existence of AWINZ your own records prove that on 1 may 2007 MAF recognized that AWINZ had no legal existence http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten…

MAF had entered into a MOU with AWINZ http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten… as if it was a body corporate in its own right

Evidence that it was not a body corporate is found here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten….

In 2006 I reported to MPI that AWINZ had no legal standing as an entity . MAF did nothing except be obtrusive and believe Neil Wells , MPI has continued to be obstructive, I personally attribute this to the conflict of the chief legal officer who was a crown solicitor at the time of the application and failed to check the legal standing of AWINZ , hence and investigation into AWINZ would highlight his oversight at the time http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten…

I realize that I have had all the documentation and the documentation that I have proves that MAF and now MPI condoned this public fraud and allowed a fictional organisation to continue to administer animal welfare law on the public

By way of OIA I would like to know the legal means by which the MPI can condone fraudulent applications for approved organisations and how it possibly thought that an organisation which did not exist and had no evidence of existing could possibly have responsibilities to the criteria provisions of the act.

I further request all documents in which MPI consider the consequences of contracting to a undefined name and discussions where by a decision was made not to investigate this public fraud and conceal it

If MPI considered that this was not fraudulent then I would like to see all documentation which they relied on that proved that AWINZ had legal existence

The situation is ironically that AWINZ could not have got a bank loan for $10 yet MAF gave it coercive public law enforcement powers. While this is bad it does not compare to the 15 years of the concealment of this corruption by failing to investigate the fraudulent application

The public need to have confidence in the MPI and this fraud has been ignored for too long, I am still under attack by one of the lawyers who was instrumental in the initial cover up I am a whistleblower and want the attack on me to stop by getting the government department which had responsibility to the public to act responsibly .

The manner in which AWINZ had been dealt with brings into question
the competency of MPI to supervise the one and only approved organisation which now has a changed constitution and appears to be acting in conflict of interest and using their inspectorate to promote the interests of animal welfare activists .

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

Good afternoon Attorney General

Please find here with my request for an inquiry into the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand

Request to Attorney General under section 58

This is not just any ordinary trust AWINZ claimed to have law enforcement powers under the animal welfare act.

In the detailed document attached I have shown how the application for Law enforcement powers was fraudulent and it has been covered up by the creation of several trusts and groups of persons posing as trusts.

The charities commission directed my complaint to you .

This is a matter which touches the heart of corruption in New Zealand s I have found that in 8 years it has been impossible to expose this perfect fraud.

I will be attending an international anti corruption conference this month I am therefore publishing my request on the transparency web site so that it is transparent .

Regards
Grace Haden

While researching    a lawyer I had cause to look at the list of lawyers who have been censured, struck off or dealt with  by the law society

I came across one item “Name suppression granted to censured lawyer”  everything about it screams  Neil Wells to me

looking at the detail in this matter and snip bits  that I have  picked up over the years.

I have known all along that Neil Wells  was counting on a hefty chunk of the estate of one old lady in  Titirangi , the lady had  no family and supported animal welfare.

Even in the early days  she  was  involved with the various animal welfare projects in Waitakere city .

she wrote this letter in 1996 and there was a response from Tom Didovich . this was just afterNeil Wells had published his plans for his own business plan  as set out in the territorial animal welfare services  document he  produced.

the letter indicated that  that she had been told something and was checking it out for herself.

Neil Wells was also in the process of writing the No 1 bill for the animal welfare act  , and into the bill he   inserted    the ability for  other organisations other than the RNZSPCA to become  law enforcement powers under the new legislation .

Neil Wells became ” independent” adviser to the select committee and as soon as the  bill became law he made an application   under a false name .

He told the minister lies  and  misled Maf    with regards to the structure and nature of  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.  he operated it from the council premises and rebranded the council buildings  so that they looked as thought  they were  a private organisation.

In 2006 when I asked  questions  with regards to the lack of existence of AWINZ (  animal welfare institute of New Zealand ) Neil Wells concocted a trust deed for a similarly named trust   he stuffed up on the dates  and formed the trust   for a date three months into the future of when the application was made . according to these affidavits  the trustees never met  and as a result two trust deeds materialized  this one  and this one   you will note that the  center pages of the second one are different .

So The old lady who I presume was his client in the censure matter  was not the only one to be deceived , but she must have smelt a rat years later when Neil Wells moved to Te Kuiti and  was telling people at the local SPCA that he was getting her money.

Neil Wells at the time was  the chairman of Te Kuiti RNZSPCA   and  set in motion the charities demise .

In 2016 He did not renew his  practicing certificate

I very much suspect that the item  above relates to him.  this fine upstanding  citizen  who  lied to the minister  is still being protected .  he was held up  as being a person with an impeccable   nature and I am the tart who defamed him.

But How do you defend defamation when the statutory defence of truth and honest opinion  are denied  by the court.

Hardly a fair  go is it.  Andrew little would have lost too if he  could not have had a jury  or a defence. You denied me  the defence of truth and honest opinion, broke my marriage up  and you call yourself a christian.

Neil Wells when are you going to  admit your sins    You will be judged.

Its not how we are judged in this world its  how we are judged in the next..    my conscience is clear  how is yours Neil Wells?

https://vimeo.com/721651790/E3458_E3457_BCU_A1a045_2017-10-12_222929000_1035447929.MOV

To the Ministers of MPI

Request to the Ministers Based on the evidence below:-

I request a full investigation as to the suitability for a private organisation to hold coercive public law enforcement powers.

The evidence suggests that the structure and management of the new SPCA is not suitable in the interest of the public for it to hold the law enforcement powers of Section 121

Please note I have provided a summary and the full

evidence is attached with active hyperlinks

In the interest of transparency I will be publishing this request at the  link below  and  dispersing it  to media and interested  persons

PDF is found Here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Request-for-review-of-suitability-of-the-RNZSPCA-to-hold-approved-organisation-Status.pdf

Full text below

d.parker@ministers.govt.nz

d.oconnor@ministers.govt.nz

s.nash@ministers.govt.nz

m.whaitiri@ministers.govt.nz

Official Information Act request and request for review of compliance of the SPCA Section 123 (1) (a)

To the Minister of MPI 

Request to the Minister Based on the evidence below:-

 I request a full investigation as to the suitability for a private organisation to hold coercive public law enforcement powers.

The evidence suggests that the structure and management of the new SPCA is not suitable in the interest of the public for it to hold the law enforcement powers of Section 121

I have provided a summary with the full text below

Please note that evidence is attached through active hyperlinks  

Summary

1. The RNZSPCA has undergone transformation and has a different composition and constitution to the organisation which was given the transitional approved organisation status under the Animal Welfare Act.
2. This document examines the criteria for an approved organisations and seeks an investigation  due to the closure of regional centres and conduct of inspectors.
3. We draw on two examples the closure of Waipukerau and the prosecution of Volkerson Kennels
4. Change of structure the objects of constitution have changed from preventing cruelty to animals  to giving animals a better life.
5. The membership has changed from a wide base of members selecting their representatives to a small group of persons who annually review membership applications for the current financial year.
6. The assets were held by local committees run by volunteers now all the assets are vested in a corporate body which sees volunteers as superfluous.
7. The business structure has grown to include many other ventures including investment and insurance. The equity has grown in 3 years by $40 million, yet centres which run at a loss are being closed down and sold up depriving communities of readily available Animal Welfare  Services.
8. The persons involved in the organisation and its subsidiaries are predominantly accountants  many share a common background and the current chairman and the first  One SPCA chairman  are involved in multiple common private business ventures.
9. The  member society, Auckland SPCA has taken over the RNZSPCA and disposed of the smaller centres by tactics which may not stand scrutiny. 
10. The CEO is a jill of all trades and appears to act independently of the Board.
11. Locals have been disenfranchised and all former members are now no longer members except for the honorary members who don’t get updates.
12. The organisation which differs vastly from its historical structure trades on the reputation of the old incorporation.
13. This private enterprise is not subject to the Official Information Act and lacks transparency.
14. MPI has oversight of the legislation and has documentation in place which appear not to be  updated in the agreed time frames and the RNZSPCA is not held accountable to the breaches of the rules.
15. The author of the Animal Welfare Act noted in a submission to parliament in 2013 “There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of Animal Welfare Law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia.”
16. Senator Malcolm Roberts in 2021 noted “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.”
17. This was a full year after I had assisted in filing a complaint with the police with regards to the theft of pedigree German Shepherd Dogs by the SPCA . Barbara the owner is now 83 and had been breeding Champion German Shepherds since the 1960s. Her kennel was the Number 1 Champion kennel in 2017.
18. This matter which has  just been determined in the court is a travesty of justice winning included
19. 39 visits to the kennels alleging that there were too many dogs.
20. Coercing the handover of 5 dogs.
21. Ordering them to build new kennels but seizing 15 dogs before the kennels were completed within the time frame specified.
22. Failing to follow procedures for alleged noncompliance with Section 130 notices which had not expired. 
23. Failing to record Microchip numbers.
24. Failing to properly diagnose the dogs on site.
25. Use of a SAFE activist vet to select and remove dogs.
26. Using a coercive interview to encourage surrender of the dogs induced by no charges confidentiality and being left enough dogs to breed from.
27. Tampering with evidence and scenes.
28. Using a fake search warrant and cloning their computer and taking diaries and personal notes collated for their defence for Disposal Hearings.
29. Disposing of the dogs before charges were even filed.
30. Filing charges   over a year after having seized the dogs.
31. Failing to give the dogs proper care and refusing to allow the defendants vets to give an independent assessment.
32. Failing to comply with the technical standards. 
33. Using the Crown Solicitors as Pro Bono counsel who represented the prosecution as a Crown Prosecution resulting in the decision reading the Queen V .
34. Withholding evidence and vital witnesses.
35. Changing the prosecutor from Auckland SPCA to RNZSPCA.
36.  Breaching the Bill of Rights, Criminal Procedure Act noncompliance with the Solicitor Generals’ Guidelines and the technical procedures.
37. And much more
38. The lack of compliance with the law, the procedures and standards have brought into question  is the criteria which must be complied with.
39. Section 123 allows for the Minister to revoke approved status if the Minister is satisfied that 
    1. (a) the organisation no longer meets any 1 or more of the criteria set out in Section 122; or
    1. (b) the organisation has failed to comply with any condition imposed under Section 122(2); or
    1. (c) the organisation has failed to comply with any condition imposed under Section 122(5).
40.  Based on the evidence collated Section 122 (1) (a)-(e)  are not complied with due to
    1. That despite its constitution the purpose of the organisation appears to be financial  rather than in the interest of animals .
    1. The management of the organisation is not from members up but from Directors  down , i.e.  the power is always with the Directors they pick and choose the membership not the other way round as has been customary for incorporated societies.
       1. The  financial arrangement are that profit appears to be more significant than animals.
       1. There is no transparency or accountability to the public or even to MPI.
       1. The Board does not appear to be involved and the functions have been delegated to an employee the CEO.
    1. The organisation aligns itself with Activist and Animal Rights Group and appears to offer their inspectorate services to outside organisations.  There has been   infiltration of the organisation by persons from activist groups such as SAFE.
    1. Inspectors appear to be working without supervision of the Board.
    1. The inspectors make up the rules and do not act in an ethical legally defendable manner and use unscrupulous means to win in court.   This is evidenced by their evidence in court compared to the Body Worn Camera footage which we have  uploaded for transparency.  

Text and Evidence 

1. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 is administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
2. The Minister is defined in Section 2  as the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act.
3. It appears uncertain therefore which one of  the Ministers  administers the Animal Welfare Act and has the legal powers under Section 122 and 123  (1) (a).
4. I am therefore addressing this to the following Ministers 

Hon David Parker – Minister for Oceans and Fisheries

Hon Damien O’Connor – Minister of Agriculture, Biosecurity, and Rural Communities

Hon Stuart Nash – Minister of Forestry

Hon Meka Whaitiri – Minister for Food Safety, Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare)

• The RNZSPCA is an approved organisation under the Animal Welfare Act by virtue of Section 189.
• Approved organisations exist by virtue of the criteria in Section 122.
• Section 123 allows for the Minister to revoke approved status if the Minister is satisfied that 
  • (a) the organisation no longer meets any 1 or more of the criteria set out in Section 122; or
  • (b) the organisation has failed to comply with any condition imposed under Section 122(2); or
  • (c) the organisation has failed to comply with any condition imposed under Section 122(5).
• I hereby request a  full ministerial investigation into the RNZSPCA with view of having the powers revoked under Section 123.

Changed Structure, Governance and Monopoly of the RNZSPCA

• In 1999 when the organisation was approved for the purposes of the Act, it was governed by this 1995 constitution  found at this link .
• The  rules were changed in 2015 to this constitution and again in 2017 to this one and again just recently 21 June 2022  to this.
• Through amendments  to the constitution the objects/purpose of the society has changed and the powers of  the board has been extended .There  now appears to be few ,if any common grounds between the 1995 constitution which was in effect in 1999 and the constitution which has recently been adopted.
• Another massive difference is that in 2017 there were 7 member societies and some 38  branches, now it appears that there is a closed membership with a few unidentifiable persons in  total control of the assets and powers.
• Previously each of those member societies and each branch was a separate legal entity with its own membership and assets.
• Originally the member societies and branches were each able to vote for a member of the RNZSPCA National Council. Governance in an apparent democratic manner whereby the members had a voice through their elected members.
• Confusingly all of the separate legal entities used the term SPCA,  and  bequests meant for a branch or member society were often mistakenly left to the Auckland SPCA who held the trademark “SPCA”  and were able to claim all bequests and therefore became disproportionately wealthy.
• In 2016 there was a drive for One SPCA,  this was headed by Andrea Midgen the CEO of the Auckland SPCA and Gordon Trainer the Chairman who was a former Ernst and Young accountant.
• By various means, some compliant with the legislation and constitutions, others not so, the RNZSPCA acquired all the property and assets of its former constituent members and branches.
• The RNZSPCA itself was swallowed up by the Auckland SPCA and all those who remained with the RNZSPCA were compelled to hand over their assets and were dissolved by Andrea Midgen  CEO of the RNZSPCA see here  
• The members were assured that they would be members of the RNZSPCA but after a year or so no approach was made to the former branch members or members of the member societies  and these people have not been members since, this was reflected in the constitution at point 6.1.c.
• Assurances made at the meetings to get branches/member societies to relinquish their Centres and assets was on the pretext that they would get financial support from RNZSPCA and some of the wealthier Societies to ensure a distribution of national income. Instead, they are being closed down and liquidated.
• One honorary member noted the CEO as stating that the Society did not need members and volunteers were too much trouble.
• Effectively the SPCA has gone from a volunteer organisation whose sole focus was animal welfare to a privately run society with many business arms such as
  • Op shops
  • Pet insurance https://www.spcapetinsurance.co.nz/
  • SPCA Certification  for products
  • Retail partner with petdepot.co.nz 30% shareholder through SPCA SOCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED a subsidiary of The Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated
• SPCA Investments Limited owned entirely by The RNZSPCA and has the assets of the former Auckland SPCA Trust transferred into it. The trust itself  had a name change to the SPCA Trust see original deed here  even though the name was changed, nothing else is recorded in the Trust Deed as having been changed and it therefore makes it uncertain as to who the beneficiaries are.
• In 2021 the Charities Register showed the Trust having a distributed  $34 million  into the SPCA subsidiary company  see accounts here   and the constitution of the  SPCA investment limited here  and whose directors are
  • Gordon TRAINER the inaugural Chairman who’s Linked in profile records his background and involvement with the SPCA
• 1988 – 2005 Tax Partner Tax Partner Ernst & Young
• 2003 – 2009 Treasurer Auckland SPCA
• 2012 – Jun 2013 Board Member and Chair of Audit and Finance Committee RNZSPCA May
• 2009 – Oct 2017 Chairman SPCA Auckland ·
• May 2016 – Present Board Member SPCA New Zealand

1. David Patrick BRODERICK current Chairman also a banking man who  shares close business relationships with Trainer including but not limited to

1. Patrick Gerard O’REILLY Fund and Asset Manager   see linked in profile
   1. Mark Wynon VICKERMAN Barrister and member of the Auckland SPCA  Trust with  Bob Kerridge  Don Bendall.
   1. Benjamin D’arcy PALMER another former Ernst and Young man and former Board Member of the Auckland SPCA Trust  see linked in profile former Director of the Auckland SPCA Board member, Deputy Chairman, Audit and Risk Committee Chairman External Reporting Advisory Panel
2. Gordon Trainer and Andrea Midgen have been the visible driving force for the One SPCA but in this analysis it appears accountants have now taken charge of the RNZSPCA where in the past it was run by volunteers and people  with genuine concern for animals .
3. The latest constitution of the RNZSPCA which came into effect 31 Dec 2021 still refers to the  member societies and branches, despite the fact that they were dissolved in January 2020 see here , this shows that the AGM last year did not fully inform its members of the status of the  member societies and branches and in amending the constitution failed to consider the change of structure .
4. CEO who appears to do all the filing with the Incorporated Society Registrar   sought  Dissolution  on behalf of the member societies  and branches who through various  and not so transparent  means  had transferred their assets to the RNZSPCA. 
5.  As a result of dissolution , the only members of the RNZSPCA   are full members and honorary life members.
6. Andrea Midgen as CEO has acted in what appears to me to be a gross conflict of interest in having placed herself on the Executive of many branches and placed some in “administration “ to encourage dissolution and having placed societies in administration took control away from their respective members.
   1. Searching the Charities Register https://register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/Search  shows her on the Board of no less than 20 former branches 
   1. She is also named as an Officer with Broderick and Trainer on another Trust  operated by The SPCA The WB Sheath Foundation a Trust set up in 1994  the deed is  here 
   1. Like Gordon Trainer, she was formerly Auckland  SPCA and the evidence is that the wealthiest SPCA swallowed up the smaller ones and is disenfranchising provincial animal welfare efforts and   took over control of the Umbrella group .
7. At a meeting of the Central Hawkes Bay SPCA recently, locals expressed their concerns that the assets which they fundraised for, volunteered for, are now being sold off by The RNZSPCA with no formal agreement in place to provide services to that community .The  services and assets  that the locals have worked hard to build up, are undemocratically removed.
   1. This meeting by the SPCA was fronted by two SPCA employees and nothing has been heard from the Board and there appears to be no resolution of the Board or consultation with the Board and the concerned people of Waipukerau
8. Effectively the communities are being asset stripped though a non-transparent undemocratic process and leaving the area devoid of services.
9.  Central HB SPCA was established in 1989 and built, operated and fundraised for, by the community.  Communities like theirs will now be left without services and an investigation needs to be conducted on how that is working out in other parts of the country.
   1. It was of note that this former branch which had a significant number of members  now had no members at all on the RNZSPCA and had therefore no voice.

Membership

• The new constitution is of concern ,since the dissolution of the branches and member societies, there are only two groups of members honorary and full members.
  • According to the Rule 7.5. the duration of membership for Full Members Is the period of the Financial Year (or any part of the Financial Year during which the person becomes a Full Member).
  • 7.6. Each Full Member of SPCA must annually renew his or her membership with SPCA,
• The financial year concluded on 30^th June, it effectively means that on 1 July,  the only members which exist are the honorary members and since the AGM is set to take place 6 months after the commencement of the new financial year there cannot be a Board unless the Board is comprised of honorary members. 
  • This raises the  question as to   how  new members  are accepted  and if they are accepted   who accepts them ?
• Honorary members who I have spoken to all advise me that they never hear from the SPCA and although they are entitled to attend the AGMS, they are not notified either of the meeting coming up or been provided with the minutes. 
• It follows that if a group of persons have made themselves  Honorary Members, then they will enjoy perpetual succession and have total control, the organisation at the exclusion of others as members need to be approved. 
• The all-inclusive member driven organisation of the past is now potentially a selected club of a  select few, without any oversight from a wide base of  concerned persons .
• The total equity of the RNZSPCA according to the 2021 Charities  Annual Return is $112,405,000 up from $ 72,925,000  year ending 30 June 2018 source
• While the equity has risen by a $40 million in 3 years,  the Waipukerau SPCA which handed its assets over on the belief that they would be supported, is  being liquidated because it had operational costs of  $7,000.
  • To many it would appear that the RNZSPCA is about $ and not about services to animals.
• The RNZSPCA still has the same name, legal powers it has vastly increased assets, but the governance, transparency and accountability have changed dramatically.
• The RNZSPCA trades on the reputation of the past and has replaced the salt of the earth  volunteers fighting for animals with accountants who specialise in investments and cost cutting measures.

MPI

• MPI has oversight of the legislation it has MOUs in place with the SPCA but it would appear from  correspondence that they have little control or oversight of the approved organisations. Note again that the MOU is not signed by the Board but by Andrea Midgen CEO.
• Approved organisations came into being through the 1999 Animal Welfare Act.
• Neil Wells who was the former Head of the Auckland SPCA drafted the Animal Welfare Act.
• History shows that he was frustrated by the election process of officers and a democratic process meant that there was no certainty of remaining at the helm of an organisation.  This is recorded in press clippings
• Wells drafted the legislation to facilitate his own undeclared business plan that is why this Act is so favourable to approved organisations   see his business plan here  .
• With his own business venture in mind, he became an “independent “advisor to the select committee and when the Act became law, he applied for approved status under Section 122 in what this  application
  • New Zealand  became  a world  first in  giving private organisation legislative powers  compare this  to   the British SPCA   where their act limits the power of private organisations  and increases oversight of their conduct.  
• The application  for  Mr Wells private  Approved organisation was made in the name of  a fictional entity , there was no signed Trust Deed , and the Trust which formed  6 years later and   posed as the  approved organisation , had never been incorporated.
  • The application was made in the name of an alleged legal entity and was regarded as such by MPI and the Minister on the basis of  assurances  which were  never  fulfilled
  • Evidence also shows that MPI  is totally confused between  what a charity is  and what a legal person is  .
  • Legal persons  are either  born or   created through  statute  and by registering as   a body corporate .
  • The  “ applicant “ The Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)was not registered under any legislation  and  obtained a back dated trust deed in  2006 consisting of persons  who had never met , held assets or passed a resolution .
• The fact that AWINZ was not a legal entity and had no legal existence in that name is conclusively proved by the fact that Neil Wells  said so in his minutes of the  first ever recorded meeting in  2006  three weeks after the incorporation of another trust with the identical name.
  • The other trust was incorporated at a time when the online register was in its infancy and  AWINZ could not be located on it
  • By registering the identical name   and being successful  it was proved conclusively   through section 12 and  15 of the charitable trust Act , that no other legal  entity by that name existed
• MPI had not checked the existence of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand( AWINZ)   and had not properly advised the Minister.
  •  Even after the lack of legal existence of the “approved organisation “  was brought to their attention AWINZ was allowed to continue to administer  animal welfare law for a further 4 years despite  the proof in paragraph 5    that it did not exist .
•  A recent OIA request addressed to Ms Wallace proves  that  MPI has no idea about  legal entities and their structures.
• An unregistered Trust cannot own property and cannot sue or be sued. It follows that it  cannot then hold  public law enforcement powers . Evidence of this is in Family trusts  which own property  the  name is not  that of the trust but of the members which comprise it .
• This is evidence of MPIs  lack of ability to supervise the provisions of the legislation and   confirmed in current day events by the replies from MPI to my complaint of  8 June 2022     received  from them on 29  June and  19 July      and confirms that MPI has no control or direct supervision over   the approved organisation .
• In short, the RNZSPCA of old   with is assets  and reputation  has been acquired by   a  select group of people  who now have control of   private law enforcement powers   while  disenfranchising the  very people  who  have  built up that reputation and wealth

The  MOU  

• The MOU signed by Andrea Midgen CEO with MPI raises other issues.
• The  funding agreement  dated 2019   is  found here  again signed for by  Andrea Midgen.   The  SPCA contract manager is listed as Tracy Phillips who resigned November 2020  just after I sent her this  email  and this one  
• The  MOU requires prosecution to be carried out subject to the prosecution guide lines  in the Volkerson prosecution( which I  will cover later )  it appears that this document was almost entirely disregarded even to the extent that this private prosecution transformed in to a Crown Prosecution without any acceptance by the Solicitor General  under section 187  and was recorded by the judge as if it was a crown prosecution .
  • Therefore a small group of individuals without government over sight  can act as if they as a government entity .
• Wells, the author of the legislation  wrote this to parliament in his submissions in  2013 ” There are only 2 countries in the world that depend on a private organisation, the SPCA, to act as the enforcer and prosecutor of Animal Welfare Law — New Zealand and the 7 states and territories of Australia  Indeed, it is the private nature, lack of public accountability, and meagre funding that has resulted in such inadequate performance of the SPCA as enforcers and prosecutors, according to commentators.”
• While the MOU Point 11.2.  provides for consultation on OIA request, the  SPCA is not subject to   OIA’ and the questions raised are invariably left unanswered. As evidenced in this reply

The Legislation

• I am not a lawyer, but my working  knowledge with  the  Animal Welfare Act  raises  questions of  conflicts with the Bill of Rights  . We must remember that the Act was drafted by someone who intended to  to use it for his own business plan and therefore  enforcement  favoured the   approved organisation and not the public .
  • Serious issues arise with  section 13 of the act   this means that if an Inspector  charges you with an offence on subjective grounds,   you have 7 days to file a defence.
  • Section 136 A  allows for the disposal of your animals to be disposed of if proceedings have been commenced but not yet determined: or have not yet been commenced but are intended to be commenced within a reasonable period.
    • In the case of Volkerson disposal  was completed  even before charges  were formulated   or advised  what they were suspect of having committed
    • In view of section 13  they were deprived of this  defence   and  lost their dogs on the allegations  which were proved  on a civil level  and  not related to charges.
    • The dogs were disposed of to the Auckland SPCA which also meant that when the charges were known the owner of the dog was not able to locate the dogs and get  independent verification if the dogs referred to were her dogs .  She was also denied the right  to seek an independent vet’s assessment.
• Section 127 allows an Inspector to enter any property ( not a house or marae) to  inspect an animal , this Section was totally abused in the case of Volkerson  with 39  inspections over  a 2 year period  .
  • This contrasts with the UK  legislation where the  Inspector must apply to a justice of the peace   for the right to  go on  to the property to search for  dogs
  • In New Zealand it is a free for all and on the evidence of the events at Volkerson the  rights were abused  and  even involved inspectors  searching  for   dogs  owned by Volkerson   at  a boarding kennel  where some  were temporarily  boarded. Source  summary of facts
• All those  matters appear to conflict with the rights under the Bill of Rights Section 127 and 136A conflict with Search and Seizure section 12  .and  Section 136A and 13 also have implications on  section 25 Bill of Rights Minimum Standards of Criminal Procedure.
• The conflict with the Bill of Rights is one issue  but the other is that the persons who are exercising the powers under this legislation are doing so without any apparent  supervision and  apparently for profit.

Criteria

• The criteria  for an approved Organization is set down in Section 122 Animal welfare act  and the Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that
  • one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal.   
    • The SPCA used to be about preventing cruelty now it is about providing animals with a better life.  The two are not the same ._ see the wording of the constitution .

1. This no doubt reflects the changes in the legislation as quoted from Wells   “The original Act of 1999 was a radical departure from conventional anti-cruelty laws which New Zealand and most Western countries had relied on for over 100 years. The Animal Welfare Act 1999 introduced the first animal welfare legislation which established a statutory duty of care and placed statutory obligations for a standard of care based on the Five Freedoms — freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress”

1. The Volkerson prosecution takes this one step further  to include   the  subjective  opinion that ther animals could  suffer  due to the owner having too many dogs

1. This subjective enforcement  means that no one is safe , it is the opinion of the inspector,   and the  animal is taken for being too  fat  too thin, not groomed properly not having a fluffy toy   or  being frightened when  its space is invaded by strangers .
   1. Parents  will  know that a child could have a treated skin irritation which looks bad but is not painful.  And many would have picked up children from their  cots when the babies  nappy has had a  full blow  out,  if someone else had been there it would have been reported” her child was lying in a cot covered with faeces”.
      1. The enforcement at Volkerson was all subjective and based on a snapshot in time   To have a dog on a short leash temporarily is  legal, to have them there for days or weeks is a different matter.  Time is relevant and time was not reported. See the judges comment about the  dog which could not  lie down then   look at the  body camera footage about 10 min in

• As for the dogs reported to  be slipping in Faeces.  Take some dogs in a kennel which are about to be cleaned and introduce strangers   with poles the  panicked dogs, will run around.  This is normal behaviour for a dog which feels  threatened and in running about will not look where it is going.  This is then reported that the dogs did not  display normal behaviour and slipped in faeces.
  • This does not mean the dog was abused or suffering  it means the dog was reacting  to a large influx of uniformed people on their patch. 
  • When the One SPCA was formed it gave the assurances as stated on its web site “In November 2017, SPCA centres around the country unified to become a single entity. The key reasons for this change were to better provide a consistently high standard of care and service for the animals, no matter where they are, and to ensure that all SPCA centres are supported through the sharing of resources and skills. “
  • Centres are now being closed because they are not lucrative, as is the case of the Waipukerau centre. Wells in 2013 reported that there  were 47 centres now we are down to 33 and the volunteers who gave the organisation credibility have been disenfranchised.
  • Regions are left vulnerable and reliant on the locals to set up another voluntary organisation due to the nearest SPCA being over 60 Kilometres away.
  • Actions speak louder than words and it appears that with $35 million in   assets a community is asset striped, and volunteers and residents  disenfranchised. 
  • With the lack of support of ordinary members, the local community and a local executive is now not able to have oversight of what is occurring in their district the purpose must be more than words on a document
  •  A Press release  from 2017   show that the intention of the one  SPCA  as Quoted by Andrea Midgen “We will be able to create a stronger SPCA Inspectorate and we will have one strategy and one voice.” “Ms Midgen said the move to one SPCA is not about creating a centrally-controlled organisation, or closing any SPCA centres.”
    • we have  a vast increase in inspector numbers  and   the 45  centres in 2017  have been reduced to 33 ,
  • The accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation.
    • Accountability arrangements, The RNZSPCA is now a private super  organisation with an undisclosed number of members, We have not found one person whohas been accepted as a member of the new SPCA and suspect that there are just a few people who are “the Incorporated Society” they hold the power and control exclusively and   without public involvement.
      • The organisation is  Money focused; Money is a priority over Animal Welfare as indicated by the number of accountants in control  the board .
        • David Broderick CHAIRMAN :  Finance and Banking
        • Robyn Kiddle Governance  Consultant 
        • Bobbie O’Fee  Accountant
        • Steve Merchant Vet
        • Julie Sellar  Finance and Planning
        • David Heald former Ernst and Young Accountant
        • Jane Holland    Partner in the Commercial Property Department Bell Gully
      • Due to lack of oversight of the inspectorate, there appears to be a general disregard of the Rule of Law and the Bill of Rights this was illustrated throughout the recent prosecution of Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace (Volkerson )  as raised in my  complaint to  MPI  which hasnow been  sent on to the SPCA  to investigate themselves.
        • Is this not a gross conflict of interest by the SPCA ?
        •  And are they going to admit to their own noncompliance with the Bill of Rights and the Animal Welfare Act ?
        • Does this not prove that there is no independent oversight of a private organisation with public law enforcement powers ?
      • The Inspectors themselves appeared to be working unsupervised.  In the case of Volkerson  the Inspectors were under the supervision of a Chief Inspector  Greg Reid who has also left the SPCA, all were employed by the Auckland SPCA and used Auckland SPCA resources.  The dogs were disposed of to the Auckland SPCA.
      • There is no evidence of the RNZSPCA ever being involved or consulted other than Chief Inspector Tracy Phillips who acted  credibly and saw the return of 5 dogs which had been unlawfully taken in 2019 . She advised that she had no knowledge or involvement of this prosecution and left soon after.
      • Anita Killeen, a former Director of the Auckland SPCA and a lawyer  set up a Pro Bono Panel in 2017 and it appears that this Pro Bono Panel kicked into action  but not as described in the law talk “

“We are very grateful to have a significant commitment of Pro Bono litigation support from Kayes Fletcher Walker, the Office of the Manukau Crown Solicitor. The firm support the work of the Pro Bono Panel in a number of ways including by acting as instructing solicitor, by providing legal opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met, as well as appearing in court to assist Panel members on cases. The Pro Bono work that Kayes Fletcher Walker provides is a significant factor in the ongoing success of the Panel initiative and contributes to ensuring the consistency and high quality of SPCA Auckland’s prosecution files.”

1. It is clear that the Crown Solicitors role was to
2. support panel members
3. acting as instructing solicitor
4. providing legal opinions as to whether the test for a prosecution is met
5. appearing in court to assist Panel members
   1. Instead, the Crown Solicitor’s Office had the Crown Solicitor herself appear and intitule the Private Prosecution as a Crown Prosecution even representing evidence as Crown Prosecution.
      1. See correspondence with the Crown Solicitor as below
         1. Request to Acting Crown Solicitor to correct a miscarriage of justice
         1. Privacy act request To Gareth Kayes Acting Crown Solicitor
         1. Open letter to Luke Radich of Kayes Fletcher Walker

• The issue of a Crown representation for a private organisation has  also been brought to the attention of the   Attorney General we have yet to hear back from him
  • An OIA with regards to Crown Solicitors representing private clients   is here  and defends the use of the Crown Solicitors representing the SPCA.
    • As they say the evidence is in the cake and what came out of the     hearing before a former Crown Law Judge was that she intituled her decision as The  Queen V , showing that she was successfully misled by the lawyers  that this was a crown prosecution .
    • Even in 2013 Wells submitted to Parliament that there was a lack of public accountability ,the change between now and then is that the   structure has changed dramatically and the funding from  Government has increased to over $2 million per annum.  If there was little accountability then there is even less now.
    • Wells pointed out “Legal commentators maintain that the enforcement and prosecution of Criminal Law (Animal Welfare offences are crimes) are the responsibility of the state and not private organisations that have no public accountability. “ ….  ‘And Judge Garland in R v Balfour said that “the SPCA was effectively standing in the shoes of the Government.”  The concern is that in a government  prosecution there are accountability provisions.  With the RNZSPCA  there is no accountability and  as we see in the Volkerson  prosecution .
    • Without oversight of the Inspectors  the Volkerson kennels had 39 official SPCA visits between 28. July 2017 – 16.1 December 2019, dogs were officially taken on just 2 of those occasions.5 Dogs  were unlawfully seized through  2019, 5 dogs were surrendered  under  coercion  and there I s evidence of  dogs being taken and brought back  .  In other  words  it was a free for all .
    • As demonstrated in this response for Official Information the SPCA is not covered  by OIA and the information we sought was not available from MPI and was not disclosed as part of the pretrial disclosure.
  • Financial arrangements, with over one hundred million equity,  the organisation is winding up small communities’ assets and placing them in   funds which are managed by the former Chairman and the current Chairman who are business associates in Investment and Development companies.
    • In the Volkerson prosecution ,High value dogs were targeted for  seizure some of these imported blood lines were valued at over $250,000 each these dogs were Champions in 2017.
    • There is no evidence that the dogs seized were brought into the Auckland SPCA or if they were switched out in transit.
    • These dogs were selected by the Inspectors based on their pedigree. There was no abuse of these dogs and the vet reports show the lengths they went to find neglect or abuse, it is reflected in the  prolific x raying of the dogs including pregnant ones and Greg Reid’s comments that their angle was “intentionally breeding from dogs with known genetic disorders”   something which was not reflected in the ultimate charges which only related to the date on which the dogs were seized.
    • The pedigree papers were obtained for these dogs and the Dog Control Officer was sent to the kennels before the raid  to ensure that the dogs were microchipped and identifiable.  Yet when the  dogs were seized Inspectors Plowright and Davis are recorded on the SPCA body worn cameras as saying that they will not be recording microchip numbers the   body  worn camera  footage is  available here  the vet asks  at 11.44.57   “do you want to check chips at this point”  and both Davis and Plowright say  “No “
      • This is crucial as without verifying the dogs from time of seizure there is no assurance that the same dogs have been  referred to throughout.
      • This is chain of evidence and is vital in a prosecution to prevent one dog being swapped out for another.
      • This also brings up Privacy Act issues with regards to the sharing of information of the Waikato Dog Control with a  private organisation. 
    • The  body  worn   camera  footage  shows that the Inspectors on arrival had already decided to take dogs and right at the beginning  their language proves that the selection process is not about   animals suffering.
    • The seized  dogs became part of an extensive fundraising campaign which was helped along with specifically timed television exposure  and a nationwide leaflet drop this from an email to the kennel club about using   TVNZ to  give It publicity  “This will while being a civil matter create a ‘public exposure’ which will probably coincide with Carolyn’s story being aired. “ This aired on 7 Sharp 1 May 2018 and there was even a dedicated web site spca puppy farm rescue  and http://www.spca.nz/urgentappeal.
    • The SPCA fund raised specifically on the Volkerson prosecution  but has not disclosed how much was raised in this campaign and how this was   used.  The Crown Solicitor was a Pro Bono Panel member and no accounts have been produced but it was reportedly their best fundraiser ever.
    • There is no transparency as to the  income of the RNZSPCA as it  now has a closed membership and no accountability for the funds raised by way of donations and bequests.
    • Nationwide there are complaints and concerns that  neglected and abused   mongrels  are not  getting any attention . Meanwhile  pedigree   champions  are seized  due to their blood line.
  • Management of the Organisation
    • Management appears to be solely in the hands of the CEO who is a Jill of  all Trades  fundraising, winding up the various member societies see here  and appears to be $ driven with the various campaigns that she runs for funds, she acts like a Board member  and there appears to be no Board control over the Inspectors.
    • Evidence would  suggest that she  sits on the board  and  acts  with unbridled  delegation of  their  authority  
    • There Is no proper oversight of the Inspectors, this is shown by the   way that the inspectors were able to come in and take an animal which had only weeks before won Champion Awards.
    • The prosecution of Volkerson was filed in the name of fictional organisation Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals (  Auckland)  and no consent was given by any board for prosecutions  this   video confirms that the prosecution by the Auckland SPCA  was supervised by Greg Reid a Chief Inspector for the Auckland SPCA ( He has now left )  and the decisions were his.
    •  In this   video REID states that he is happy for the women to retain the other dogs but despite this the RNZSPCA nearly five years later and without returning to the property (except in 2019  to return unlawfully seized dogs),  has directed their lawyers to ban the ladies from owning or controlling dogs for 9 years.
    • We must question how the RNZSPCA  a separate legal  entity to the Auckland SPCA became the Prosecutor.  The lack of accountability and the ability to circumvent legal requirements is  an abuse of process  by this private organisation .
    • It appears that the Board has little input or oversight of the running of the organisation which has been delegated to a CEO Andrea Midgen  see her linked in profile  reveals that she was CEO SPCA Auckland until 2017 when she became CEO RNZSPCA.
    • Andrea Midgen appears to lack understanding  of the legislative  framework under which the organisation/s must act,  and that each organisation is a separate legal entity, as the CEO  she appears to be working without supervision or control of the Board,  and   works in a delegated manner holding all the power as one person   and is therefore the only apparent person in control of the organisation.
  • The Interests of the Public
    • It is important to realise that the RNZSPCA is unique in that it is the only private organisation which had coercive law enforcement powers.  Refer to Neil Wells   submission in 2013, the RNZSPCA over saw 47 local SPCA now it lists just 33 with more listed to close.
    • Correspondence  with MPI shows that they lack oversight and control of  the SPCA and if the Board is not in control, who is providing  oversight ?
    •  The agreement for funding refers to the supervision of  an Inspector who has long since left  . Her position has been taken by  Alan Wilson a former  MAF(now  MPI )  employee
      • Many of the  SPCA  inspectors    have  come from MPI  and  similarly   SPCA  staff have  found their  way to MPI e.g., Jen Radich
    • As Wells points out  17 “In the unlikely event that the SPCA becomes insolvent or for any other reason is no longer able to meet the criteria of an approved organisation the Minister has no alternative plan.” The people who have taken over the RNZSPCA have acquired  a gold mine with coercive public law enforcement powers and little or no oversight.  
    • Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability. Hence the RNZSPCA is ripe for corruption. This  equation can be broken by any or all of the  following
      • Removing the monopoly of the RNZSPCA and  aligning the legislation with the British act  which will  enable all welfare organisations  to   take action  in the case of abuse
      • Removing discretion  where inspectors  cannot act  and prosecute without the  matter going to   review  by MPI  lawyers to ensure  consistency of approach in the welfare sector
      • Accountability    – to ensure that complaints  are independently investigated .
    • To give the Volkerson issue and the abuse of power by the inspectors  transparency We have published the body worn camera  footage of the inspectors (30) of the Volkerson raids, not one of these was shown at the trial.
    •  It is  important to note that the charges for the women were all related to the day that the dogs were taken, in fact only to the very short period the inspectors observed the dogs.   We must  therefore, ask the why it took over a year before they were charged and why was there so much pressure put on them to surrender the dogs  supported with offers of forgoing the costs of keeping them.
    • This brings up a very serious issue that a breeder visited by the RNZSPCA would be silly not to hand over their prized animals in exchange for anonymity.
    • The power of the inspectors trading on the perceived reputation of the RNZSPCA  is  such  that  such an offer  is  a powerful incentive to hand over  your animals .
    • The first  approach was in   2017    in all  over the years the SPCA took  % dogs by coercion  15 dogs through  a targeted raid   15 puppies   which were born  in  captivity  6  dogs  through an alleged barking dog complaint 2018  to coincide with the disposal hearing  and  5 more dogs unlawfully  in 2019
    •   In the transcript   Plowright    states  page  251 line 26 “So we take the ones with the problems, that’s their top bloodline, the one with the ear – no, please let me finish. They’re left with so many breeding bitches, they’ve probably got 20 breeding bitches all capable of producing 10, 12 puppies in a litter and a couple of litters a year. So yes, affecting their breeding stock, absolute rubbish, absolute rubbish.
    • For having dogs  stolen from them Barbara and Janine  suffered  5 years of court action Barbara paid out to lawyers  who  failed to represent her  and took the money and  ran, we suspect  due to the pressure put on them   to force this elderly lady to plead guilty
    • The emphasis  was totally on having  too  many animals see the  interview when there is no legislation which  allows  for dogs to be taken under those circumstances  
      • An example of this is shown in the  interview page 6 the Inspector states” Just to put it out there as well, like I mentioned the, one of our main things is the, the best interest for the dogs and yeah, we’d like you to consider surrendering ownership of the dogs and what that would show is workability with what we’re doing. And if you decided to do that, you don’t have to decide now, but I would look at wiping the, the charges from seizure date to the date of surrender if you were to do that”   
    • Additionally through Director of the Auckland SPCA  Anita Killeen,  a Pro Bono Prosecution Panel was set up,  see here and  here page 62
    •  It was the Crown Solicitor Natalie Walker, Partner, Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland who took on the prosecution of Volkerson  first in the name of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ( Auckland) the disposal was done to the Auckland SPCA  and the final prosecution was done on behalf of the RNZSPCA, note the switch of legal entity .
      • There Is no evidence that any Board ever became involved and there Is no evidence of the lawyers being instructed by anyone other than the unsupervised inspectors who have left and have other businesses some involving  dogs.
    •  The MOU which existed between the RNZSPCA and MPI  refers to the prosecution policy which includes the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines  however there is no further requirement of Government over sight and in this Volkerson prosecution  every rule including the legislative requirements under the Animal Welfare Act and the Criminal Procedure Act were breached and for good measure the Bill of Rights was totally ignored. 
  • The functions and powers of the organisation are not such that the organisation could face a conflict of interest if it were to have both those functions and powers and the functions and powers of an approved organisation.
    • The Volkerson prosecution brought out massive conflicts of interest    including collusion with other organisations, this in itself is a Privacy breach on the part of the SPCA  and of the New Zealand Kennel Club and  Waikato District Council Dog Control.
    • I  refence a lettersee here from the SPCA to the NZ Kennel Club which shows collusion and willingness to use the Inspectorate powers for outside organisations.  This offer made by inspector Reid “do you want me to lay a formal complaint against a member?.
• Further collusion with the NZ Kennel Club is in sharing information with them which had the Volkerson Kennels struck off the NZ Kennel Club register well before the court action , the correspondence here shows that on 20 April 2018  They had not  made up their mind about the charges yet, eventually the charges only related to the  day the dogs were seized see this  inspector REID  states in his letter see here to the NZ Kennel Club  they were trying to formulate charges regarding  the  “intentionally breeding from dogs with known genetic disorders”  obviously even  x rays of the pregnant bitchers did  not produce evidence for this ..  This brings up the issue of disposal and compliance with Section 130 (1) ( b)
• The NZ Kennel Club provided  Becky Murphy   to examine the dogs she just happens to have a business of artificial insemination of dogs and improving breeds.   
  • Additionally a Vet involved in seizing dogs from a Champion dog breeder in 2017 was a SAFE activist  see here.   I note that from the body worn cameras the vet involved, Jess Beer, could diagnose ear problems from a great distance.
  • The Chief Legal Officer Brett Lahman is also a former head of SAFE have these activist groups infiltrated the RNZSPCA to raise a conflict of interest? 
  • One of the puppies whelped to a dog seized in October 2017 was given to  the local Dog  Control Officer  see here   who in return passes on an alleged barking dog complaint to the SPCA ( as confirmed by sworn evidence in court )  to ensure that dogs which are compliant under the  Dog Control Act are seized for allegedly breaching the Animal Welfare Act.
    • He is a hunter and happened to be the person who was seen in possession of the leash and a rope recovered on the dog  which was  hog tied in the hay barn.
    • He has never explained why he was in the hay barn with the dog  walking free as captured by the body worn camera footage and why he left the barn when a dog was tied in such a state  and was only found some 10 minutes later when the Inspectors came in through the other end. see here  the full version is here see 13:00  to 13:02  
    •  the second article  shows that this Dog Control Officer who trains guard dogs/  bite  dogs  helped  select the Volkerson  dogs  which were man work and obedience trained and suitable as guard  dogs.
    • While the ladies were charged for having dogs on short leashes temporarily ,the somewhat hypocritical Inspector and Dog Control Officer both specialise in bite dogs and advocate the choke chains as seen in the face book pictures  see here  and the header on his face book  page  says it all https://www.facebook.com/DeterDetectDefend/
  • The reputation of the RNZSPCA is such that the hearsay evidence of an Inspector is accepted and the people they accuse are regarded as liars by the court.  In this case we are using the best evidence that is the  body worn camera  footage   to contradict their evidence but this should have been done by their governance body before it went to court.
  • The same Dog Control Officer kept 4  dogs in the Council Pounds for two weeks.  The charges have been proved to the court by the Inspectors who   forgot that by implicating the dogs’ owners were actually admitting that the SPCA has animals in its own custody and does nothing for the dogs  which are allegedly ill .  This is proved by the vet reports of these dogs. See evidence   Zeta Paris Astro  Mafia
  •  The RNZSPCA who have progressed this prosecution must therefore be likewise prosecuted for failing to ensure that the Physical health and behavioural health were met  between 13^th October 2017 and 27 October 2017 when they were first seen by a Vet and had been left in their muddy condition for 2 weeks. This is proved though prima facie evidence and failing to charge the RNZSPCA will put them above the law.
  • Then there is also the matter of the Bitch which whelped in the back of a van in a crate with her 7 new born puppies and gave birth to another puppy classified as Dead on Arrival. Also the numbers of puppies born to the two bitches fluctuate, this proves failing to account and as the Face Book post shows one was given to a Dog Control Officer in circumstances which can be regarded as bribery.  
  • There is also inconsistencies in the microchip numbers and no records were ever produced to show what kennel numbers relate to what dog  or when a dog was received by the SPCA. Business records  were missing   from the trial these are normally relied on for  continuity of evidence .
  • The  pups were disposed of under Section 136  by the  Crown Prosecutors  who acted in this Private Prosecution and disposed of the pups without lawful process.  The pups were not seized and were never seen by the owner and disposed of without charges which is contrary to the provisions of the Act.   The RNZSPCA allegedly instructed the Crown Solicitors and therefore were not compliant with the law.
  • The employment contracts or arrangements between the organisation and the organisation’s inspectors and auxiliary officers are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
    • The organisation represented by its Board  has the approved organisation  powers, the organisation recommends to the Minister persons to be appointed as Inspectors .
      • We have no idea how this is done and if this task is delegated to   the CEO and what vetting procedures are in place.
    • The Inspectors appear to work without  supervision  Plowright worked under the supervision of Greg Reid the Auckland SPCA Inspector.
      • The RNZSPCA Chief Inspector in 2019  had no idea of anything to do with this matter but assisted in returning  five dogs unlawfully taken by the same Inspectors.
      • Medical records of those dogs reveal that these dogs had been  returned with medical conditions  see vet reports
• Hobby a 25 Kg  dog  who  became obese in SPCA care
• Fenta Taken 21 Feb 2019 shows ear issues in the care of SPCA
• Emma Taken 1 February  2019 had skin issues in the care of the SPCA
• Xena Taken 24 January 2019 and returned in an obese condition 
• Alex  Taken 1 Feb 2019  returned 19 December 2019  this dog  was kept unlawfully for 11 months the documents show that even in SPCA care the dogs developed and had ear problemsThese dogs were never the subject of charges, and they were treated for things which developed while they were in SPCA care  the average vet bill for these dogs was $6000  as recorded on the vet reports which records the Auckland SPCA as owner. The prosecution related to the dogs taken in October 2017 and May 2018,  due to the failure to record microchip numbers of the dogs seized in October.  There is no chain of evidence, and we can only speculate if the  dogs seized actually made it  back to the SPCA due to the evidence on the Body Worn Camera footage of the Dog Control Officer loading dogs into his van.The prosecution was totally  hap-hazard and the Inspectors carried out a search warrant on Barbara’s property, this search warrant was unlawful and the instructions from their lawyers and notes were taken, and their computer cloned.   Many boxes of evidence were loaded into the van but only a very short inventory of seized  items was produced The document is a copy no original has been seen There is no signature of an issuing officer The date is for 2017 when it was executed in 2018 There is no evidence that the Inspectors worked for the RNZSPCA ,  yet they gave evidence in court that they did which does not line up with the evidence on the Body Worn Camera footage or the evidence given in the Disposal Hearing .( Perjury ) Evidence was deliberately withheld for the trial and there is evidence of the Prosecutor changing  without due process.  The first group of dogs were disposed of before the charges were even formulated.13 October 2017 Dogs seized 26 March 2018 Unlawful Search Warrant 1 June 2018 TV campaign  12 June 2018  Court Hearing 12 July 2018 Decision  2 November 2018 Charges filed  January 2022 Court Hearing  Decision 31 March 2022Sentencing 13 July 2022 nearly 5 years after the dogs were first taken  Despite 5 dogs being returned by the RNZSPCA and no further  “visits “after  19 December 2019  the RNZSPCA  instructed  counsel to seek disqualification of owning or managing dogs for 9 years.This makes no sense, if the dogs were deemed  to be safe to be returned to and left in the custody of Janine and Barbara  for 2 years after the seizure   and after building new kennels, then what is the logic that they cannot own  or care for dogs 2 ½  years later?  Does this mean that if the RNZSPCA has been negligent in allowing dogs to remain in the custody of persons who they believe to be incapable of caring for them ?   The Body Worn Camera footage shows the intent of taking the dogs. A  document was prepared before they arrived on the Friday  to seize the dogs, and the document had been pre-printed.  The owner was provided with  this  but the Body Worn Camera showed a document which was never disclosed in discovery which was the identical list in a  completed form providing much more information 
  • The persons who may be recommended for appointment as inspectors or auxiliary officers—
    • will have the relevant technical expertise and experience to be able to exercise competently the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on inspectors and auxiliary officers under this Act; and
      • The provisions of the Animal Welfare Act have been totally ignored,  and the Inspectors appear to make up the Rules to allege that  Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace failed to comply.
      • The section 130 notice  issued on the day that the dogs were taken and relate to substantive charges allege that there is a requirement
• to have leashes of 2 meters and 
• deems wool shed flooring unsuitable for dogs
• directs dogs to be able to display normal behaviour expecting them to be like house dogs and not the working  dogs which they were
• not to crate for more than 1 hour the 2010 Code of welfare under which this seizure was carried out makes no such provisions and the requirements were simply made up on the spot and used as a basis for prosecution the very day that they made these  “ rules” up.Throughout the country, people place dogs in crates often overnight but the SPCA Inspectors direct specifically that dogs should not be in a crate for more than one hour see here This contradicts what the SPCA advocates on its own web site Additionally the SPCA approach would mean that every dog tethered outside the corner dairy on their walking leash is  also subject to seizure.No evidence as given as to how long a dog had been  observed in a particular place but the body worn camera footage confirms that they were in a different spot to  where they had been seen the day before. Not one of the  dogs  which was the subject of a behavioural  charge  was   witnessed in its normal environment in normal circumstances  and the  “ expert witness ‘  did her analysis  for photograph provided and  not by any visit to the scene The original section 13O notice requiring the building of kennels. This was complied with yet the dogs were taken due to not having proper facilities to house them, see statements by Plowright and  Davis in the  interview   Pages 2/27 /29/33/41 and the   video see here   with Greg Reid  who informs the ladies that they can’t have their dogs back despite the new kennels being built When the Inspector first called on the property Barbara was coerced into handing over 5 dogs because they alleged that they had too many dogs.  No notice was taken of the number of helpers they had and  the fact that this was a massive  farm.  5 dogs were taken and  from here Barbara was ripe for the picking even in the Court proceedings the refence was continually to having too many dogs. There Is no law which restricts the number of dogs they could have. Numbers increase sharply when a bitch whelps 10 puppies   which need to remain with their mums for at least 4 months  .Under the  dog control act   dogs can be tethered on the farm    these were working  dogs not pampered pooches, yet the Inspectors without knowing how long a dog had been in a location decided to charge the ladies as if a dog had been there for a very long time.  Evidence on this Body Worn Camera footage shows that they knew that the dogs were moved regularly  see  video The Judge said at 231 of her decision   stated that “In general, I consider the SPCA’s concerns about Volkerson Kennels were well founded. It was poorly run and there were far too many dogs that could be cared for adequately. “What was portrayed to the court was not the reality by looking at the dog Monty she states “It appears to me from the photograph I saw that this dog can barely sit down.” The  video footage tells a different story and this dog  who was being groomed but had this interrupted by the SPCA visit was rolling about, drinking  and being  quite relaxed   see  video 11 min in  To encourage a  guilty plea the inspectors prepared a manifestly false summary of facts in which they make serious allegations of the integrity of the defendants  and reveal that  in May 2018  they    used their  inspectorate powers to   call at boarding kennels in Taupo where   dogs were temporarily kept The summary of facts is such  that the    content   was not proved  and could not be proved in court  and  is directly contradicted by the    body worn camera footage. The summary of facts   reveals that  a total of   15 puppies were born alive  to two of the dogs  seized  the  Judge’s decision  disposes of  just 13 of them . Vet records  and  inspector   records  do not  agree on the number of    puppies born to Debbie  and Dani  this   shows   lack of accountability Subject to Section 126, will be properly answerable to the organisation.All inspectors and auxiliary officers must act under the direction of the Director-General in the exercise and performance of the powers, duties, and functions conferred or imposed on them under this Act.As shown, compliance with the legislation rules, welfare codes and supervision of the board  are totally missingTher was no section 12 Criminal procedure  act notice which allowed  the inspector to act on behalf of the organisation  and there is  great doubt as to  any  board having instructed the crown solicitor  was it the Auckland SPCA  for the   disposal hearing or  the RNZSPCA   for the  trial.  They cannot both be right  as both are  distinctly separate legal entities. The Section 130 notices if not complied with had specific procedures to adopt under the Animal welfare Act. These were ignored and instead the dogs were seized and disposed of without proper identification or chain of evidence and before charges were even filed. The Owners were not allowed to have a second  opinion of their own vets, this could  well be because the dogs seized,    and the dogs identified at the SPCA were not the same dogs. This and the unlawful uplifting of dogs at various times all impact on credibility and oversight.  Questions need to be raised as to why dogs which had a microchip were chipped on arrival at the SPCA?  Was this a different dog, given the identity of the seized dog and did the seized dogs go the  SPCA ?The performance and technical standards 2012 were totally  ignored and procedures were not followed in particular   paragraphs  212; 248; 250; 258; 261 Director-General means the chief Executive of the MinistryAs per the correspondence referred to 29  June and  19 July      the Director Compliance services MPI has handed the investigation to the SPCA who by investigating themselves  are grossly conflicted.

Review of suitability of the RNZSPCA to hold the powers under Section 121

• Considering the above, I seek a full Ministerial investigation into the suitability of the RNZSPCA to remain an approved organisation on the criteria set out in Section 122 . 
• Body Worn Camera footage has been uploaded to https://vimeo.com/user178471461 these  were provided by the SPCA  in disclosure but not referred to in court I can also send through  detailed analysis of the charges showing the evidence which was  given in court and how they conflict with the evidence given, please note I was not in court and these were not prepared by me
• This is a copycat crime as perpetrated in Australia and mentioned by Senator Malcolm 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 Ontario the SPCA lost its law enforcement powers due to lack of transparency, this appears to be the case in NZ  there is little information available by way of OIA and this private organisation operated by an undisclosed number of people who could be as few as a dozen and  have all the power and assets which were gathered by volunteers and residents in NZ.  These assets are being sold off to be placed in various non transparent Trust while seeking ventures to tear at people’s heart strings for more donations while trading on a trusted name.
• There are many small  Charities set up and doing the hard work while the SPCA which has the reputation, and the funds acts in apparently unsupervised manner and  by the response received it appears that MPI prefers to distance itself from all this rather than take action to ensure compliance.
• Further I therefore request that an assessment is done to see if the RNZSPCA with its massively reduced membership and amended constitutions and alignment with activist groups is still suitable to hold the powers since they appear to have  totally ignored the provisions of the Bill of Rights, Solicitor General Prosecution Guidelines and the very Act under which they have powers.
• To assist the investigation, I request  the following by way of OIA and hope that this will assist the Minister in the decision-making process.

OIA questions please provide all documents and  policies relating to   the following points  if there are no policies, please advise the safe  guards which exist to prevent abuse of powers.

1. The last MOU with the RNZSPCA was in 2019 when the member societies and  branches existed,  is there a new MOU to reflect that there is now only one organisation if so please provide one.
2. Is the Ministry aware of the total number of members of the RNZSPCA  if so,
   1. how many members do they have in each category and
   1. how many people attended their last AGM ?
3. Does the Ministry have a copy of the last two years AGM for the RNZSPCA if so please provide these?
4. Please provide a copy of the latest audit of compliance with the Act.
5. Please provide all correspondence from the RNZSPCA  to the Ministry advising/discussing their change of structure and change of constitution and how it reflects on the criteria.
6. What investigations have been conducted by the Ministry on the financial aspects of the RNZSPCA  and the involvement of public assets and potential to misuse those assets?
7. Please provide all documents which relate to the apparent provision of SPCA powers to   organisations such as the  NZ Kennel Club and or seeking advice from outside organisations for prosecution by virtue of the statement “for example do you want me to lay a formal complaint against a member?). see here
8. It would appear that  SAFE activists have infiltrated the RNZSPCA.  What is the policy of MPI and what protection is there for the public to prevent for members of outside activist organisation  holding a pivotal role in animal welfare? 
9. What is the policy in providing seized animals to persons from outside organisation who are involved in raids and have a business which builds on that type of dog see here  .  and here  and   see here  and his FaceBook page  https://www.facebook.com/DeterDetectDefend/
10. What MOU’s exist between the RNZSPCA and other organisations which could conflict with the powers under the Animal Welfare Act?
11. What is the duty of the RNZSPCA to disclose MOU’s or other agreements with third parties to MPI ?  
12. With regards to the 4  dogs kept at the pound  Zeta Paris Astro  Mafia  and the dog whelping in the van what is the policy for prosecution the RNZSPCA  for breaches of the Act and how are the complaints lodged?   
13. Please provide  policies regarding  SPCA vets and the ability to administer drug to the animals   owned by other people without consultation and x-raying pregnant  bitches?
14. Please advise what procedures exist for ensuring that Inspectors comply with the law and how does a member of the public seek accountability and transparency for an Inspector’s actions? Our complaints to the SPCA seem to be  ignored.
15.  What provision is there for Inspectors to demand the surrender of dogs through coercion as in the forced surrender of five dogs to the Auckland SPCA  4 august 2017   and what controls are the in place to ensure that the dogs are not taken by the inspector or a valuable blood line swapped out for a less valuable blood line?
16. What provision is there for an inspector to use what appears to be blackmail to use the costs of the care of the dogs as a trade-off  for surrender and silence? This was also done through the  lawyers in exchange for a guilty plea on reduced charges.
17. What ability does an Inspector have to ignore the legislative requirements  e.g., 143 AWA application for an enforcement order and instead taking dogs and disposing of them?
18. Please provide a copy of  a valid search warrant and any documentation whichwill enable a person to identify if a search warrant under Section 131 is legitimate . e.g.  should it have a signature of a person on it  who can issue a search warrant  and how do we  check if that person is capable of issuing a search warrant? see warrant   used here
19. What action was taken with regards to  the  invalid search warrant , a copy dated a year earlier and not signed executed and why was  a full inventory not provided , this seizure captured on Body Worn Camera footage (not uploaded but available for MPI )  shows  a multitude of documents including defence material seized and inventory was provided.   Please provide the full policy on search warrants which existed in 2018. 
20. What provision is there and what are the consequence of noncompliance with enforcing a  Section 130 notice through seizure and not applying to the court for an enforcement  order  where the time frame in which to comply had not expired?
21.  In 2019  a number of dogs were taken without  documentation they were returned by  Inspector Tracy Phillips.  Please advise what investigations were carried out with regards to the unlawful seizures of those dogs?  Did the SPCA report back to MPI  or was this concealed by them?
22. The puppies which were born in the SPCA  to Debbie and Desni were disposed of under Section 136 A   Please advise who instructed the disposal of those  puppies and how could the legislation have been applicable when they were neither seized not subject to prosecution,  please advise how we can make a complaint and be heard as this has repeatedly been ignored?
23. Noncompliance to the Bill of Rights and Prosecution Guidelines : what enforcement /accountability measures exist  to ensure compliance and who oversees the action to  seek accountability for non-compliance ?
24.  The RNZSPCA is a private organisation with a select membership ( as per their constitution )  They were represented by the Crown Solicitors  but no Section 187 notice was filed and there is nothing to  indicate that the Crown could represent the RNZSPCA and even less allege that this was entitled to intituled the Queen  v    . Documents were filed as the Crown and the transcript of the hearing   refers to “ Crown ” no less than 20 times.
    1. What measures are in pace to prevent this private organisation of misrepresenting itself to the court as a Crown Entity?
    1. And what exemption exists to allow an inspector to  file charges on behalf of the society without referring to Section 12 Criminal procedure act  Please note that the Criminal Procedure Act came into existence in 2011 well after the 1999 Animal Welfare Act?
25. Re The sentencing  decision  again is R v    there are procedures which protect both Private Prosecutions and  Crown Prosecutions,  it would appear that by an Inspector going straight to the Crown Solicitor both accountability processes have been avoided.  Resulting in false representation that this Private organisation is a Crown Entity, this resulted in Judge Grau  relying on the reputation of the SPCA and the alleged integrity of the Crown Solicitor’s Office to the detriment of the defendants.  With regards to her decision
    1. Judge Grau emphasises the number of  dogs, what provision is there in the Animal Welfare Act with regards to  the number of animals that a person can have if the animal is healthy?
    1. What provision is there for an inspector to  take a dog subject it to tests and x-rays to determine if the apparently healthy dog has any  genetic issues?
    1. What provisions exist for an animal’s owner to have an independent second opinion by a vet not associated with the RNZSPCA or one employed by the defendants ?
    1. And with regards to para 22 in the Sentencing Report what obligation does an owner have to tell the SPCA the exact numbers of animals they have and where is that provision in legislation ?
    1. In the Sentencing  Decision at 70  the judge refers to  the SPCA  having made a  comment  about the transfer of ownership, please find out from the Board if this quote was sanctioned by the Board  and what input the Board of the ‘RNZSPCA  has had in this case?
26. Please provide the policies which allow the SPCA to  take a complaint from Dog Control Officers   where the Dog  Control Officer has not attended the scene and is simply passing on a barking dog complaint?
27. What policies exist for the SPCA to  give animals to a public service employee in return for assistance e,g,  giving Heatley a puppy and his involvement in both raids ?
28. What provisions are there with regards to tainted scenes both the Haybarn and the gully were  visited by Heatley before the SPCA inspectors arrived on the scene? In both instances they knew he had been there before them.  What obligations were there on the Inspectors to advise that the scene may have been compromised through his visit?
29.  Body Worn Camera  footage and vet reports were deliberately withheld, and an expert witness Flint happened to be a fellow member of a very select association in New Zealand together with  Jess Beer the SAFE activist vet.  Jess is one of only eight Veterinarians with the qualification of MANZCVS  Else Flint is also a member    see here.  What provision is there for
    1. Withholding SPCA evidence from Trial?
    1. Selection of a close associate as an expert witness?
30.  Please advise the accountability provisions  that were  followed ,and provide evidence of the fact that in this prosecution the prosecution was out in accordance with the 
    1. Approval of the Board
    1. Oversight of the  RNZSPCA
    1. Solicitor General’s  Guidelines
    1.  The Criminal Procedure ACT
    1. Bill of Rights
    1. Animal Welfare Act
31. The RNZSPCA is not subject to the Official Information Act request,  but I believe that the Ministry would obtain evidence from them as per the MOU, please provide the minutes of the meetings where the Board 
    1.   decided to instruct legal council in this case
    1.  Reviewed the evidence
    1.  There were fundraising drives for this matter how much money was specifically fundraised for this through web sites, face book ?
32. The performance and technical standards 2012 were to be reviewed two years after being signed  they were signed in 2013.   When were they next reviewed?
33.    It appears that the technical standards were not  reviewed until 2019  In this document it simply states  “SPCA must have in place a policy and procedure for prosecutions”   has a copy been provided to MPI if so please provide a copy.
    1. The document also requires a policy to be in place for search warrants and   infringement notice procedure.  If you hold copies of those please provide them and   advise if you can obtain copies in the interest of transparency .
34. In the intervening years  2013 -19 ,  it would appear that the 2012 technical standards were in operation
    1. At point  212  they state Overall, the investigating or prosecuting Inspector retains responsibility for the welfare of the animal. Please advise if prosecution of Lauri Davis  and Kevin Plowright has been considered for the neglect of the ill dogs Zeta Paris Astro  Mafia which they charged the defendants with as being ill on 13 October 2017 and left for 2 weeks without vet attention in the pound unwashed and untreated ?
    1. At point 248  the Inspector was required to  liaise with the SPCA National Inspectorate and Centre Support Team  please advise  if this was  followed and if not why not ?
    1. Point 250  requires the Inspector to recommend to his/her SPCA Centre Committee that information’s be laid. Please advise if this was followed and which committee reviewed  and approved the request?
    1. Records  Paragraph  258  requires records of an investigation to include : including animal identification and examination record; there was no on site vet examination despite a vet being present and Plowright, as shown on the  body camera footage  appeared to make decisions as to which  dogs to seize he decides not to take microchip numbers thereby not complying with the procedures.  
    1. This paragraph was also ignored in that the fact that Police Officers and the Dog Control Officers were not recorded.
    1. Para 261 the records are to be kept for  5 years since the first visit was on 28 July 2017,   we ask the MPI to act with urgency to secure all records and provide copies of all documentation relied on by the inspectors .
       1. This information can be provided to MPI on written request stipulating that the  reason for the request is to investigate the conduct of the Inspectors.
35. Microchipping this is a legislative requirement on dog owners for non-working dogs, even though these were working dogs they were microchipped ( at the insistence of Heatley ) , and the microchips were confirmed by him just prior to SPCA visits . Heatley did not give evidence despite being on the list of witnesses to be called.
    1. on whose instructions was he not called? What instructions and processes are in place for Inspectors to properly record the identification of dogs seized and if this exist why was it not followed?
    1. Several dogs which already been microchipped were allegedly microchipped again. Why?  The  possibility therefore exists that this allowed for substituting one dog for another.

Good afternoon Tracy 

I am writing to you in connection with the prosecution of Barbara Glover and Janine Wallace as reported in the Herald today 

I am a former police prosecuting Sergeant and am a retired Private investigator. I have done a lot of work with the Animal Welfare Act and I was contacted by Janine last year and was asked to look at the prosecution for the Volkerson dogs. 

I did not know Janine or Barbara and my first step was to visit their farm and see what was going on. I never intended to become involved to any great extent but what I have seen with regards to this prosecution has struck me as very very wrong and there is so much that simply does not stack up.

Because of the multitude of issues and the need for accountability and transparency I have decided to ask the questions which the lawyers are not asking. It is easy for people to make the assumption that an organisation like the SPCA would not take a prosecution unless it is serious but I certainly have not seen any evidence of any animal neglect or mistreatment and would not be sticking my neck out if what I had seen had supported the actions of your inspectors.

There is obviously a lot of public interest and I am concerned with the online bullying which has gone on and the manner in which these ladies have been executed before they have even been to court. In fact the manner in which they are being treated is grossly inhumane.

In my day in the police no single person ever dealt with a prosecution, there was always oversight of the file by a more senior person in the police. This file is akin to one person ” throwing the book ” at two ladies for trivialities.

I further concerned that it appears that this file is being prosecuted by a person who has left the employment of the SPCA and that there is no legal organisation which has charge of the file.

The whole thing appears to have been passed to the Crown Solicitor to prosecute. The involvement of the Crown Solicitor in itself is a concerning matter as this is a Private prosecution and is in breach of the  Terms of Office of Crown Solicitor (at point 16). 

The inspector who was involved from day one was Kevin Plowright he left the SPCA on 21 June 2019, so the prosecution file has lacked oversight by the officer in charge since at least that date and probably before that when Plowright was overseas see https://www.spca.nz/news-and-events/news-article/ronas-roar

It occurs to me, that the timing of the events with Volkerson, the publicity and fund raising capacity that this gave for the SPCA and the winning of the  2017 Rona’s Roar prize by Kevin Plowright may well be more than meets the eye. 

Getting back to the identity issue

According to the Bio on the Detector Dogs website, Kevin worked with Neil Wells in Waitakere City Council where Wells operated the “approved organisation” which was AWINZ for some 10 years ( there have only ever been two approved organisations one the RNZSPCA the other was AWINZ ) 

Kevin was warranted as an AWINZ ( Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand ) inspector from 2002-2005.

AWINZ was a fictional organisation, it did not exist in any legal manner or form but no one in MAF( Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries ) at the time or since has cared about this. A fictional organisation which had coercive public law enforcement powers has been totally condoned. 

Kevin is a protégé of Wells and would be aware of the significance of using the correct name for an organisation and he has seen that fictional organisations are condoned. 

Kevin Plowright was employed by the Auckland SPCA from 2005 – 2007 and again from 2010 to 2019. The Auckland SPCA is an incorporated society officially known as THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AUCKLAND INCORPORATED (222889) this is its constitution 

The Royal New Zealand Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals is the approved organisation under section 121 animal welfare act which gives the SPCA its inspectorate powers which by virtue of section 190 is passed on to its member societies

The Auckland SPCA is a member society of the RNZSPCA see the constitution of the RNZSPCA society number 218546 schedule 2

It Is very clear by this that the SPCA Auckland and the RNZSPCA are two distinctly separate organisations to the extent that the constitution of the RNZSPCA defines. 

SPCA Auckland as The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Auckland Incorporated (registration number 222889). and the “RNZSPCA” and “SPCA” mean the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated and includes its officers, employees and Board Members, unless specified otherwise.

The charges however has been laid as follows: 

“I, Kevin Plowright of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) have good cause to suspect that has committed the offence specified below.”

Question for Tracey Phillips. I will have questions for you from time to time in this open manner and undertake to put your responses up publicly and un changed. Because of the multitude of issues I will tackle them one by one.  Today the question of identity. 

Who or what is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Auckland) ?  There is no such organisation and fictional organisations are not capable of taking a prosecution see Section 16 Criminal Procedure Act 

The contact person is the Crown Solictor who appears to be ducking for cover and we have now been told officially through the court one thing one week and an another the following week. 

Tracey it is apparent to me that neither the RNZSPCA nor the SPCA Auckland has oversight of the file and no one has been able to fully and fairly inform Barbara or Janine what the specific allegations are with regards to each alleged offence.

If you looked at the file as closely as I have, you will notice that evidence is rather sadly lacking and given that all the inspectors involved have left the RNZSPCA, we need to identify a person representing the alleged prosecuting body, and for them to take charge and ensure that the file is of prosecution standard and that each charge can be sustained. 

As the most senior inspector we presume that the responsibility must fall on your shoulders.

The papers are reporting this as an RNZSPCA prosecution. However based on the court papers it appears that it is a prosecution by a fictional organisation and as such the charges cannot stand .

It also appears that no one in the SPCA Auckland or the RNZSPCA has had oversight of the prosecution and that Kevin Plowright has prepared the file and handed it on to Luke Radich the relative of Jenny Radich through the Anita Killeen pro bono prosecution scheme .

Please advise urgently .

RESPONSE

From: Tracy Phillips <Tracy.Phillips@spca.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2020 10:17 am
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Subject: RE: Open letter with regards to Volkerson prosecution

Tena koe Grace

As the matter is before the courts I am not in a position to comment.

Kind regards

Tracy

From: grace@verisure.co.nz <grace@verisure.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2020 10:35 am
To: ‘Tracy Phillips’ <Tracy.Phillips@spca.nz>
Subject: RE: Open letter with regards to Volkerson prosecution

Thank you Tracy

but we don’t even know if the prosecution is a legitimate  SPCA prosecution  or even  if  the SPCA is involved

We doubt that the board of the RNZSPCA or  the board of the Auckland SPCA   supported the prosecution   and wish to  have the identity of the prosecuting body   confirmed

I certainly hope that  you do not  condone a prosecution is in the name of a fictional organisation 

Post script

Tracy left the RNZSPCA Nov. 2020 and in December 2020 commenced work for Maritime NZ

We all know that there is no such thing as magic . Magic in my definition is to do something seemingly impossible

We are told that our justice system is robust and that there is fairness in our courts but what few realise is that the civil jurisdiction has far less constraints on it than the criminal jurisdiction .

Section 27 of the bill of rights “Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.”

But only those charged with offences have “the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court” section 25

For many lawyers court action is war, and as you know all is fair in love and war .

I was once a police prosecutor and believed that they system we had was fair , perhaps that was because I was an honest cop and thought the same of my colleagues, but times change standards change and a wider perspective allows you to see the full picture .

when I found myself in the civil jurisdiction on a claim of defamation and passing off , I discovered that lawyers are simply able to make things up

This is the statement of claim ,I was not allowed to defend it and the corrupt Barrister Neil Wells who was behind this public fraud swore it as true

The statement of claim was originally drafted by a law clerk , the charitable dollar was used to prosecute it and it was all signed off by a former crown prosecutor, with a reputable name who had obviously not looked at the allegations and the evidence to support it see details at this link more background

Clues to our legitimacy to hold and have our name is on the front page of the intituling the first plaintiffs

NEIL EDWARD WELLS of Huia, Auckland, Council Officer and
Lecturer, WYN HOADLEY of Castor Bay, Auckland, Barrister and
GRAEME JOHN COUTTS of Avondale, Auckland, Recruitment
Consultant as trustees of the ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF
NEW ZEALAND, AN UNINCORPORATED CHARITABLE TRUST

the third defendant

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALAND, AN
INCORPORATED CHARITABLE TRUST having its registered office at , Epsom, Auckland

Only through incorporation does a group of persons become a body corporate , Wells was aware of this he provided the law society with copies of minutes in 2011 these stated it clearly “Registration as Charitable Trust and tax exempt status with IRD..AWINZ has not been registered under the Charitable Trusts Act to date, this needs to be organised. IRD approvals required.

this contrasts with the application he submitted to the minister in 1999 and the letter which he wrote in march 2000 when he gave the minister the assurance that he could not send a copy of the trust deed as it had been sent off for registration .

There was never a trust deed produced that showed all three people as a trust and evidence was later to be found that the trust deed which they did produce was a total fake , the people named on this trust had never met and had never passed a resolution and the trust by its own terms expired in 2003 and since there was no meeting there was no re appointment of trustees

But why should all this stand in the way of obtaining a incorporated name through court action All done by way deceiving the court and attacking my reputation and character .

All this was achieved without evidence, simply as perjurious statement of claim and bull doze a head as if all the crap is true lawyers don’t fact check those with the money can get anything past the post .

The major flaw in our legal system is that Judges believe lawyers .Like any good magic trick it all begins with distraction by planting ideas in your head until our courts start calling for evidence and for a lawyer to fact check the claims then there will be no justice

The court must not be a tool where by the corrupt can obtain what they want and neither should the court be complicit in this , when there are no safe guards and the court can re write history based on the verbal garbage a lawyer presents then there is something very wrong. Its not about winning at all costs its about upholding the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand something that many lawyers over look guess there are no $$$ in that so they help Goliath strip david of his pebbles and slingshot and say justice has been seen to have been done .. or any way lets pretend it has.

There appears to be a lot of fuss about a comparatively minor matter of the pay out for a sexual abuse while a large and very serious matter has been totally ignored by both parties for some 13 years .

Jacinda is aware of this matter as I spoke in her presence and that of
Julie Anne Genter at a pre election function two elections ago.

I have written to the government copious times and have been fobbed off , I can only come to the conclusion that you are totally ignoring this matter so as to condone corruption .

In the early 1990s Neil Wells, a barrister who has now been proved to be corrupt , volunteered his services to a Labour Minister to write the animal welfare bill , his volunteering transpired to be to facilitate his own business plan .

He never declared his gross conflict of interest and became ” independent advisor to the select committee” and made an application for a fictional organisation to receive coercive Law enforcement powers under the new legislation which resulted from the process in which this corrupt barrister was an integral part of .

It has been 13 years since I raised the concern and although AWINZ ceased being a law enforcement a law enforcement authority in 2010 , I have suffered on going repercussions which are massive compared to one unwanted sexual encounter .

The simple evidence which proves my veracity is in the fact that we successfully incorporated the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand there by proving that no other organisation by that name legally existed .

Had MAF checked the existence of AWINZ in 1999 they would not have accepted the application or Wells Word for anything, not only did he make a false application he continually lied about it then used the court to conceal his criminal behaviour.

In January this year a decision came out of the Ontario Supreme court this decision resulted in the Ontario SPCA giving up its law enforcement powers It was held by the court that a private law enforcement authority did not and could not have proper accountability to the public

If this is the case for a legally incorporated organisation then how could a fiction organisation have any possible accountability when there is no evidence of it existing and as it transpired there was never any one else involved in running it other than Mr Wells .

The significance of private law enforcement becomes significant through Well”s own words in the submission to the the select committee in 2013 he states

I have linked my affidavit which sets out the background in full starting at point 14

Why has this issue not been important , why has it been condoned and fobbed off ?

When you have finished with the side show on minor matters could you please take some time to have this investigated as there are massive implications as the the lawfulness, transparency and lack of accountability of the remaining Private law enforcement authority the RNZSPCA , especially in view of the Ontario decision .

There is great significant that Ontario had the same powers as our RNZSPCA , There is a very close connection with Ontario through the chairman & CEO of the canadian humane society who lives in Ontario and which the Ontario SPCA was part of . The ontario SPCA had these powers from 1990 and it appears that this was inspiration for Wells to create the legislation which we now have .

Please see hyperlinks for the full evidence

Today I received the attached court decision from the Superior court of Justice  Ontario    Decision-19-01-02 Ontario

It was reported in the Ontario press https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-judge-strikes-down-enforcement-powers-of-ospca-as-unconstitutional-1.4239169.

I see this  decision as impacting  on the Approved organisations  which  currently enforce the animal welfare law in New Zealand, the ontarion SPC has a lot in common with the  RNZSPCA  and  their legislation  is  pretty similar to ours ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

By way of back ground

I am a former police prosecutor and became a mother then a private investigator . In my role as Mother  I stumbled across  a fictional “Approved organisation”  being the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) .

MPI’s own  documents record that  this “ organisation “ was never incorporated under any legislation, this actually means that the application for approved status was fraudulent , it was compounded with  false and misleading statements to the minister . I discovered he fraud and on blowing the whistle was immediately crucified , 12 years later I am still suffering the fall out,  this time at the hands of a Financial markets authority Lawyer  *.see foot note

What makes the impact of this even more significant is the fact that  the only person to  operate this “ approved organisation “ was none other than Neil Edward Wells the barrister who had written the No bill for the legislation  and  then become  “ independent advisor” to the select committee when the bills became Law . see his cv here

His purpose for writing the  bill was   his own business plan see the a copy of which you have on your files here   and  a copy which I have forwarded to your staff many times here   , it has to be noted that these  were dated 1996   an predate his  drafting of the legislation  He inserted the approved organisations into the bill to facilitate his business plan .

IN 2006  I raised Questions  with regards to  AWINZ   and found that this was totally covered up by  MPI  officials  who were  on friendly terms with  Wells. The  current MPI  chief   legal officer Peter  McCarthy was the  crown law solicitor  who  gave advice  in the approval stages  and failed to pick up the  lack of any  legal existence of AWINZ see  document here ,  His own conflict  has  in my opinion  jeopardised any investigation into the  public fraud which existed for  some 10 years.

I raised question with regards to accountability  as in my mind a fictional organisation cannot have accountability .

Relevance of the Ontario  decision

 The Ontario decision impacts on  the only two   Approved organisation  which have existed   in   different ways

1. AWINZ    .. was MPI  negligent in allowing AWINZ   to continue as an approved organisation   until 2010 despite a whistle blower.. (me) correctly  identifying that the organisation had no legal existence ,this  point  was  recognised by MPI  in 2007 see here    . MPI  met with people claiming to be  the AWINZ trust but these people informally came together in   may 2006 a  month after we had proved that AWINZ the approved organisation was a fiction .  the gazette notices with regards to  AWINZ are here
2. RNZSPCA   I see that the case with the RNZSPCA  reflects the same issues as the  judge identified with the Ontario SPCA.  Ours  however is compounded by the fact that  the RNZSPCA  has never been given approved status  but was given approved status under  Transitional provisions. Mr Wells was a former  director of the  RNZSPCA  , his law degree had been paid for  by the RNZSPCA   and  he  continued to have associations with the RNZSPCA  after   AWINZ lost its approved status.

Wells was proved to be a   corrupt barrister  the organisation he misappropriated funds for the RNZSPCA.

When the RNZSPCA  was given  provisional approval  in the legislation  it had a constitution  1995 constitution which was  very different to its current constitution 2017 constitution . There is also reference to branches, but  there is  a move to  remove branches and the entire structure and integrity of the RNZSPCA has changed  with the  Auckland SPCA ( a member society ) effectively taking over the RNZSPCA

The  Ontario decision   in particular paragraph 84  to 91 impacts on the AWINZ matter  specifically  i the fact that the application  for   approved status for AWINZ   was fraudulent in that it  claimed to be an organisation when  the  only person applying for approved status  an  involved in running the approved organisation under the fictional name  AWINZ was the author of the legislation

There was no transparency then  and those involved in the  cover up     being  Wyn Hoadley, Graeme Coutts  ,  Tom Didovich , the FMA lawyer and MPI staff  whose actions    sought to conceal the fact that AWINZ , the approved organisation ,had no legal existence as determined  by  the ministry of economic development  see here  . have  continued to be fine upstanding persons  while I hve had to endure 12 years of  orchestrated attacks on my reputation    so as to discredit me and the facts of the substantive issue   ignored.

Itis time that  MPI  takes steps to  ensure  transparency , integrity to protect itself  from  fraud and  demonstrates that such  falsehoods will not be condoned,  this is particularly serious as it involved law enforcement   through fraud

With regards to the RNZSPCA   in light of the Ontario decision mPI must  review the search and seizure powers Section 21 Bill of rights  and section s 127 -130 Animal welfare act  as discussed in paragraph 12 of the Ontario decision  paragraph 31  to 61

In particular  it needs to be considered that Paragraph 24 of the decision  refers to distress,  the definition in the   Ontario act is distress” means the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter or being injured, sick or in pain or suffering or being abused or subject to undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect; (“détresse”)24 ,

 Our  legislation does not define  distress which means it takes on dictionary meaning and  can  include “ discomfort , despair, worry  anxiety’ My cat suffers from this  frequently when she doesn’t get a hit of “treats”   and with  the RNZSPCA constitution change incorporating  the requirement to “create a better life for animals “  I am  in danger of causing distress to my cat .. she certainly puts up a convincing show

• this means that inspectors subjective  opinion could determine that  I am causing my cat  distress  when she does not get her fix of her favourite treat on time

To quote but amend the wording from the  Ontario decision

“By granting police and other investigative powers {including search and seizure powers under the animal welfare act  )to a private organization? In the alternative, if it can be constitutional to grant such powers to a private organization does the animal welfare  Act never the less breach sections 21   25   and 27  of the bill of rights by granting these powers to the RNZSPCA, specifically, without any or adequate, legislatively mandated restraints, oversight, accountability and/or transparency?”

Ontario decision . Just like the  Canadian legislation our animal welfare act carries  imprisonment  penalties (section25  37 AWA) and therefore  are “ criminal in nature “  people  who are charged with animal welfare offences  are liable to lose their employment  such as in the case of nurses  and  teachers.

Many of the offences are strict liability  and the   “unreasonableness” in compliance or noncompliance is  only evaluated  subjectively “ in the opinion” of the  Inspector of the private  enforcement organisation which  co incidentally  appears to have changed its constitution to   target  enforcement as a means of income and is  involved in significant   recruitment and training of new inspectors   see here

Like the Canadian provisions  many of our criminal acts require  intent ,  however intent is not an ingredient in the animal welfare  act  and a person acting in accordance with their  traditional  standards  could well become guilty under the act. If suffering is in” the opinion” of any party  it is the opinion of the  RNZSPCA that counts. The RNZSPCA  is targeting fines as a source of income

It is of specific note that  you are automatically guilty  of an offence under the animal welfare act unless you file a defence  under  restricted terms , within 7 days . section 13 animal welfare act.

It is also of note that the legislation was  written and advised on by a Barrister who   was closely associated with the RNZSPCA  under its old constitution  and one who was  intent on using this  very legislation to derive an income for himself.

The discussion  Paragraph 62 onward   in the Ontario decision is  very relevant

we require an urgent  review of the RNZSPCA and the  animal welfare Acts’ compliance with the  bill of rights  and Official information  act

1. • section 21 BORA   given that all it requires for an  search and seizure is the opinion of an inspector  who  is  employed by a charity whose  purpose is to “taking action against those who fail to comply with their legal obligations relating to the physical, health, and behavioural needs of Animals.’

• • Section 25 C Bora  “the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:”   and section13 Animal welfare act  , there was a case where a nurse had  horse which contracted  a  disease distributed by pukeko’s, her horse rapidly deteriorated and  died.   The laboratory tests  were not back within 7 days  and her defence  failed because the SPCA proved that her horse died in her care .

• • Section 27  does the ability of the RNZSPCA  to enter and search without warrant impact on  the right to justice

• • Unlike the police  or government body  prosecution  the RNZSPCA is not subject to the  official information act  and therefore lacks transparency

It is further of note that the  RNZSPCA   trades as the SPCA  , the  staff and directors of the former  Auckland SPCA which was a separate legal entity appear to have taken over the  RNZSPCA which was the only body to have  approved status.  Their  new  constitution allows for other names , this    brings about confusion and  opens the ability of any one to pass themselves off as an approved organisation  and  gives scope for another  fraudulent  law enforcement organisation  such as AWINZ.

I  sincerely hope that  the Ontario decision provides clarity and direction for our own animal welfare legislation