27 November 2025
Grace Haden
By email: [FYI request #30158 email]
Tēnā koe Ms Haden
Protocols for the involvement of Crown Solicitors in private prosecutions
Our Ref: CLO311/271
Introduction
1.
Thank you for your email on 22 November 2025 advising that you have not yet
received a response to emails sent to Crown Law on 25 and 26 March 2025. The
second part of your email is being considered as a new request under the Official
Information Act 1982 (the
OIA). In accordance with section 15 of the OIA, a
response to your request will be provided as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
in any case within 20 working days of receipt of your request, i.e. by
19 December 2025.
March 2025 emails
2.
We received your March 2025 emails and determined they did not contain a
request for information and therefore fell outside the scope of the OIA. However,
we understood your emails to be an expression of concern about prosecution
documents being filed on behalf of the Royal New Zealand Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Incorporated (
SPCA) with references to the
“Crown” or “Office of the Crown Solicitor” on the cover page.
3.
We can confirm that we investigated this issue when you first raised it and we set
out below our consideration of the issues and action taken to respond to your
concerns.
Reference to the “Crown” or “Office of the Crown Solicitor” in memoranda
Documents out of scope of Crown Law oversight
4.
Of the eight documents attached to your 26 March 2025 email, six documents
were court-generated and fall outside the Solicitor-General’s oversight. If you
would like to raise your concerns regarding these documents you may consider
contacting the Ministry of Justice
(https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/question-
feedback-or-complaint/). Alternatively, if your concern relates to the conduct of a
Judge, you may wish to contact the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner
(https://jcc.govt.nz/).
Level 2 Justice
Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 2858 or DX SP20208, Wellington 6140, New Zealand | +64 4 472 1719 | crownlaw.govt.nz
8471842_9
2
Documents within scope of Crown Law oversight
5.
The remaining two documents attached to your email of 26 March 2025 were
memoranda filed by Kayes Fletcher Walker (the office of the Crown Solicitor for
Manukau) for the SPCA in separate proceedings involving Janine Wallace and
Barbara Glover. These documents are:
5.1
a memorandum filed by counsel for the SPCA in support of a civil
application for disposal orders, dated 12 June 2018 (
supporting
memorandum); and
5.2
a second criminal callover memorandum filed by counsel for the SPCA,
dated 9 August 2020 (
callover memorandum).
Issues identified with the memoranda
6.
Having reviewed both memoranda, we identified the issue with each
memorandum as follows:
6.1
Supporting memorandum: Inclusion in the footer of the cover page of –
N E Walker
Crown Solicitor at Manukau
6.2
Call over memorandum: Inclusion of the word “Crown” on the cover page
and at the top of page one.
Crown Law’s position on the issues identified
7.
As both matters in which the above memoranda were filed were being conducted
on behalf of the SPCA, the references to “Crown” and “Crown Solicitor at
Manukau” should not have been included. However, we are satisfied that neither
instance gave rise to any risk of the proceeding “masquerading” or being
misunderstood as a Crown prosecution.
8.
Our position remains that it is very common for Crown Solicitors to conduct non-
Crown prosecutions, including private prosecutions with the Solicitor-General’s
approval, and we maintain there is no confusion about their role, among Judges
and other lawyers, when they do so. This was explained to you in our letter dated
25 March 2025 responding to your OIA request dated 20 February 2025. We also
note:
8.1
the supporting memorandum was filed in the civil (not criminal)
jurisdiction. As it was not a criminal prosecution, there was no scope for
confusion that this matter was a Crown matter;
8.2
both memoranda correctly identified the SPCA (not the Crown) as the
party to the proceeding, despite the references complained of; and
8471842_9
3
8.3
we are satisfied that the references remained in both memoranda due to
oversight rather than any improper intent. The precedents used were
developed for Crown prosecutions, and such references are
automatically generated (and need to be manually removed) when new
documents are created.
Response to the issues identified
9.
While we are satisfied that the inclusion of the references was accidental, we
raised the matter with the Crown Solicitor for Manukau in April 2025. We have
been assured steps have been taken to avoid similar issues arising in future and
we apologise for not communicating the outcome of our investigation of these
matters to you earlier.
10.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. In light of the above, we
consider this matter has now been resolved.
Nāku noa, nā
Crown Law
Philip Coffey
Manager, Public Prosecutions Unit
8471842_9
