"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduciary accountability and transparency in public affairs we will continue to have human rights breached because the existing crown immunity and lack of any independent oversight invites corruption to flourish.

"Question authority, and think for yourself" - Timothy Leary

"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

"Information is the currency of democracy" - Thomas Jefferson

‎"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead

"The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself."

"I = m c 2 [squared] where "I" am information" - Timothy Leary

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen

"The internet is a TV that watches you"

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Update on the corrupt charges against me, and how your taxes are being wasted:

Today was my birthday, and I had to go all the way to Wellington District Court to answer the latest corrupt charges laid against me by the useless and corrupt Wairarapa police.  Perverting the Course of Justice and Escaping Custody.  What a joke!  I didn't pervert the course of justice, it is indisputably obvious that the matter is an abuse of process and a complete and utter waste of taxpayers money, the Crown case is an orchestrated litany of lies that anyone can see through, Michael Murphy and Aaron Brook are two of the least credible witnesses it would be possible to find, and it is indisputably obvious that the Wairarapa police have been perverting the course of justice for at least eight years, and a lot longer by all accounts:

Specifically, local police have repeatedly refused to investigate the following (inter alia):

  • the illegal takeover, mismanagement and closure of the Carterton Community Centre, after the Secretary and Treasurer was punched in the face and the locks on the building were changed to cover up the fraud going on there - these allegation are supported by letters from at least five lawyers and are published on this site (links up soon), 
  • Police refuse to charge Georgina Beyer with with conspiring to defeat justice by writing an official letter denying that there was fraud at the Carterton Community Centre, involving people associated with the District Council - that's the reason Beyer resigned from parliament.
  • Police refuse to charge Gary McPhee and his mate for the drunken, violent home invasion and assault which he boasted about in the paper, establishing a clear and indisputable prima facie case 
  • Police refuse to charge Tracy Lee with the theft of $500 from a local woman and making a false statement to police regarding a phone call she told police that she received from my address, 
  • Police refuse to charge Michael Francis Murphy with the attack on me in my home on the 11th February 2010.

The last police perversion of justice listed above is one of the most blatant of all and involves none other than Michael Murphy and his mate, drunken lout of an illegally elected Mayor, Gary McPhee, and corrupt local Constable Peter Cletoris Cunningham.  Murphy incited other people to join him in driving to my home to commit a violent attack that was witnessed by at least three other people who all called 111 immediately and described the attack in graphic terms as it was taking place.  One of the witnesses eventually intervened with a dog, which stopped the attack and caused the offenders to leave.

Police accuse me of making the whole thing up, and say that even if it were true, it was ok for them to come and violently attack me - because I allegedly took a five year old child to the supermarket without the permission of its mother!  First they tried to say I left the child alone in the supermarket and the child was distressed, until I requested the CCTV footage, which has never been provided of course, because it showed that the child was not neglected or distressed.  The story changed then, to the one about taking the child without permission.  Anyone knows that if a mother has concerns about her child she should go to the police, not go and smash down the person's door and assault them in a blind rage.  Concerns of serious abuse are one thing, but taking a child to the supermarket without permission is quite another and certainly does not warrant a violent attack!

Anyway, I went all the way to Wellington District Court to defend myself on the charges, after the corrupt  lawyers and amicus curiae repeatedly refuse to assist me to fill in any applications for Disclosure, for example, which should have been provided months ago under the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act and only worry about how much money they can suck up for dragging the proceedings out as long as possible.  True to form, the case did not go ahead today, it was a waste of everyone's time - how much did Bryan Yeoman get paid for that?!  What an utter creep he is!  I was imprisoned for two days illegally because of him!

On arrival, I was handed this:  (Click on the images to enlarge them)

The Judge said there wouldn't be time to hear the matter, which was odd, because there we were, at the appointed time, and the whole floor of the Court building - 3 Courtrooms, offices, etc, was completely deserted, so it didn't look like they were very busy with any other cases at all.

Constable Laura Rhymer didn't turn up for the hearing of the Crown application because she knew perfectly well that she did NOT arrest me because I had not committed any crime.  Constable Rhymer didn't turn up for the hearing on the 8th December, because she applied for annual leave just two days before the hearing.  Corrupt Constable Cunningham and his corrupt fellow officers now expect Constable Laura Rhymer to lie, to put her whole career on the line by going along with his orchestrated litany of lies.  She can't do it.  What they want her to say is not true.  I don't think she will convince anyone if she tries to lie about it, either.  Read the story below by Ross Meurant (I know, I can't believe I said that either!) to see that corruption is common in the New Zealand police.  It's getting a lot worse fast, too.  The so called inquiry into the PCA by Margaret Bazely was a joke, and a waste of time and money, because it only focussed on sexual misconduct, when clearly the problem was far deeper, as evidenced by the imprisonment of John Dewar - the huge cover up was the real issue, not the sexual misconduct.

Here's the thing the amicus curiae tried to make me sign, agreeing that Constable Rhymer not give evidence in person - and the Court should just take her word for it that she arrested me!  What rubbish!  I hadn't done anything and she knew it!

This is how your taxes are being spent, while a Judge recently highlighted the hundreds of uninvestigated child abuse cases, and general incompetence and dysfunction of the Wairarapa police. More evidence of that is all over this site, and plenty of others too (links up soon).

I asked (among other things,) for a Court Order for the audiotape of the calls to 111 regarding Murphy's attack , which Murphy denied committing in his Depositions Evidence.  The Judge refused my request.  What outrageous corruption!  He told me to make an application under the Disclosure Act or something for it, and then told me I should have instructed lawyer Noel Sainsbury to do it.  I told him I HAD instructed him to do it, and he had refused to accept any of my instructions at all, including this one.  I also told the Judge that I had requested it, and other evidence, which should have been provided months ago, under the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act.

The Judge wasn't interested, it was wink wink, nudge nudge with the corrupt amicus curiae, prosecutor, lawyers, and all the other slimy weasels that suck up our money from the gravy train, let's go home and write up our bills, ha ha, sickening really.  It cost me $60 to get to Court with a support person - I have no lawyer. I must say that the Court security staff are very pleasant and helpful though.  So anyway, it's been remanded till 30 September 2010 with absolutely RIDICULOUS - not to mention ILLEGAL - bail conditions - oh, that was something else I asked to speak to the Judge about, another request that was denied!   More about the bail address soon, it's bedtime now.

Thank you to all the people who sent me happy birthday wishes and good wishes and offers of assistance for Court today, your kindness is appreciated so much, and I did have a lovely day cycling around my favorite city - I just love Wellington!  I also made some nice new friends, including two lovely ladies called Karen and Viv who are a real credit to the Salvation Army, brightening up the day of everyone in the store with their friendly, happy, caring manner.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Ross Meurant Tells It Like It Is - An Inside View of the NZ Police:

This is cut and pasted directly from www.kiwisfirst.com only because I couldn't make a link to it directly, and with much appreciated permission from the editor of that site, Vince Siemer.

(I cannot believe I am actually agreeing with Ross Meurant after all these years, never mind giving him valuable space on my site!  Shows how out of touch we are sometimes.  Or maybe, how we're all not really that far apart, deep down.)  
1:30 am, Court tomorrow, must be past my bedtime.  Greatly relieved to see that I am not imagining that there is corruption within the ranks of the New Zealand Police.  


DEEP IN THE FOREST by Ross Meurant, B.A.  M.P.P. 
Like most recruits, I entered the police as an impressionable young man with a basic education, from a working class environment in provincial New Zealand.  There were hundreds of peers like me, before me and after.  I was nothing special but I was altruistic.  We were all cannon fodder.  Easy to manipulate. We looked at the forest before us in awe.

The moment you step into the police, this sub culture within NZ culture hits you.  You are immediately part of the thin blue line.  You are part of a team and that team looks after itself.   You are special.  You are the border between good and evil. The attitudes of the police instructors, armed not with teaching certificates but with ten years exposure to the police sub culture, either consciously or subconsciously invite you into the forest.

To step out of police college is to take the next step into the forest. You are now part of the difference between law and order in the streets where gangs would rule and evil would triumph.  But for you and your fellow coppers, society would be a dangerous place.  Your mission is to protect society from this evil.  Very soon you learn to decide what is evil and what is not.  You are no longer just a collector of human rubbish at the base of the cliff but you have an obligation; yes, even a duty to guide the country to a decent society.  That direction is best decided by you and others in your sub culture of police, for what better epitomizes the values of a decent society than those cherished by the men and women in blue?  Your task is honourable.  What better vocation than to rid the country of evil?  Thus, achieving this end can even justify the means!

The further into the forest, the more pervasive becomes this police culture.  The heart of the beast is centered in elite CIB squads like Regional Crime, Criminal Intelligence and Drug Squad.  These are the destinations to which the most ambitious and zealous aspire.  Together with the Armed Offenders Squad and Team Policing units, these entities are the bastion of police culture.

Of course there are those who do not aspire to these objectives but then, the police is also a government department which always harbor a good number of 'glide timers': there to collect their pay and do as little as possible, which is the best route to longevity in any government agency.  Often these people will suddenly find themselves floating on the top of the pool.

Every new entrant runs the same gauntlet.  No recruit is ever formally 'taught' to use violence, to lie and cover up.  None of my mentors did that to me and I never did it to those whom I mentored.  But the culture sends a very clear message.  'When you witness transgression by a colleague, keep your mouth shut at worst and at best, provide an account which supports the miscreant and helps him/her out of a sticky situation.'  If you don't, as a new recruit, you are ostracized.  You may as well quit there and then.  But once you have provided succor, you have taken your next step into the forest.  Later you will witness another indiscretion and you will again 'cover'.  After all, you have been accepted as one of the team.  You are 'reliable'. To lose that status is not a desirable outcome.  But already you are compromised. Then one day you will commit an indiscretion and others will cover for you.   Then you are beholden. Then you have entered the forest proper.  There is no light to show the way home.

When I speak about a police culture, I speak about the environment I have described.  It is introverted, self protecting and lacking objectivity.   It is a culture which looks after itself and has a certain view of how life should proceed.  It is reinforced by drinking and bonding sessions.  The 'them and us' ethos becomes tangible.  What is more, the culture is working class conservative in its origins. Bigoted and intolerant.  Few of its officer corps are university graduates and even fewer hail from private schools.  There is no network which pervades the upper echelons of society.  The police are insular.
If someone has tattoos or hair too long or dresses the 'wrong' way or does not have 'acceptable' politics, then they are one of 'them' and not to be trusted.  Conversely liberals are a menace to stability and are even more dangerous than unemployed Maori.

I recall when as a detective in the mid seventies, I applied to go to university and was asked by my commissioned officer:  "Meurant.  Why do you want to go to university?   Are you a communist?"  The message was pretty clear.  This was at the height of Vietnam. The police sub culture did not approve of its members being associated with undesirable elements who frequented establishments of enlightenment!

When I did finally go to university I found my lecturers to include Michael Basset, Phil Goff and Helen Clark, all of whom where later my peers in parliament but who at the time I entered university, shared decidedly  different political beliefs to me.  Yet even though I argued, as an example, that US foreign policy in Vietnam was 'defensive' (domino theory), these people approved my assignments.  They were prepared to tolerate a philistine within their midst, suppress their natural aversion to me and mark my opinions objectively.  This, as I reflect, juxtaposes starkly the attitude or culture of the two institutions.  One institution is prepared to tolerate alternative views.  The other is not.

I advanced in the rank structure relatively quickly in the police and soon found myself  incarcerated as supervisor in a control room; a job I loathed.  So I did go to university and here, the first signs of light began to reappear.  Slowly the mist began to abate and I saw things from a different perspective.  In all, I did eleven years at either Auckland or Victoria universities.  I am immensely grateful for how those institutions unwittingly help me exorcise the demon of excessive exposure to police culture.

This 'culture' manifests in many different forms.  Three recent examples will illustrate my point and demonstrate that it is as alive and well as it was in my day:

John Dewar.  Recently incarcerated for, according to the view of the Court, covering up for the despicable conduct of assistant commissioner Rickards and two other police officers.   John Dewar was one of the best sergeants I ever had as an inspector, but the 'culture' manifest in his destiny in a most tragic manner for him.

Then there was the police shooting of a man in Christchurch.  The law is clear when a cop or civilian may kill another human being.  One must fear on reasonable grounds, death or grievous injury to oneself or a third person which cannot otherwise be prevented.  In my view the circumstances of the killing are not as transparent as the police public relations section would have us believe.  A man shot wielding a hammer on cars!  Not dissimilar to a man shot, wielding a golf club against shop windows.

The proper place to test the validity of police action is before a Court.  The strength of our police is public confidence and support; without which they are nothing.  The best way to retain that public support is for transparency and that is best achieved by testing police actions in a Court of law. Yet immediately after the killing we have the police association representative, completely out of line in my view, seeking to influence the outcome by claiming the shooting was justifiable and that we should trust the police to judge their own actions.  This of course is the manifestation once again of the police culture: look after the police.  That is quite different, in my view, to looking after the rule of law.

Finally there is the recent implementation of draconian anti terror legislation to combat routine crimes and offences in the community.  Police say they have collated information over a period of 12 months which on analysis leads them to the conclusion that there is a real threat to the stability and security of our country.  The problem as I see it is, that information they have has been self assessed by the same people who collate the data or at best, by the supervisor of the 'intelligence unit' and his superior; all of whom view society from within the forest and with vested interests in producing an outcome which justifies the retention of their unit. These subjective conclusions are presented to judicial officers as the basis of justification for warrants and implementation of anti terror legislation which abrogate the most basic of our legal rights.

 No longer are we protected from arbitrary detention without being charged and the legal requirement to be taken before a Court as soon as possible. This I find unacceptable.

I am also disappointed that too many New Zealanders appear not to comprehend the significance of what it means to our legal structure when on the basis of subjective analysis by the police, these Guardians substantially usurp the role of the judiciary as a check and balance against tyrannical tendencies.  There is a fundamental flaw in the present legislation where it allows a subjective test of police information by police, to form the basis of reason to catapult us onto a terror alert footing.   It is even more disturbing to me when I know the environment where these decision are made, is deep in the forest.  What the police are effectively saying is:

"In the Ureweras there are weapons of mass destruction. Trust us."  Sound familiar?

I have been in the forest.  In the seventies I was a detective on Regional Crime and Drug Squad. I was also on the AOS.  My formal police assessments were high.  'Excellent' as a detective.  'Outstanding' as a commissioned officer.  In my formative years my immediate supervisors included detective sergeant John Hughes, detective inspector Graham Perry and later detective inspector Bruce Hutton (Hutton was my boss on my first homicide: the Crewe murders).  These men were legends in their own time, each of them relentless and with a determination of mind few could match.  Together with half a dozen other young detectives, we formed a formidable unit; we became a legend in our own time.

Our adversaries were serious villains:  Peter Fulcher, Mihaly Bede, Terry Clarke alias Mr Asia, the Saffiti boys and several gangs.  This was a particularly violent time in the history of policing in New Zealand.  We were right in the middle.  It was inevitable that we, who consistently faced angry men in dark alleys, would have allegations made against us.  I had my share against me.

There were allegations of excessive force; that I was aware of but did nothing about an offender alleged being dangled  by his ankles from the fourth floor of the police station; perjury and even one of extracting a confession from a drug dealer by playing on him Russian Roulette with a police issue revolver.  These allegations were of course outrageous untruths without foundation and never sustained.

In 1981 I was seconded to the police Red Escort Group - Red Squad.  I later wrote a book about the exploits of the squad.  That initiative catapulted me into the headlines for the first time.  On the one hand, I believe it provided the impetus for me to gain selection for National as a Member of Parliament in a conservative seat.  On other hand, because I later became a Member of Parliament and had written the book, The Red Squad Story, I became synonymous with Red Squad and alone have endure the odium and contempt heaped upon that police unit, as the tide of public opinion turned.

My last job in the police was inspector in charge of special operations and a criminal intelligence section.  At the time the focus was on the activities of Maori activists at Carrington hospital.  I took raw police data and used it in my Maiden Speech.  At the time I believed in the conclusions we as a police unit had peer reviewed.  Some form of revolution or armed insurrection had been threatened. There were threats of 'Kill white die a hero".  Maori wanted political sovereignty.  Maori activist Sid Jackson was one of several who had been to Libya.   But did a contrary political view and aspirations really pose a threat to the security and stability of our country?  History has provided the answer.  There has been no revolution and at least one of the Maori activists of those times is now in Parliament working within the system.

I made a mistake when I took the raw police data and used in my Maiden Speech.  It took another 9 years in parliament, another 3 years at university and as I do now, living in East Europe where the legal protections and freedoms we take for granted often do not exist, for me  to finally step out of the forest and see it for what it is.

I urge every New Zealander not to allow the State apparatus to take from you by default, legal rights people long before us fought for, died for.  I urge every New Zealand to contact their Member of Parliament and express concern that the anti terror legislation currently before parliament, be placed on 'hold' until the true nature of the present police raids  under the auspicious of terror legislation, is tested before the Courts.

Is a delay of a few months too much to much to ask before we take the next step toward undermining the most significant legal document ever which has endured since 1215?  The Magna Carta.

Monday, July 26, 2010

It's a Wild World in the Wairarapa, More Threats:

About an hour ago, at 2 pm 27th July 2010, I was trying to prepare for Court with the pathetic amount of information available, and notably without the audio recording of the call to emergency services from witnesses to the attack on 11th February 2009, of Michael Murphy screaming threats at me as he tried to smash my door in and attack me, which the police are corruptly refusing to provide after claiming that the Privacy Act says I cant have any information created by other people.  Lies, of course, it says no such thing, the NZ Police make it up as they go along.  Twelve people stand between me and seven years in prison tomorrow, because of these corruptly laid charges.

Anyway, there I was, minding my own business as usual, when Hayden, mentioned in the previous post in regard to the way that he and his cousin Tracy are not charged for other violent and threatening criminal behaviour, and stealing $500 respectively, because of his mother's relationship with Constable Steve Wakefield, who although retired now, is still kept in the manner in which he has become accustomed by profiting from the odd "perk job", like driving the police van that took me over the Remutakas on the 22nd 23rd February after his mates arrested me on the illegal warrant obtained in the Masterton Court on 16th February 2010 on the basis of information that the Registrar and the Police knew was false.

Whoops, there I go again, anyway Hayden arrived, in his silver ute, with a woman with curly red hair called Kim who fancies herself as being a bit of a know all on horses and gets around in a stetson most of the time, turned up here shouting threats and giving the fingers and carrying on.  That was the sole purpose of the visit.  Hayden got out of the ute and shouted "I don't care what you write on the internet, you can write what you like.  You'll be sorry."

So in honour of that, and as evidence of how this is typical of the corrupt way police deal with violence in the Wairarapa, here's a copy of a statement by a woman who was visiting me with her two young children when he came around on another occasion, only a week or two after police - including Constable Laura Rhymer, the officer in charge of the case being heard tomorrow, served him with a trespass notice - or told me they had.  This witness was present when Hayden arrived, with his parents, ranted and raved, making all sorts of threats, then smashed a bedroom window while we and the terrified children looked in amazement as the police who were present - I had called them - did absolutely nothing about it!

Will be putting the recording of the threatening phone messages from Hayden on the site soon, in the mean time, leave the horses and the vehicles alone Hayden, I PAID for the car you've threatened to "deal to" - remember?

These two layabouts should get a job instead of carrying on like this!  I am tempted to write about what Hayden told me they do all day and night, but good taste prevents me from delving into that depravity, they say that the devil finds work for idle hands, these people have too much time on their hands and too much taxpayers money to squander, running around all day, drinking all night, these people have no intention of ever getting a job, that's the last thing they want, they'd rather bludge off the taxpayers as if the world owes them a living.

The phone message is interesting in that it says he's moving into my rented house because it belongs to him, a tale he told the police when they served the trespass notice, but not WINZ apparently.  He didn't tell them about any of his considerable assets apparently.  The message and the documents above also confirm the use of the exact same language the police have charged me with using but refused to charge anyone else with!  More blatant corruption - one law for some people another law for others.

Thousands of dollars in tickets for bike helmet fines and Constable Wakefield drives me all the way over the Remutaka's and Haywards Hill and back, slipping and sliding around in a stainless steel box with sharp edges - and where's my safety gear for that?  I had far more need of a helmet then than any time I'm riding my bike - let's get real!  And how much did that little illegal warrant excercise cost the tax payers all up to line Steve Wakefield's pocket.  There wasn't even a seat belt!

Hayden boasts about sticking pornographic pictures on the Catholic Church and other rubbish, he should grow up and get a job, delivering pamphlets like me, there's nothing stopping him, apart from his belief, encouraged by his mother, that the world owes him a living because his mother's having an affair with the local cop.  Don't come round here threatening me.  If anything happens to my property or the Community Garden horses, everyone will ll know who threatened to do it.

Here's another statement about how the police carry on:

And another:

This is a letter from the parents of children at the South End School about the letter sacking me regarding the false allegation of child abuse charges.

This is one of the letters that the School denied receiving, and lied to the Privacy Commissioner about, and why the Principal didn't turn up for Court the other day, because he is a LIAR, who told the children at the South End School that I didn't turn up to Court.  Well children, and parents, I certainly did turn up to Court, Mr O'Leary was the one who didn't turn up because he's telling lies and would have been forced to admit it.

When is the Board of Trustees going to meet with me, apologise to me, and admit that Rod O'Leary and Gavin Kennedy are liars.The corrupt police lied to them about having charged me - like they've been lying for years about charging me with child abuse - I am not a child abuser, I do not pervert the course of justice, I am not a criminal.

Kennedy signed the letter on the basis of lies spread by the police and he knows it, it has been confirmed now that he's been forced to admit the existence of the notes made by the staff representative on the Board of Trustees, they are still lying in the face of the evidence - who wants liars teaching their children?  REPEAT liars - O'Leary has lied and lied and LIED about these matters!

By the way, take a look at the state of the gardens outside the school - what an utter disgrace!  "Whaea Michelle" was in a big hurry to rip out our parsley and kale and everythign else that we planted, and throw it away, while screaming "F*** off, f***" off at me - shame that was the entire extent of her "efforts".  Friends of the Gardens used to maintain those beds beautifully with the children until Whaea Michelle destroyed them over a year ago, they haven't been touched since - except the bit of overpriced "potted colour" they planted and then never watered.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Corrupt Constable Wakefield's Malicious Vendetta:

Yet again the corrupt, bullying local police have proved me right.  "Whose behaviour does your child reflect?" ask the little posters with the mirrors in that are on the walls of all the police stations in New Zealand.

A couple of hours ago, Constable Mike Wakefield demonstrated why his father retired having never made it higher than the rank of Constable, and why Mike probably won't either.  Because they are both corrupt, nasty, bullies.

Riding along, minding my own business as usual, not bothering anybody, as usual, quarter to eleven at night, cold, wet, homeless - as a direct result of the police telling everyone I'm a child abuser.

Gutless wonder Mike Wakefield wasted more taxpayers money and police resources by using his discretion to maliciously stop me and detain me for a considerable time and finally issuing me with a ticket for not wearing a helmet and "no light on bike" - well there was a light on the bike, and when he asked me if there was any reason I wan't wearing a helmet I replied politely that there was (as he is well aware because he's seen it many times), in the form of a letter from my doctor confirming that I should be exempted on medical grounds.  As can be seen in the picture above (despite the letter) I often wear a helmet, and usually wear a reflective, high visibility vest.  He asked me if I had the letter with me, I produced it.  Instead of just getting on with his job, now that he and his lying mates have cost me my job, the w***er made me stand there, wet and cold, for ages and ages while he had a good laugh, sitting there in his car, looking things up, writing things down, trying his very best to take as long as possible and taking every opportunity to humiliate and degrade and threaten and abuse me, but only succeeding in humiliating and degrading himself and the New Zealand Police with his petty malicious vendetta, if only he had the wits to see it.

And here's local village idiot Gary McPhee, dressed from head to foot in his no visibility, vanity driven, black leather fashion statement, bleating about his ACC fees - what an utter hypocrite!

The ACC has been his main source of income for years!  When he hasn't been getting it himself for all the ridiculous "accidents" he causes or is involved in, he's been busy filling up his pockets by claiming he's been the "caregiver" of his son Jesse for years, after he talked Jesse into getting a great big motorbike when he was 19 or something, and of course, Jesse ran it straight into the side of a bus and got serious head injuries.

I've ridden my bicycle for many, many years, for hundreds of miles, and I've never claimed ACC as a result of a bicycle accident, except when I got 15 stitches in my knee after the damn helmet slipped and caused me to fall off a couple of years ago, and the hospital filled in the form automatically.

The thing is this, and it's very simple: High visibility vests prevent accidents, cycle helmets are no use whatsoever until after you've had an accident.  Take a good look at this idiot in his silly get up, he flipped his silly motorbike, sidecar and all, in a spectacularly stupid crash recently after the "counterweight" he uses for carting coffins around on his stupid Harley Davidson (I know!) shifted and slipped and dug into the road cartwheeling the entire horrendous contraption arse over kite in the middle of the road recently.  He's a total and utter idiot of the highest order, and the day he and his bikie mates wear high vis vests I'll wear a bike helmet.

And what about those policemen who got shot with an air rifle and killed because they weren't wearing their protective vests?  I've had enough of this one law for some people and another law for others.

Here's me on my little bike, my brother gave it to me, and I go everywhere on it.  If I'm not wearing a high vis vest I'm wearing a red t shirt.  And a good hat.  Looks like I'm showing someone how long McPhee's attention span is or something.

The fact is, that I manage to keep safe and McPhee doesn't.  He has "accident" after "accident", and his mates, the corrupt local cops, just keep letting him off over and over again.

Like they let McPhee off after he committed a nasty, drunken home invasion and assault on the innocent occupants of a local flat and then had the cheek to boast about it in the 'news'paper - an outrageously blatant act of corruption!

Mike Wakefield is harassing and bullying me for what I have written about his father, corrupt, sleazy, Constable Steve Wakefield, who is well known in Carterton for his corruption and his affairs with local woman, notably one called Jenny, whose daughter is married to another police officer, and who lied to the Tenancy Tribunal about the door which was damaged in the attack on me on 11th February 2009, and also Jo Roffe, who was sucking money out of the Carterton Community Centre which is why Wakefield turned a blind eye to the fraud there, and why he and his mates continue to ignore it despite letters from several lawyers.  Constable Steve Wakefield was the officer in charge of the corrupt non-investigation of the allegations regarding the Carterton Community Centre, he covered up the bullying and fraud, the Carterton Community Centre was nothing but a little slush fund for Wakefield's other little friends who were stealing money hand over fist from the Centre and all the different bank accounts it controlled!  While he was having it off with Jo Roffe, who was sucking up over $600 a week of taxpayer's money for her pathetic little craft courses, and Georgina Beyer, sucking up vast amounts of taxpayer's money to teach the young people of the Wairarapa "Life Skills" because the community leaders, like the local police, Councillors, WINZ managers, etc, who are all being paid taxpayer's money to make good decisions for our community, all thought it was a great idea to pay a transvestite prostitute a fortune to teach our kids "her" extremely dubious "Life Skills" - when are the people of the Wairarapa going to wake up, grow a brain and start using it?

Wakefield was/is also having it off with Jenny's niece Tracy,which is why she got away with stealing $500 from a local woman, after lying about having received a phone call from me and Jenny's son which created an opportunity for her to steal the money.  Wakefield and his corrupt police made sure Tracy got away with telling the lie.  So far.  We are not putting up with this and will seek justice no matter how long it takes, because this is blatant and extreme corruption.  Jenny's son came to my home repeatedly, threatening me and carrying on, police were called after he caused a dangerous incident involving a child, and told me they'd given him a trespass notice as requested.  A couple of weeks later police stood and watched as Jenny's son shouted threats and smashed windows at my home while I, and a woman who was visiting me, and her two young children, were there.  Police refused to intervene, or to charge Jenny's son with any offence whatsoever!  Just like they refused to charge McPhee for the drunken home invasion and assault, and just like they refuse to charge Michael Murphy and his mates with the attack on me, which funnily enough, involves drunken lout McPhee again:  The Mayoral Diary for February 2009 and the letter from the Board of Trustees of the South End School makes it clear that McPhee and his mates the corrupt police and Michael Murphy planned the attack on me on 11th February, and that they had been coming to my home and threatening and intimidating me on a regular basis, and that the Police lied to the school deliberately in order to get me sacked, just like they lie to anyone who offers me accommodation, or grazing for the community garden horses.  Police and Michael Murphy lied about an alleged incident in the supermarket and tried to use the lie to justify the violent attack on me instead of charging the violent offenders!

Constable Steve Wakefield was famous round here for his corruption, and the sleazy manner in which he habitually offered to let women off - and I use the term 'women' loosely - VERY loosely - in exchange for "favours" - the sleazier the better.  Everyone knows it - there were many MANY complaints to the PCA about Stephen Wakefield and his sleazy, predatory, corrupt behaviour!.

Constable Mike Wakefield is a corrupt, nasty creep who likes to pick on little people, like me, because he's a gutless wonder and a corrupt bully, like his father.  He's got his snout deep in the trough, sucking up our money.  Wairarapa police are universally despised and their disgraceful record is well documented.  They pick on poor depressed, homeless mental health patients and arrogantly boast of the way they destroy lives with nasty lies and gossip while they corruptly cover up a blatant and extremely violent home invasion and attack on innocent people.

Then there's the other local cop's son, who took a whole lot of methamphetamine - as he regularly did - and then viciously tortured, bashed and murdered another tiny, totally harmless person, breached bail and pervertedd the course of justice and contacted Crown witnesses etc, who got off with a 3 year non-parole period and manslaughter, after his other two mates got considerably longer sentences for MURDER - after the cops son actually confessed to murder in a text message to the very Crown witness he interfered with!

Corruption is out of control in the Wairarapa.  Here's statements of witnesses to more outrageous tax payer funded bullying:

Friday, July 16, 2010

Grand Bicycle Theft Inspires Another Home Invasion by Wairarapa Cops:

On Sunday afternoon, 4th July 2010, I was minding my own business, riding along on a bicycle, enjoying the sunshine, when Constable Harvey Pope, who has nearly made it to retirement and still never reached above the rank of Constable (like Steve Wakefield and Peter Cunningham) demonstrated (again) why that is.

Pulling up alongside me in his big flash police car, with all the bells and whistles, and flashing lights, he ordered me to stop.  Of course I did, whereupon he got out of the car and set upon me.  "That bike's stolen" he said.

"No it's not" I said, "yes it is" said Harvey.  This went on for a while, before Harvey physically pushed me off the bike and seized it, saying he was taking it whether I liked it or not, and if I had a problem with that they would arrest me.  I then said that I wanted my property such as the two bags attached to the bike, and their contents, etc.  Pope said yes at first, then changed his mind and said no, he was seizing all my property as well as the bike, which was NOT even stolen in the first place.

I was extremely upset, Pope was loudly accusing me of being a thief, which I am not!  I walked the short distance around the corner to my friends' house, leaving the bike with Pope, because I was concerned for my physical safety due to the menacing attitude of Pope and Dallinger - confirmed by a statement from a witness (link below).  Shortly afterward we heard Pope and the other police officer, Dallinger, enter the house demanding to know where I was.  My friend and I both felt afraid and intimidated by their shouting.

They then smashed in the door of the room I was in and attacked me, manhandling me out, handcuffing me, and assaulting me, bashing my head into the door frame, etc.  They then wasted all afternoon taking me back to Masterton Police station and locking me up for hours before charging me with - wait for it - allegedly swearing at them.  Not bike theft of course, because the bike wasn't stolen, like I told them.

Which is why they left it at the house where they smashed the door, and why I am still riding round on it, I rode it to Court.  If they didn't falsely accuse people of being thieves when they aren't, maybe people wouldn't allegedly swear at them.  This is just more malicious and vexatious litigation, more of Pope and Cunningham's vindictive witch hunt.  More importantly, it's a total and utter waste of public resources and a criminal abuse of power - as well as a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Even if the bike HAD been stolen - that's NO excuse to smash in a door and assault anyone.  No wonder local police are so despised.  Here's a link to a statement made by a witness regarding a similar incident.  The original is signed, I've removed the identifying details to protect the privacy of the witness.

Pope and Dallinger took delight in going on about the fact that Dallinger was from Dannevirke, and the corrupt cover up of an assault on me in about 2008 in Dannevirke which I believe Dallinger was involved in, then I had to listen to a tirade from Pope about how I had allegedly ruined the lives of everyone in Carterton, so I asked him to name just one of these people, and was amazed when he came out with the name Julie Hallam, the Deputy Electoral Officer who falsely claimed I had failed to submit an expenses return after the local body elections is 2007, described in more detail at this link to 'Election by Deception, How McPhee rigged the election', the architect of her own destiny as far as the article goes, which is what Pope was referring to.

Police took no further interest in the bicycle, because it wasn't stolen, as they knew in the first place, but charged me with swearing at them, then the police prosecutor conspired with the Court to convict me of it in my absence - I hadn't even entered a plea or had proper disclosure of information.

Police continue to ignore all my complaints, telling me to come into the station "for a chat about your complaints" - what a joke!!!  Evidence shows that I've been into the local police stations numerous times and been laughed at, assaulted, abused, and told to "Piss off" by corrupt local officers on every single occasion I've tried to make a complaint!  .

Have a look - and a listen - to how corrupt Constables Harvey Pope and Paul Dallinger lept into action when Tim Reynolds rang up (- emergency services apparently -) and made a deliberately false accusation against me for allegedly "taking" a bicycle - it wasn't his bicycle at all and he needs to be charged with making a false complaint to police - the point is that there are two different sets of rules here - the evidence of Dallinger and Popes corrupt sadism will be added to this post very soon, including full details of how they smashed in the bedroom door to "arrest" me as a result of the phone call in the clip below, and used the phone call as an excuse to detain me at the Masterton police station all afternoon and assault and abuse me.  Here's the recording of Reynolds's pathetic complaint.  He is a bully and a thief.  - The woman pictured in the clip below is Kirsten Grenfell of Barnardos - a trouble making, bludger, who contacted Reynolds to complain that she's got a "smack in the gob"  from another woman for having it off with her partner - Grenfell richly deserved it - she is a manipulative, spiteful trouble maker who regularly sleeps with other women's partners!  Grenfell urged Reynolds to evict me so that she could come round and have it off with him when her partner was working without me to witness her nauseating, adulterous behaviour.

Here are the police documents which Pope and Dallinger wasted their time writing up to try and create an excuse for their sadistic and corrupt vendetta - on the basis of this utterly pathetic phone call from a person who REPEATEDLY stated that they did NOT want to make a formal complaint!:

CONSTABLE Harvey Pope demonstrates why he's never been promoted!

CONSTABLE Pope's orchestrated litany of LIES
Corrupt EX CONSTABLE Dallinger's "Jobsheet"

"Victims" Constables Dallinger and Pope - two grown men - two sadistic liars!
It can be seen from these documents that there was at least one witness to this incident (I have obscured her name to protect her privacy) - Dallinger and Pope tried to convince her to back up their story but the witness refused to do so because she was shocked at their actions, like the witness who wrote the statement at this link.

Now, here is the second page of the records of the police communications centre regarding this incident, which shows evidence of the three calls the police call taker apparently made to Reynolds to try and talk him into making a formal complaint - Reynolds repeatedly said he didn't want to or intend to do so!  Dallinger and Pope knew perfectly well that no crime had been committed!  THIS is what sadistic, vindictive local officers are doing while they're deliberately covering up for child abusers and paedophiles and making sure that our region regularly has TWICE the national rate of suicide - in a country with some of the highest rates in the world - REGULARLY!

Here's what Reynolds and his mates Wayne Friend, etc, have done to my television and the keyboard I used to teach children music with - Reynolds has illegally disposed of much of my other property as well, including two guitars, and police refuse to even acknowledge any of my complaints.  I've been into the Carterton, Greytown and Masterton police stations REGULARLY to report this and other vandalism and theft of my property - not to mention the assaults from Reynolds and his mates!  I get told to piss off every single time!

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Access to Court records - the Feltex cover up - guest post:

David Harvey, District Court Judge writes:

In November 2011 the Center for Legal and Court Technology at William and Mary University, Williamsburg, Virginia, in association with the National Center for State Courts and the Administrative Office of United States Courts held the 8th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records.

I was honoured to be invited to present a paper on the New Zealand experience in this area. The paper was well received and there was considerable interest in the way in which the issue was dealt with in the absence of the context of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the ability of the press to report on court proceedings. By the same token, a number of Federal Courts and the US Supreme Court in particular do not allow cameras in Court whereas in New Zealand there is a specific media policy that allows this as long as there is compliance with media guidelines.

My paper, a copy of which is at the end of this post, sketched the approach in New Zealand to access to Court records. Despite an examination of the issue by the Law Commission in 2006 in its report entitled Access to Court Records, little legislative action has taken place apart from the introduction of the The Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009 which remedy some of the perceived access problems as far as criminal court records are concerned. However, the current rules relating to other court records are drawn from a variety of different sources, are not always consistent, clear nor easy to locate nor are they comprehensive.

There is a significant gap in the 2009 Rules. They do not cover District Court summary proceedings. This has caused some concern, because it could well be that a different process could apply to different criminal proceedings depending upon whether they have been laid summarily or indictably or, of course, where the accused has elected trial. The issue is of special interest (and no doubt concern) to the news media who routinely seek permission to access court files to obtain background and material for their reportage of court cases.
The difficulty, however, has been addressed in a case decided late last year. (Ministry of Economic Development v Feeney [2012] DCR 257)

The application arose after the summary trial and acquittal of a number of directors of Feltex Ltd. The Ministry of Economic Development sought access to the Court file to obtain copies of  a transcript of evidence and written statements that had been produced during the hearing for the purposes of civil proceedings in the High Court. The application was opposed.
The grounds of the opposition were that the proceedings were not “criminal proceedings” as defined in the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Records) Rules, and that the notes of evidence in the District Court were in the possession of the defendants and were accessible by discovery.

As to the first ground of opposition,  Chief Judge Jan-Marie Doogue held that  the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Records) Rules did not apply because the proceedings were summary proceedings.
The relevant part of the Rules defines a “criminal proceeding” as
 ”a proceeding brought against a defendant—
(i) that has been commenced by information in form 2 of Schedule 2 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or
(ii) in which the defendant has, under section 66 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, elected to be tried by jury; or
(iii) in which a District Court has, under section 44 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, declined to deal summarily with the offence”
The effect of this is to exclude all summary criminal proceedings from the operation of the 2009 Rules.

There had been earlier examples of what Her Honour referred to as a “legislative blindspot” in the 1974 Criminal Proceedings (Search of Court Records) Rules and after considering the way in which the High Court had earlier approached the problem, and after considering the nature of the inherent power possessed by the District Court,  held that the Court has an inherent power to effectively administer its statutory jurisdiction. Such power was sufficient to order access to Court documents in criminal cases that fall outside the operation of the Rules. Whether the exercise of that jurisdiction was proper in the circumstances should be assessed by analogy to the criteria set out in the Rules.

She then went on to consider the provisions of Rules 13 and 14 which contain the procedure and the remedies that a Registrar or Judge may grant, and, importantly, set out the provisions of Rule 16 which sets out the matters that must be taken into account in considering an application.

Rule 16 provides:
“In determining an application under rule 13, or a request for permission under rule 8 or 9, or the determination of an objection under those rules, the Judge or other judicial officers or Registrar must consider the nature of, and the reasons for, the application or request and take into account each of the following matters that is relevant to the application, request, or objection:
(a) the right of the defendant to a fair hearing:
(b) the orderly and fair administration of justice:
(c) the protection of confidentiality, privacy interests (including those of children and other vulnerable members of the community), and any privilege held by, or available to, any person:
(d) the principle of open justice, namely, encouraging fair and accurate reporting of, and comment on, trials and decisions:
(e) the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information:
(f) whether a document to which the application or request relates is subject to any restriction under rule 12:
(g) any other matter that the Judge, other judicial officer, or Registrar thinks just.”

In the instant case Her Honour held that sub-regulations (b), (c), (e) and )(g) were relevant, considering that the fair and orderly administration of justice supported access to documentation  to the extent that the information contained therein might aid in the disposition of the High Courtt case. Privacy issues did not attach, because the District Court proceedings were conducted in open court, and that the freedom to seek, receive and impart information operated in favour of allowing access.

Importantly Chief Judge Doogue observed that sub-regulation (d) is concerned with media access to the Courts, and would be of importance in considering any media application for access to Court records. Each case will, of course depend upon its own circumstances as to the weight that an individual Judge or Registrar attaches to each of the criteria in considering applications.

At the moment, Court records are paper based. As I observe in my paper, the situation may well require revisiting when Court records are digitised, for the properties of digital technologies are quite different from those of the print or paper paradigm.
But discussion of those properties and their wider implications will have to take place on another day.

A copy of this paper may be found here.  Other documents by the writer are also available to read at the same sites, and recommended reading for anyone interested in jurisprudence and the law.

- Source:  https://theitcountreyjustice.wordpress.com/category/access-to-court-records/

Monday, July 12, 2010

Police Complaints Authority Blatantly Corrupt:

This is the link to a serious complaint to the Police Complaints Authority following the disgraceful actions of the Masterton Police at a public meeting in Carterton and during my subsequent illegal detention. Police lied and said they had "arrested" me, but then one fine upstanding officer told the truth in Court and the trial was stopped and I was acquitted. Below is the initial response from the PCA - note that it was addressed and sent to "Michael Appleby, P O Box 5025, Wellington" - this is the address of the Police Complaints Authority, and utterly typical of the unprofessional, incompetent modus operandi of the NZ police and PCA:

The letter of complaint from Michael Appleby to the Police Complaints Authority following the decision of Judge Behrens QC elicited this inadequate response: The response completely ignores many, if not most, of the matters complained of.

In particular, it ignores paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this letter dated 30 May 2007:

Hon Judge Goddard
Police Complaints Authority
Level 5
342 Lambton Quay
P O Box 525

30 May 2007

Your Honour,

1. Further to Judge Borrin’s letter of 9 December 2005 (a copy of which is attached for your convenience and ease of reference), I write to confirm that all of the five charges have been thrown out by the District Court, and partial costs awarded against the New Zealand Police.
2. I attach some relevant documents in connection with Mrs Raue’s complaint.
3. Further background to the history of the treatment of Mrs Raue by the Masterton Police is the letter of 26 August 2004 from Mrs Raue’s previous counsel, Mr Ken Daniels, to the Police calling their attention to what Mr Daniels himself believed to be fraud at the Carterton Community Centre.
4. The only response to this letter seems to have been the brief e-mail dated 26 April 2006, from Police officer Murray Johnston, admitting that he couldn’t remember Mr Daniels letter, that he couldn’t locate the file, and scoffing at any allegations which might have been made in the letter from Mr Daniels, even though he couldn’t even remember receiving the letter. The e-mail states: “Any such allegation by Kate against the Community Centre management would take a very low priority from a Police perspective. Her allegations about the Community Centre have mostly proved unfounded, emotive and simply not credible”, even though Mr Daniels is a Lawyer, and had expressed his concern at what he himself believed to be fraud.
5. The Masterton Police have, apparently, made no further investigations into Mr Daniels’ concerns about the fraud, nor do they intend to do so from the tenor of the email. This obviously requires further investigation by the Authority and constitutes a separate complaint.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Appleby

The full complaint can be viewed at this link.

In February 2008 I finally received a copy of this letter from Dave Allen, "Manager Professional Standards".

Michael Appleby wrote back and pointed out that police had completely ignored the serious allegations against Georgina Beyer, and several people associated with the Carterton District Council, regarding the fraud and misfeasance, and the illegal takeover, mismanagement and closure of the former Carterton Community Centre, as confirmed by letters from several lawyers. The Authority wrote the following arrogant letter in response:
Then in June I received an even more rude and arrogant letter:
In July they really excelled themselves with this one:

The allegations regarding my communication are completely untrue and amount to an orchestrated litany of lies. I wrote, and rang, many, MANY times, and all communication was totally ignored! It was always polite too on my part, until the "investigating officer" invited criticism with her blatantly corrupt refusal to address the FACT that the responses completely ignore a large part of the complaint, the issue at the very basis of it, the illegal takeover, mismanagement and closure of our Community Centre and the corrupt cover up of it by police, local MP and other taxpayer funded organisations and individuals!

An urgent inquiry into these matters is long overdue. The vast majority of informed Carterton residents do NOT want a so called 'Event Centre' - we want an inquiry into the fraud and misfeasance at the Carterton Community Centre, involving Georgina Beyer and the Carterton District Council and individuals associated with the Council, and an investigation into how the local police corruptly covered it up and refused to investigate the blatant fraud.
Michael Appleby
15 Fairview Terrace
Phone: (04) 9349 389
Mobile: (0274) 40 33 63
Email: m.g.appleby@gmail.com
Police Complaints Authority
Level 5
342 Lambton Quay
P O Box 525

16 February 2008

Your Honour,
Re: Kate Raue – your ref 05-0761/ghe:bpd
Thank you for your letter of 1 February 2008, enclosing the documents sought.

The letter of complaint dated 8 June 2007 contained a further paragraph 5 that appears to have been inadvertently deleted from the actual letter which you received.

I attach a copy of the letter as it should have been, and you will note that Mrs Raue wished a further separate investigation into the reluctance of the Masterton Police to actually investigate the frauds and illegal takeover of the Carterton Community Centre, frauds which her previous lawyer, Mr Ken Daniels, himself believed to have been committed.

This protest at the refusal by the Masterton Police to investigate these matters was explicit in the paragraph 5 that was inadvertently omitted from the letter actually sent to you.

In spite of the implicit complaint against Police Officer Murray Johnston in paragraph 4, the response ignores this.

A copy of the response from the Masterton Police to me dated 22 November 2007 was sent to me at the address of the Police Complaints Authority, PO Box 5025 Wellington, and it was finally resent to me on 10 December 2007, but not received by me until 5th February.

It seems from that response by Inspector Johnston that he has not addressed the refusal to investigate the fraud by Sgt Murray Johnston. Are the two men related?

The protest in the complaint at the refusal by the Police to investigate these allegations was certainly made explicit in the missing paragraph 5, but it is clear from paragraph 4 that this refusal by Sgt Murray Johnston should have been investigated by Inspector Johnston. It was not.

His response dated 22 November 2007 makes no reference to it at all, and in view of the inability of the Authority to complete its investigation for several more weeks (as advised to me by your office on 5 February 2008), there appears to be time for the Authority to ask the Masterton Police as to why they treated the original complaint into fraud in such a cavalier way, when Mr Daniels had clearly indicated that he himself had serious concerns.

A further example of their cavalier attitude is contained in their letter of 28 July 2003, attached “A”, to Mrs Raue, as if the Mayor and MP, Georgina Beyer, were sacrosanct, and immune from investigation.
Please investigate Officer Murray Johnston’s behaviour, as well as the other breaches of Mrs Raue’s human rights as set out in the actual letter sent to you by me on the 8th June 2007.

I look forward to your advice as to this further explicit complaint, as well as the other complaints regarding the breaches of Mrs Raue’s rights.

Moreover the response dated 22 November 2007 by Inspector Johnston, at page 3, comments that it is standard policy and practice at the Masterton police station not to have accepted Mrs Raue’s handbag from her friend Mr Allomes even though her medicine was in it, yet another admission by the Police that their particular branch appears to ignore the fundamental right set out more particularly by me in the “Twenty Third Breach” that “everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.”

The Police could have quite easily searched the handbag, and confiscated any items that they thought were inappropriate, before giving the handbag containing her personal items and medicine to Mrs Raue.
Moreover, Inspector Johnston’s comment in his penultimate paragraph, that “from the Doctors observations of her, he was able to give an opinion, which was that she did not require medication at the time” is simply quite untrue.

A copy of the relevant Trial transcript containing the Doctor’s evidence is attached “B” from which it can be seen that the Police Doctor, Dr McGrath actually stated under oath that he did not even recall seeing Mrs Raue at the police station, at all, and that he had no record of seeing her.

Although Inspector Johnston has conceded in his response that a number of Mrs Raue’s rights were breached, I believe it was appropriate, really, that he address each and every breach of Mrs Raue’s rights as set out in my letter: i.e: all twenty seven breaches individually, rather than the selective approach he has taken, merely responding to four of the criticisms by Judge Behrens, or the five matters he chooses to deal with as set out on page 2 of his letter.

It would have been of more assistance, surely, if Inspector Johnston had dealt on a thorough and professional basis with the twenty seven breaches complained of.

It should also be noted that Inspector Johnston was actually rung up personally the day after the political meeting by Mr Kennedy, a concerned citizen who was aghast at the treatment meted out to Mrs Raue.
Inspector Johnston however refused to either interfere in the prosecution of Mrs Raue, or to order his officers to at least question, and take statements from, other more neutral witnesses.

Inspector Johnston’s own behaviour in this sorry saga seems to not be beyond reproach, and it appears inappropriate that he has conducted the investigation. A neutral Investigator would be more appropriate to investigate the background of the behaviour of the local police, rather than the local Inspector, who seems part of the problem.

I would be grateful if you would advise the Authority’s next step, and the time frame within which you expect the complaint to be finalised.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Appleby


Here's the original complaint to the PCA:
Michael Appleby B.A. LL.B. LL.M. (Hons)
Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand
15 Fairview Crescent
Phone: (04) 9349 389
Mobile: (0274) 40 33 63
Email: m.g.appleby@gmail.com
Hon Judge Goddard
Police Complaints Authority
Level 5
342 Lambton Quay
P O Box 525

30 May 2007

Your Honour,

Further to Judge Borrin’s letter of 9 December 2005 (a copy of which is attached for your convenience and ease of reference), I write to confirm that all of the five charges have been thrown out by the District Court, and partial costs awarded against the New Zealand Police.
I attach some relevant documents in connection with Mrs Raue’s complaint.
Further background to the history of the treatment of Mrs Raue by the Masterton Police is the letter of 26August 2004 from Mrs Raue’s previous counsel, Mr Ken Daniels, to the Police calling their attention to what Mr Daniels himself believed to be fraud at the Carterton Community Centre.
The only response to this letter seems to have been the brief e-mail dated 26 April 2006, from Police officer Murray Johnston, admitting that he couldn’t remember Mr Daniels letter, that he couldn’t locate the file, and scoffing at any allegations which might have been made in the letter from Mr Daniels, even though he couldn’t even remember receiving the letter. The e-mail states: “Any such allegation by Kate against the Community Centre management would take a very low priority from a Police perspective. Her allegations about the Community Centre have mostly proved unfounded, emotive and simply not credible”, even though Mr Daniels is a Lawyer, and had expressed his concern at what he himself believed to be fraud.
The Masterton Police have, apparently, made no further investigations into Mr Daniels’ concerns about the fraud, nor do they intend to do so from the tenor of the email. This obviously requires further investigation by the Authority and constitutes a separate complaint.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Appleby
To The Police Complaints Authority

Re: KATHERINE RAUE, D.O.B: 28.7.1958

Complaint regarding numerous breaches of civil rights by the Masterton Police.

1. I have been asked by my above client to refer to you the manner in which she has been treated by the Masterton Police over the last year.
2. The Complainant is a political activist opposed to the building of a proposed $4,000,000 Community Facility in Carterton, where she lives, and attended a public meeting called for the purpose of discussing the merits or otherwise of building the facility. At the meeting she was seized by the Police, who later claimed to have arrested her, although contrary evidence was given by the Police regarding this alleged ‘arrest’. She was later charged with five offences: Trespass, Disorderly Behaviour, Resisting Arrest, Assault and Assaulting a Police Officer.
3. Mrs Raue’s previous Counsel, Ken Daniels, to whom legal aid had been granted, had withdrawn as her lawyer on Wednesday 14 June 2006, and he sought an adjournment accordingly.
4. In despair, Mrs Raue rang Mr Rodney Hide, Leader of the Act Party, to seek his advice and assistance. Mr Hide indicated that he was concerned that the case appeared to involve serious constitutional issues, and civil rights issues, and affirmed the importance of safeguarding free speech in a democratic society. Mr Hide apparently suggested to Mrs Raue that she approach myself for assistance because I was involved in the area of constitutional law and human rights law.
5. I have acted for Mrs Raue since being telephoned by her urgently on the evening of Wednesday 14 June 2006. She asked me to act for her, as she was defending five charges on the following Tuesday 20 June 2006. Two days had been set aside for the hearing, although Mrs Raue’s previous Counsel, Ken Daniels, had apparently originally asked for three days. A copy of his letter dated 1 6 February 2006 in which he expresses concern that the Masterton Police were proceeding with the charges is attached, marked “A”. FIRST BREACH
6. The Masterton Police opposed that application, in spite of the human rights protected by the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 24(d) of which states that “everyone who is charged with an offence shall have the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.” The Police opposed Mr Daniels’ application, and the District Court refused to grant an adjournment on the Wednesday, based on that opposition.
7. On Thursday morning, 15 June 2006, I traveled to Carterton to gather information and advise Mrs Raue, and at 5 p.m. on that day I filed another application to have the matter adjourned, as I did not have adequate time to prepare a 2-3 day defended Hearing in the few days (including a weekend) prior to the commencement of the trial on the following Tuesday.
8. Again, the Masterton Police opposed this application for an adjournment, and again breached Mrs Raue’s right under Section 24(d) of the NZ Bill of Rights for her (and her lawyer) to “have the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.”
9. On Friday 16 June 2006 the District Court again refused this application for an adjournment, based on the opposition of the Masterton Police.
10. As a result of the refusal to grant the adjournment on the Friday, I asked several legal aid lawyers to act for Mrs Raue, as I do not do legal aid work.
11. These lawyers advised that they would be unable to act for Mrs Raue on the Tuesday, as they would not have sufficient time to prepare a defence to the five charges she faced.
12. As a result of this, and under great pressure from an ethical point of view, in that I was required under the Law Practitioners Code of Duties and Responsibilities to act for Mrs Raue, as otherwise she would have no legal representation, as is her right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I very reluctantly agreed to act for her, based on my normal legal costs of $200 per hour, knowing full well that she was impecunious and on a benefit.
13. Mrs Raue has, therefore, been faced with a legal bill of $15,639 (see Bill of Costs attached as “B”) as a result of the opposition of the Police, thereby breaching her right under Section 24(f) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act , which states that she “shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance.”
14. The District Court Judge, Behrens J., Q.C. dismissed the five charges at the close of the case for the Prosecution, following submissions from myself (and having six witnesses ready to refute the complainant’s ‘evidence’), with the Prosecution agreeing at the end of Counsel’s submissions that the evidence for the Prosecution was, indeed, “tenuous”.
15. The District Court took the most unusual step of granting costs against the Police following Submissions by myself as to the question of costs. Behrens J. granted costs of $3781 instead of Mrs Raue’s actual costs of $15,639, leaving a shortfall of $11,858 to be paid by Mrs Raue as a result of the actions of the Police in opposing the application for an adjournment, and based on their knowledge that they had only “tenuous” evidence against Mrs Raue.
16. An appeal against the refusal to grant actual costs on a lawyer-client basis was lodged with the High Court but this was unsuccessful.
17. Mrs Raue seeks not just damages for the various breaches of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, but also the shortfall between her actual legal expenses of $15,639, and the costs awarded to her of $3781, namely $11,858.
18. A copy is attached of the Judgment by Behrens J. dismissing the three charges of Trespass, Disorderly Behaviour and Resisting Arrest at the close of the second day of the trial on the Wednesday. Judge Behrens adjourned the two further charges of assault, and assaulting Police, until a subsequent date, and on that date he dismissed these two further charges, again at the close of the case for the Prosecution, following submissions from myself, without the Defence needing to call any evidence.
19. A copy of his further judgment is attached, and it can be seen that he took a very dim view of the whole sorry saga.
20. Apart from the three breaches of her human rights outlined above, a perusal of the various attached documents will reveal to you t hat a number of Mrs Raue’s other human rights have also been breached, namely:

21. Section 9 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to …… degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.” The so called “arrest” of Mrs Raue at a political meeting, and her being dragged away by the Masterton Police without their discussing the situation with a number of protesting citizens who were concerned that Mrs Raue had been singled out without any appropriate investigation (apparently for criticising local politicians, and in spite of the efforts of those citizens keen to discuss the matter with the Police), and bustled away like a common criminal, clearly breaches the Right to be not subjected to ‘degrading’ treatment.

22. And a further instance of degrading treatment and punishment occurred later on at the Police Station when the Police strip-searched Mrs Raue quite unnecessarily, and three of them wrestled her to the floor in an attempt to remove her pounamu necklace, while another approached her with a pair of scissors, threatening her with the possible loss of one of her eyes.

23. The Police refused to allow Mrs Raue’s friend to pass on her handbag containing her personal items including her heart medication, compounding the degrading treatment and punishment to which they subjected her.
24. Moreover, the singling out of Mrs Raue, among an estimated hundred participants in a spirited discussion at a public political meeting was a clear breach of the prohibition under Section 9 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act to not subject citizens to “disproportionately severe treatment.”
25. To treat her like this at a public political meeting was totally out of proportion to the desirability and reality of brisk political debate, at a public meeting which was advertised as being for just that purpose, and, what is more, being the only member of the public to be arrested, compounding the seriousness of this particular breach.

26. Section 13 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.”
27. The Police grabbed Mrs Raue out of the crowd after the political meeting had ended. Two burly Policemen grabbed her and manhandled her out of the building, pushed her across the back of the Police car and handcuffed this five foot six inch tall, eight stone, nearly 50 year old woman.
28. These bullying tactics against a known political activist, present at a public meeting to express her view along with everyone else, albeit in a forthright manner, clearly interfered with her Right to freedom of thought and belief and her right to hold those opinions and to express them at the public meeting called to discuss the viability of a $4,000,000 community ‘facility’ for a small provincial town which is already well served with such facilities, against which proposal Mrs Raue was a known campaigner. That the Masterton Police assisted in the attempt to silence her criticism of the proposed scheme, by arresting her without sufficient investigation, is a clear breach of this Right.

29. The above comments expressed in paragraph 28 apply equally to the further breach by the Masterton Police of her Right under Section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, namely that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind, in any form.”
30. The treatment of Mrs Raue by the Masterton Police, and their complicit behaviour with the organizers of the public meeting to attempt to silence Mrs Raue was outrageous.
31. The local District Council proposed to spend $4,000,000 on a major community project which would, inevitably, result in large increases in rates as a consequence. Mrs Raue had every right to be at the political meeting and to express her views, and the behaviour of the Police that night clearly interfered with this Right. In fact, it breached nearly every combination and permutation of this Right in that the Police were complicit in the attempt to silence her, and to terminate her Right, i.e.
- the Right to express herself freely on the matter,
- the Right to seek information as to the proposed project,
- the Right to receive any information pertaining to the proposed project,
- the Right to impart her own opinions as to the wisdom or otherwise of the proposal, and
- the Right to impart her own information as to the viability of the project.

32. Section 16 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly.”
33. The Masterton Police had been forewarned that Mrs Raue might attend that public meeting and make her views known. She had every right to be there, according to the Right of peaceful assembly. Her treatment at the hands of the Police clearly infringed on this Right.
34. Section 17 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of association.”
35. A number of Mrs Raue’s supporters attended the public meeting. Many other concerned citizens attended the meeting. Some were for the proposal, some were against it, but Mrs Raue is assured under the Act of the Right of freedom to associate with other equally public spirited citizen, to gather together with them to discuss common social concerns, proposed public projects that will impact on the citizens’ future rates, to discuss the merits or otherwise of major public facilities, use of public resources, etc.
36. The actions of the Masterton Police following the break up of the public meeting clearly breached Mrs Raue’s Right to associate with her fellow citizens and to debate with them about public issues that affect them all. The violent manner in which they interfered with this Right compounds the seriousness of their breach of Mrs Raue’s Right of freedom of association.

37. When the Police stopped Mrs Raue from leaving the meeting (which had finished) and going home, when they grabbed her out of the crowd, when they dragged her out to the Police car, and when they pushed her face down over the boot of the car and handcuffed her, they quite clearly interfered with her Right to “freedom of movement”, a Right guaranteed under Section 18 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

38. Section 21 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property ……. or otherwise.”
39. There appear to have been several breaches of this Section. The first was clearly when the Police seized Mrs Raue at the public meeting, and took her away to spend the night in the Masterton Police Station following the public meeting, without actually arresting her or advising her of the reason for the alleged arrest.

40. The next breach of her right not to be unreasonably searched was when the police were processing Mrs Raue at the Masterton Police Station when three Police Officers (clearly visible on the Police Station CCTV video presently in the possession of the Masterton District Court as Evidence) all piled on top of Mrs Raue in an attempt to detach from her, her pounamu taonga, while another Police Officer approached her with a pair of scissors, saying “It would be a shame if these scissors slipped and you lost an eye, wouldn’t it?”
41. There was absolutely no need whatsoever to force Mrs Raue to undergo such a search in such humiliating circumstances in an attempt to remove her necklace. It was totally unreasonable when one considers that Mrs Raue should have been processed straight away (there was nobody else being processed in the Station at the time), she should have been released immediately on Police Bail, and she should have been allowed to go home with her friend who was waiting for her in the public waiting area next door to the cell block.
42. There was no reason to think that Mrs Raue would do herself harm; it would not have been reasonable to suspect that she might harm anyone else, i.e. that she might, perhaps, garrotte a Police Officer with it, with five or six Police Officers milling around her and behind the public counter…... It was a quite gratuitous and public humiliation instead, and this search of her involving the attempted forcible removal of her pounamu taonga was manifestly unreasonable, and resulted in their ripping Mrs Raue’s blouse in the process.
43. The removal, and the manner of the removal, of the pounamu necklace showed an appalling lack of sensitivity to Mrs Raue’s cultural background. The pounamu necklace is a taonga, or treasure, of strong cultural significance to Mrs Raue. The cross cultural communication skills of the Masterton Police are well below the standard expected.
44. And then there was the strip search of Mrs Raue, with Police Officers taking off her bra and peering inside her panties and pulling them down. Mrs Raue was mortified, and this search was, again, an unreasonable breach of her Right against unreasonable search, when one reflects on the alleged offences with which she was later charged the following day, just prior to going to Court at about 10.30 a.m. namely Trespass, Disorderly Behaviour and Resisting Arrest (and two charges of assault which were apparently a result of defending herself against the illegal strip search and removal of her necklace, defending her Right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure).
45. Again, Mrs Raue should have been just charged immediately at the Police Station when she was taken there and processed promptly in the public area before being released promptly on bail. There was no need to take her into a cell (outside the range of the video cameras …..) and strip search her.
46. This unreasonable strip search, during which her blouse was further ripped, as can be seen on the video, once again breached her Right to be secure against unreasonable search.
47. In fact this wrestling to the floor by the three or four burly Police Officers, in an attempt to cut off her necklace, and the comment by the Police Officer that she might lose an eye, actually constitute another breach of the Right prohibiting “torture, as well as “cruel and degrading treatment”, pursuant to Section 9 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

48. And the further subsequent incident involving the forcible strip search, and further ripping of Mrs Raue’s blouse in the Police cell constitute a separate and distinguishable further breach of the protection of Section 9 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, which prohibits cruel or degrading treatment.
49. The arbitrary manner in which the Masterton Police seized Mrs Raue has clearly broken one of the cardinal human rights, set out in Section 22 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, that “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.”
50. The Masterton Police ‘arrested’ Mrs Raue at the close of the political meeting arbitrarily. They arrested no one else in spite of numerous onlookers, not just Mrs Raue’s associates, protesting at the actions of the police in their violent and cavalier treatment of Mrs Raue.
51. The District Court Judge made clear his concerns at the actions of the local Police force in effecting this ‘arrest’ in his Judgment, when dismissing the three charges relating to the offences allegedly committed at the hall, at the close of the case for the Prosecution.
52. And his unusual Order that the Police pay legal costs of $3781 towards Mrs Raue’s actual legal costs is indicative of his concern at the Police’s treatment of Mrs Raue at the point of the alleged arrest, and that she was not advised at the time of the reasons for her ‘arrest’.
53. Moreover, when Mrs Raue was taken to the Masterton Police Station and detained overnight, there was an obvious spirit of punishment by the Police, and of teaching Mrs Raue a lesson for her behaviour, rather than on any principled basis of ‘process her and let her go home’ (with her companion who was waiting next door).
54. The Police did not even process Mrs Raue by fingerprinting her and photographing her until the next morning. They knew Mrs Raue well, and the Evidence shows that Mrs Raue asked repeatedly to be charged, and processed and released on Police Bail.
55. The Police could have merely bailed her in the evening and told her to come back in the morning to face what charges they thought she might face after a proper investigation. Instead they arbitrarily detained Mrs Raue overnight, even though her companion waited next door until well after midnight to transport her home to Carterton.
56. This cavalier and arbitrary approach to Mrs Raue’s right not to be arbitrarily detained appears to have had no other reason but to teach her a lesson. She was not intoxicated, she was of no danger to herself or others, and she could have been quite easily processed on the spot at the Police Station, or told to come back in the morning.
57. The political meeting was well and truly over. To keep Mrs Raue in behind bars overnight was a serious breach of her Right not to be arbitrarily detained, and this behaviour by the Masterton Police is of utmost concern.

58. Section 23(1)(a) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone who is arrested …… shall be informed at the time of the arrest of the reason for it.”
59. Judge Behrens made it quite clear in his Judgment dismissing the charges of Trespass, Disorderly, Behaviour and Resisting Arrest, that he was most dissatisfied with the situation and arresting procedures carried out by the Masterton Police at the close of the political meeting at the hall.
60. Mrs Raue has given the most emphatic instructions to myself that she was never told what she was being arrested for when the Police grabbed her and hustled her off to be pushed over the boot of the Police car and handcuffed. She advises that she did not know what charges were being laid against her until the following morning (just before she went into Court at 10:30 a.m. the next day) when she was fingerprinted and photographed
61. It therefore appears that Mrs Raue’s Rights in this regard have been breached. Certainly the Masterton Police’s non-compliance with their duties and responsibilities in this area was of considerable concern to Judge Behrens Q.C. as can be seen in his Judgment.
62. The next breach by the Masterton Keystone Kops appears to have been their blatant disregard of the cornerstone of justice for centuries, contained in Section 23(b) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, which provides that “Everyone who is arrested shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and shall be informed of that right.”
63. Mrs Raue had asked to speak to her lawyer Mr Ken Daniels in the Police car while being taken to the Masterton Police Station, following the first Bill Of Rights warning given to her in the Police car.
64. She was, however, not allowed to ring Mr Daniels until well after she got to the station, following the attempted unreasonable seizure of her necklace and the unreasonable strip search, during which both searches she was physically (wo)manhandled and physically restrained in brutal and quite unnecessarily degrading circumstances.
65. She was, in fact, not allowed to contact her lawyer until well after the disgraceful treatment meted out to her at the Masterton Police Station. She should have been allowed to ring Mr Daniels as soon as she arrived at the police Station in Masterton.
66. Mrs Raue constantly requested to talk to Mr Daniels, but the Police refused to allow her to contact him until after she had been ‘processed’, which processing that night extended only as to the violent removal of her necklace and her underwear, and ripping her blouse on two separate occasions, but not, apparently to the usual processes of photographing, fingerprinting, laying of charges and arranging Police Bail for Mrs Raue. The Masterton Police chose to delay these procedures and processes until the next day!
67. For the Masterton Police to proceed with the unreasonable searches and seizures of Mrs Raue and to strip search her over her protestations that she wanted to talk to her lawyer, a mere phone call away, is indicative of either a cynical and conscious disregard for Mrs Raue’s Right to talk to her lawyer without delay after she was ‘arrested’ at the public hall, or an appallingly negligent or reckless ignorance as to what is an expected level of Police awareness that they should allow an arrested person to consult, as well as instruct, a lawyer without delay, once that person is arrested, i.e. at the Hall, not after the Police deign to allow this consultation, either at the convenience of the Police, or at their whim.
68. The Masterton Police Officers present that night need urgent reminders as to their duties and responsibilities regarding the Rights of arrested persons to consult their lawyers without delay. TWENTYSECOND BREACH
69. Section 23(2) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act provides that “Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly.” Mrs Raue has instructed me that she was not actually charged with any offenses until the morning after she was taken into custody and kept overnight in the Masterton Police cells.
70. It should be possible during the investigation of the breaches to obtain written evidence from the Masterton Police Station records regarding these incidents, as to the exact time that Mrs Raue was charged with the five alleged offences, and this will, no doubt establish whether or not the Police’s own records indicate if there has been a breach of this right or not. These Documents were not discovered to the Defense during the criminal trials, but I have had information furnished to me in other cases where the Police record at what time the actual charges are laid. One would hope that the Police Complaints Authority has the power to force the Masterton Police to produce such evidence if it is available.

71. In his Judgment dismissing the last two charges of assault and assaulting Police at the close of the case for the Prosecution, following submissions from myself as to the numerous breaches of human rights that appeared to have been committed by the Masterton Police officers, and after watching the Police video, Judge Behrens Q.C. made clear his distaste for the behaviour of the Masterton Police at the Police Station, as well as having expressed concerns in his earlier Judgment as the behaviour of the Masterton Police during the situation at the Carterton Municipal Hall (again at the close of the case for the Prosecution, following submissions from myself as to the numerous breaches of human Rights that appeared to have been committed by the Masterton Police officers).
72. The behaviour of the Masterton Police officers clearly breached the duty pursuant to Section 23(5) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act stating “That everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.”
73. Mrs Raue was most certainly not treated with dignity by the Police, and in no way did the Police treat her with respect for her inherent dignity, from the very first contact with her, to the last humiliating and vindictive actions of refusing to allow her companion, who was waiting for her in the foyer of the Police Station to give her her handbag containing her toiletries, heart medication and personal effects. This was not just mean-minded and mean-spirited, but an actual breach of Mrs Raue’s Right to be treated humanely, with humanity, and with dignity.
74. Judge Behrens rightly scolded the Masterton Police for their behaviour, but the litany of breaches suggests surely that the standard of respect for basic human rights amongst the Masterton Police must be amongst the lowest in the country. Urgent retraining of the local Police seems to be called for to correct this situation which currently exists in Masterton.

75. Amongst the Rights of persons actually charged, is the right under Section 24(a) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act “to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge”. As stated earlier in paragraph 68, Mrs Raue has indicated that she was not informed of the charges until the morning after she was ‘arrested’ and detained overnight. This is a clear breach of the Right to be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the charge.


76. By detaining Mrs Raue in the Masterton cells overnight, the Masterton Police have clearly breached the right under Section 24(2) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, “to be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention.”
77. One of the Police Officers cross-examined by myself during the trial, Suzanne Mackle, admitted that Kate Raue was not bailed and released that night because of her alleged “poor behaviour”, which seemed to comprise the apparently bad behaviour, according to the Police’s evidence, of continually asking to consult her lawyer!”
78. No just cause was ever advanced by the local Police as to why they kept Mrs Raue overnight in gaol, and their breach of her right to be released on reasonable terms and conditions (perhaps, for example, to present herself the following day for further questioning) was arrogant, punitive, vindictive, and deserving of strong censure by the Police Complaints Authority.

79. The Police contend that they ‘arrested’ Mrs Raue for trespass and disorderly behaviour, but the District Court took the view that the arrest was illegal. Nevertheless, once the Police believed themselves to have arrested her, they were under the obligation, pursuant to Section 24(c)of the NZ Bill of Rights Act to ensure that Mrs Raue was able to exercise her Right “to consult and instruct a lawyer.”
80. But the Masterton Police did not allow her to exercise that right until towards the end of their dispensing their own particular brand of summary justice, which was horrifyingly recorded on their own video camera. The video is most alarming in its revelations as to the inability of the Masterton Police to deal with the volatile situation that developed, in a professional and calming way. They were supposed to be the professionals. They are supposed to be trained in preventing situations from escalating. Their conduct that night fell far short of that expected of Police officers, who should be trained to calm situations, rather than inflame them, surely?

81. It is clear that the Police gave their trip between the Masterton Police Station and the Carterton Municipal Hall a “Priority One” status. Evidence was presented that the trip was completed in seven minutes, under flashing lights and sirens, which haste and manner of traveling attracted the condemnation of Judge Behrens.
82. It is apparent from their conduct from the beginning that they totally ignored the fundamental Right pursuant to Section 25(c) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, the Right “to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
83. Police ignored the attempts of numerous bystanders to explain the situation.
84. See particularly the transcript of the email from Mr and Mrs Kennedy to Helen Clark, written that night, and the record by Mr Kennedy of his outrage at the way Mrs Raue was treated.
85. Mr Kennedy even returned to the Carterton Municipal Hall after going home, so that he could remonstrate with the organisers of the meeting as to their treatment of Mrs Raue.
86. He also had a half hour discussion the following day with Jack Johnson the Area Commander of the Masterton Police, to indicate his outrage at the brutal and over-the-top behaviour of the Police when they dragged Mrs Raue out of the hall.
87. The Masterton Police presumed Mrs Raue guilty from the start and gave no credence obviously to the presumption that she was innocent. This was a clear breach of the minimum standard expected in criminal procedures instituted by Police.
88. Mrs Raue was entitled to the presumption of ‘innocent until proven guilty according to law’, and the Police never applied that presumption to her situation.
89. Their preconception that she was guilty arose before the meeting even took place, as it came out during the trial that the organizers of the meeting had alerted the Masterton Police to the possibility that Kate Raue would probably be present, and it was arranged that the organisers would contact the Police should they feel that Mrs Raue was causing trouble.
90. So, Mrs Raue was hung, drawn and quartered as far as the local Police were concerned before there were even any alleged offences committed by her. Their attitude was that she was going to be guilty, whatever happened. Their perception before the meeting, and on the way to the Carterton Municipal Hall was that she was guilty (of whatever) until proven innocent.
91. This is a situation which mirrors Kafka’s ‘The Trial”, and should be disapproved in no uncertain terms, especially in a political milieu, which was the case here.
92. The latest Long Term Council Community Plan of the Carterton District Council, including the Financial Reports, and current financial projections regarding the current budget for the immediate future has been assessed by the Council’s Auditors as “unsatisfactory”, which would appear to confirm that Mrs Raue’s concerns (concerns which are also shared by the signatories of a relatively substantial petition) are valid.
93. Laurie Desborough of Audit New Zealand, on behalf of the Auditor General, Palmerston North, has determined in his Draft Report on the Carterton District Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan 2006-2016, incorporating the 2006/2007 Annual Plan, Volume 1 Finance and Strategy (‘the Plan’), on page 157 that “In our opinion, the Statement of Proposal for adoption of the LTCCP of the District Council, incorporating Volumes 1 to 2 dated 19 July 2006, does not provide a reasonable basis for long term integrated decision-making by the District Council and for participation in decision –making by the public and subsequent accountability to the community about the matters listed below: - “There is inadequate underlying information to support the forecast information included in the statement of Proposal. As a result, the forecasts of capital expenditure and operating expenditure, including the estimates of depreciation, could be materially misstated across all of the District Council’s activities. Also, because the forecast expenditure is not supported by adequate asset management plans, the District Council has been unable to demonstrate that the forecast expenditure will deliver the proposed levels of service across all the District Council’s activities. As a result, the information in the prospective financial statements is not supportable, and has not been based on the best information reasonably expected to be available to the District Council at the time of preparing the Statement of Proposal. This is also a departure from Financial Reporting Standard No. 42 (FRS-42): Prospective Financial Statements.
94. As well, on page 158 of the Plan, the Auditor General found that: “The District Council has not identified and adequately explained the sources of funds for its activities’ capital expenditure. The District Council does not operate separate activity level reserves, and some capital expenditure is funded from a general reserve, which is funded from various activities. This may result in surplus targeted rates in some activities being used to fund capital expenditure in other activities. Based on the above, the District Council has been unable to demonstrate, as required by Section 101 of the Act, that it is managing its revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, investments and general financial dealings prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.
95. As well, on page 158, the officer of the Auditor General found that: “The District Council has not complied with the requirements of the Act, and has not demonstrated good practice for a Council of its size and scale within the context of the environment in respect of the following: As explained above, the District Council has been unable to demonstrate, as required by Section 101 of the Act, that it is managing its revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, investments and general financial dealings prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community. The underlying information used to prepare the Statement of Proposal is inadequate and does not provide a reasonable basis for the preparation of the forecast information, as explained above."
96. Furthermore, page 159 of the Plan shows that the Auditor General found that: “The financial information is not presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice in New Zealand, in that: As explained above the information in the prospective financial statements is not supportable, and has not been based on the best information reasonably expected to be available to the District Council at the time of preparing the Statement of Proposal. This is a departure from FRS-42. As explained above, the forecast expenditure is not supported by adequate underlying information, and the District Council has been unable to demonstrate that the forecast expenditure will deliver the proposed levels of service. Consequently the extent to which the forecast information and proposed performance measures provide an appropriate framework for the meaningful assessment of the actual levels of service provision does not reflect good practice for a Council of its size and scale within the context of its environment."
97. As well, the Auditor General found that: “the scope of our work was limited as we were unable to obtain sufficient information about the underlying information to support the forecast information included in the Statement of Proposal.”
98. Mrs Raue’s concerns about the viability of the proposed $4,000,000 community facility appear to be well founded. According to the Auditor General, the standard of performance of the Carterton District Council’s financial affairs is extremely poor; in fact, they appear to be in a very sorry state indeed.
99. Pages 11 and 12 of the Council’s LTCCP refer to the Council’s commitment to the proposal.
100. On page 12 of the LTCCP, the Council (who also, coincidentally, mainly comprise the members of the ‘Focus Group’ behind the $4,000,000 proposal) “seeks your views on contributing $1 million to this project."
101. The second paragraph on page 12 of the LTCCP states that: “Should the community support the concept,” the Council would agree to make a commitment of one million dollars towards the cost of this ‘facility’, and goes on to state: “Council seeks the views of the community as to whether you believe that this investment is important for the future of our district.”
102. Also referred to on page 12 of the LTCCP is the Council’s alleged commitment to the consultation process, although the events at the public meeting which led to Mrs Raue’s unlawful detention make a mockery of this document, and of the Council’s commitment to the consultation process.
103. The actions of the local Police in trying to shut Mrs Raue up, and to silence her questioning of the need for an expensive white elephant in the community is an intolerable intrusion into Mrs Raue’s political rights to involve herself into the debate by the local community as to the wisdom or otherwise of this community facility.
104. The behaviour of the Masterton Police towards Mrs Raue, and their numerous and serious breaches of her human rights, guaranteed under the NZ Bill of Rights Act, deserve the most serious investigation by the Police Complaints Authority, and consideration given to awarding her financial compensation for each and every one of these breaches.
105. As well, she is entitled to recompense for the legal fees she has incurred as a consequence of the blatant and cavalier disregard of these rights.
106. The harassment of Mrs Raue was continued by the Masterton Police when they also charged her with disorderly behaviour for her alleged conduct in the local library, when she was attempting to obtain material relevant to the $4,000,000 proposal, from the Library, which was advertised as the contact point for material about the proposed facility.
107. Judge Goddard, on appeal, acquitted Mrs Raue of that charge and indicated that her behaviour certainly did not require the intervention of the criminal law.
108. But the Masterton Police, in laying the charge, and its pursuit of Mrs Raue, have resulted in Mrs Raue’s incurring further legal fees of $5,000 in defending the charge in the first instance, and then on the successful appeal to the High Court (which did not allow costs for the successful appeal).
109. The participation in the democratic process by civic-minded citizens such as Mrs Raue is to be applauded. Without the fearless questioning of local body officials by such citizens, who are prepared to stand up and be counted, the days of vigorous and healthy political debates would be numbered.
110. The bullying and intimidatory tactics of the Masterton Police that night were a disgrace to the New Zealand Police Force as a whole.
111. When Mrs Raue uttered her cri-de-coeur for help to Mr Rodney Hide, he expressed his concern that her upcoming trial was a serious constitutional matter, that it raised fundamental human rights issues, such as freedom of speech, in a so-called democratic society. He was right. Mr Daniels also expressed his concern to the Masterton Police about their insistence on continuing with these (politically motivated) charges.
112. It was fortunate for Mrs Raue that Judge Behrens Q.C. took an equally vigorous approach in his Judgments, upholding Mrs Raue’s human rights, and, dismissing all of the five charges laid against her, at the close of the cases for the Prosecution, the evidence presented by them, as they admitted, being “tenuous”.
113. Mrs Raue and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Appleby


Letter from Police Complaints Authority dated 9 December 2005
Formal Complaint regarding Katherine Raue
Decision of Behrens J regarding charges of Trespass, Disorderly Behaviour and Resisting Arrest
Decision of Behrens J regarding charges of Assault and Assaulting a Police Officer
Bill of Costs
Application for Costs, including:
Submissions regarding Costs,
Submissions of the Police Opposing Costs,
Submissions in Reply to the Police Submissions in Opposition,
Decision of Behrens J regarding Application for Costs.
Decision of Goddard J
Letter from Ken Daniels to the Police dated 26 August 2004
E-mail response to Ken Daniels from the Police dated 26 April 2006
Carterton District Council LCTTP Plan.