Dear Ministry of Justice,

The RNZSPCA is a private organisation which has law enforcemnt powers under section 121 of the animal welfare act

The criminal procedure act sets out a specific path for private prosecutions in section 26 The act defines private prosecutions and crown prosecutions in section 5

In case law S and ors V Vector and ors SC 58/2019 [2020] NZSC 97 the supreme court noted [126] the Law Commission identified five categories of private prosecutors:

(a) local and quasi-public bodies, including state-owned enterprises;( The foot note to this read Law Commission Criminal Prosecution (NZLC R66, 2000) at [256]–[257]. Note that the first category identified is no longer within the definition of “private prosecution” under s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.)

(b) private agencies as recognised or established by statute that either have the responsibility for the enforcement of a particular enactment, or have assumed it, such as the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand.

(c) organisations accepted as having an interest in enforcing particular statutes, such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA);

(d) individuals or commercial enterprises (such as insurance companies) acting in their own cause; and

(e) in what the Law Commission identified as a new development, private prosecutions undertaken as a business

Sections [127] -[134] the supreme court discusses the screening mechanism provided by section 26 and its ability to reduce risks and provide good practice

This decision is dated 21 September 2020

Crown solicitors have been and are continuing to file documents in the court for and on behalf of the RNZSPCA .

the Private prosecutions are portrayed in court as " crown prosecutions " and at times decisions have been misrepresented as " R v " due to evidence being presented as " crown evidence " and the prosecutor being referred to as " the crown in both verbal and written communications by the crown solicitor and the judge

the implications are that there is not a fair hearing as the robust crown procedures which precede filing and the necessary compliance with the solicitor general’s guide lines are absent .

This has led to hearings being manifestly unfair as crown evidence has less scrutiny to private evidence and has led to changes being made such as swapping out one legal entity for another due to the rules allowing Crown solicitors to do this when this option is not available in this simple form for private prosecutions

Prosecutions have by passed the requirements of section 26 compliance and no evidence has been provided with regards to section 12 . persons charged have failed to have the evidence, which should have been provided before filing was accepted ,disclosed to them years after the charges were filed and their animals destroyed .

Section 13 makes it mandatory for the act to be complied with

BY way of OIA
1. what instructions have been given to registrar with regards to identifying private prosecutions and ensuring that sections 12 and 26 are complied with

2.what safeguards are in place to ensure that private prosecutions cannot masquerade as crown prosecution and by what process this can be rectified if filed incorrectly

3. Provide any discussion papers any notes which addresses the use of crown prosecutors for private prosecutions

4. Provide any exemptions which allow for crown prosecutors to file and manage private prosecutions as though they are crown prosecutions

5. the remedies which are available for this breach of rights to a fair hearing for persons charged by the RNZSPCA and its previous associated incorporated societies .
many of these persons do not have the ability to challenge this and the public would expect the ministry to police its own processes and correct any action which is ultra vires and or protect the prosecution process and the integrity of our Justice system

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

Dear OIA,
thank you for your response

You cannot simply deny that confusion does not occur papers are filed in the court which infer that the prosecutor is a crown prosecutor and make reference to "crown "evidence .

this has occured in the matter of Glover and wallis in a prosecution brought by the RNZSPCA initially through the Auckland SPCA a seperate legal entity and then switched to the RNZSPCA through use of a crown solictor

the crown solicitors file the documents and memoranda are filed "intituled office of the crown solictor" and memoranda have been entitled Crown memoranda judges have refered to the matters as crown prosecution and in one case it was intityled R V Glover

please conduct an investigation into this if you do not then we will have to refer this to the ombudsmen as there is a ton of evidence that this has been occuring and continues to occur .. just simply request the court file and you will see the evidence of this

It is a matter of public concern and relates to fairness under section 25 & 27 BORA

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden