There is a gap in the law which facilitates and condones self represented lawyers to commit crime in the civil jurisdiction
Grace Haden made this Official Information request to Ministry of Justice
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Grace Haden to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Grace Haden
Dear Ministry of Justice,
While the police have justly been in the firing line the problem with the boys looking after boys goes much deeper than this and appears to be an attitude throughout the legal fraternity and crown law
I have an affirmation with the evidence attached it is available on request
In several blogs up to 2013 I made a factual mention that a lawyer did not hold a practicing certificate when the lawyer had contacted me at 945 pm in 2006
in 2016 I was approached by NetSafe and was asked to change the statements to reflected that the lawyer held a practicing certificate at the time based on a NZLS email
The NZLS became regulator in 2008 prior to that the regulator for this particular lawyer was the ADLS also the word lawyer had not been defined prior to 1 August 2008
I provided the lawyer and Netsafe with two documents which corroborate the fact which I had established in 2006 direct from the ADLS that the lawyer did not have a practicing certificate the time I was approached
These documents were problematic for the lawyer who sought assistance from the manager regulatory NZLS in January 2018 . he subsequently without any basis in fact or law produced two letters one to the lawyer saying that the NZLS decision which I had provided was wrong and the other to the LCRO seeking them to change their decision.
Based on these two letter the lawyer made a complaint of defamation to the PSPLA .
The law society stood by their letters of January 2018 so I opted to retire from my job as a private investigator ( I am ex police )
The lawyer immediately took defamation action based on the January 2018 Letters
through discovery I was provided with a ADLS dossier which proved the truth, and I communicated with the lawyer as to what the purpose of the court action was
Un beknown to me at the time .
In December 2018 the manager regulatory emailed the lawyer and advised that his January letter had been in correct .
The lawyer stalled the proceedings and in February 2019 took harassment action against me for having communicate with regards to the court action
In taking the harassment proceedings the original claim based on the false letters was affirmed as true
in 2020 I did a privacy request with the law Society and received documents which were almost entirely redacted , from these documents I was able to contact a third party who by way of privacy act provided me with the unredacted December 2018 documents which revealed that the January 2018 letter were false and as a former police officer I identified the affirmation in the harassment proceedings as perjury
almost simultaneously and without application to the court the judge who had according to emails , advised the lawyer to take harassment action ,issued an interim restraining order , he then issued a full restraining order in August of that year
The lawyer concealed the vital dec 2018 document, and this was only produced in 2021 well after I had discovered it , it was never provided for the harassment proceedings which continued to rely on the original ( in my opinion perjured) claim
In November 2020 the lawyer amended the statement of claim and relied on playing on the word lawyer which was defined only after 1 august 2008
The incident in 2006 occurred at a time when no such definition existed.
The defamation and harassment were both found against me and I am now paying the lawyer $75,000 out of my pension
The lawyer was self-represented and was believed without evidence, My evidence did not appear to matter I appealed the district court decisions to the high court who despite its stated objective in the rules being “ The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding ´ was no that and took over a year and the only change was that the judge dropped the award from 100,000 to 75,000.
I took this to the court of appeal who identified the errors I had highlighted , proving that they were there yet the high court did not " see " them " . The appeal court claimed that it was not in the public interest for the proceedings to continue
The law society are refusing to hold the lawyer and the 2018 manager regulatory to account .
By way of OIA there are several issues which come up and with respect of each I would like documents which support the action taken and discussion papers whcih consider the gap in the law that should be addressed
1. It would appear that the law Society will not act in a mater which is ,has been or potentially will be before the court , this means that all a lawyer has to do to give themselves protection from accountability is to commence proceedings and that disposes of accountability .
a. Please provide the legislative support for this stance and address how this complies with the requirement to comply with the rule of law
b. Who hold the law Society accountable in such a matter this is particularloy revlvant due to the IPCA having identified shortfalls in police actoin, ther is no such body for the law society
2. Criminal action in civil proceedings, this is surprisingly common but to say its criminal leads to defamation , the police refuse to touch it e.g. the perjury complaint for the blatant perjury which is provable by the lawyers own subsequent affirmation.
a. What safe guard are in place to prevent the commission of crime in courts
b. How do you deal with drime in the court proceedigns when judges dont deal with it and the police and law society exclude it.. is this in line with justice ?
3. Self-represented lawyers, the rules appear to focus on “ clients’ A lawyer holding themselves out as a lawyer appears to get bias even being able to communicate with judges behind the scene
a. What consideration has been given to amending the conduct rules to include a provision for self-represented lawyers in court , what independent oversight is provided for the lawyers action and how is accountbility to teh rule of law achieved.
4. With regards to the court the definition of “in the public interest” what is the benchmark for the court for determining what is in the public interest. Several years ago I was charged with breaching a suppression order , it was deemed in the interest of the public to pursue me and give me criminal convictions . these were later over turned when the court of appeal recognised that there was actually no suppression order discoverable which one could breach
a. It appears that we need a better test for “ in the public interest it appears to be an excuse to prosecute or dispose of proceedings at will in my matter with the lawyer the court of appeal held that it was not in the public interest given that the events commenced 20 years ago, the fact that the lawyer brough it to court in 2018 with lies appears to be beside the point .
5. How does one achieve a justice when persued by a self represented lawyer who uses secrecy law to silence a person
For the record this began in 2006 when I questioned why Maf had given coercive law enfocement powers to a fictional organisation whose founder had writen and advised on the animal welfare act under which he obtaine those powers for himself
rather than admittin gher as a mistake or holding hte corrupt accountable it is easier to persecute the whistle blower
Yours faithfully,
Grace Haden
From: OIA@justice.govt.nz
Ministry of Justice
Tēnā koe Grace,
Thank you for contacting the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry).
We acknowledge receipt of your request under the Official Information Act
1982.
This has been forwarded onto the relevant business unit to respond to.
The Ministry may publish the response to your request on our website, you
can expect that if your OIA is to be published that this will take place
at least 10 working days after it has been sent you. Your name and any
other personal information will be withheld under Section 9(2)(a) (protect
the privacy of natural persons).
You can expect a response by 19/12/2025.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Communications and Ministerial Services |Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tāhū o te Ture
DX Box SX 10088 | Wellington
[1]www.justice.govt.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Grace Haden <[FOI #32951 email]>
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2025 2:40 pm
To: [Ministry of Justice request email]
Subject: Official Information request - There is a gap in the law which
facilitates and condones self represented lawyers to commit crime in the
civil jurisdiction
Dear Ministry of Justice,
While the police have justly been in the firing line the problem with
the boys looking after boys goes much deeper than this and appears to
be an attitude throughout the legal fraternity and crown law
I have an affirmation with the evidence attached it is available on
request
In several blogs up to 2013 I made a factual mention that a lawyer did
not hold a practicing certificate when the lawyer had contacted me at 945
pm in 2006
in 2016 I was approached by NetSafe and was asked to change the
statements to reflected that the lawyer held a practicing certificate at
the time based on a NZLS email The NZLS became regulator in 2008 prior to
that the regulator for this particular lawyer was the ADLS also the word
lawyer had not been defined prior to 1 August 2008
I provided the lawyer and Netsafe with two documents which corroborate
the fact which I had established in 2006 direct from the ADLS that the
lawyer did not have a practicing certificate the time I was approached
These documents were problematic for the lawyer who sought assistance
from the manager regulatory NZLS in January 2018 . he subsequently
without any basis in fact or law produced two letters one to the lawyer
saying that the NZLS decision which I had provided was wrong and the other
to the LCRO seeking them to change their decision.
Based on these two letter the lawyer made a complaint of defamation to
the PSPLA .
The law society stood by their letters of January 2018 so I opted to
retire from my job as a private investigator ( I am ex police )
The lawyer immediately took defamation action based on the January 2018
Letters through discovery I was provided with a ADLS dossier which proved
the truth, and I communicated with the lawyer as to what the purpose of
the court action was Un beknown to me at the time .
In December 2018 the manager regulatory emailed the lawyer and advised
that his January letter had been in correct .
The lawyer stalled the proceedings and in February 2019 took harassment
action against me for having communicate with regards to the court
action In taking the harassment proceedings the original claim based on
the false letters was affirmed as true
in 2020 I did a privacy request with the law Society and received
documents which were almost entirely redacted , from these documents I
was able to contact a third party who by way of privacy act provided me
with the unredacted December 2018 documents which revealed that the
January 2018 letter were false and as a former police officer I
identified the affirmation in the harassment proceedings as perjury
almost simultaneously and without application to the court the judge who
had according to emails , advised the lawyer to take harassment action
,issued an interim restraining order , he then issued a full restraining
order in August of that year
The lawyer concealed the vital dec 2018 document, and this was only
produced in 2021 well after I had discovered it , it was never
provided for the harassment proceedings which continued to rely on the
original ( in my opinion perjured) claim
In November 2020 the lawyer amended the statement of claim and relied
on playing on the word lawyer which was defined only after 1 august
2008
The incident in 2006 occurred at a time when no such definition
existed.
The defamation and harassment were both found against me and I am now
paying the lawyer $75,000 out of my pension
The lawyer was self-represented and was believed without evidence, My
evidence did not appear to matter I appealed the district court
decisions to the high court who despite its stated objective in the
rules being “ The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of any proceeding ´ was no that and took
over a year and the only change was that the judge dropped the award
from 100,000 to 75,000.
I took this to the court of appeal who identified the errors I had
highlighted , proving that they were there yet the high court did not
" see " them " . The appeal court claimed that it was not in the public
interest for the proceedings to continue
The law society are refusing to hold the lawyer and the 2018 manager
regulatory to account .
By way of OIA there are several issues which come up and with respect of
each I would like documents which support the action taken and
discussion papers whcih consider the gap in the law that should be
addressed
1. It would appear that the law Society will not act in a
mater which is ,has been or potentially will be before the court ,
this means that all a lawyer has to do to give themselves protection
from accountability is to commence proceedings and that disposes of
accountability .
a. Please provide the legislative support for this stance
and address how this complies with the requirement to comply with the
rule of law
b. Who hold the law Society accountable in such a matter this
is particularloy revlvant due to the IPCA having identified shortfalls in
police actoin, ther is no such body for the law society
2. Criminal action in civil proceedings, this is surprisingly
common but to say its criminal leads to defamation , the police refuse
to touch it e.g. the perjury complaint for the blatant perjury which is
provable by the lawyers own subsequent affirmation.
a. What safe guard are in place to prevent the commission of
crime in courts
b. How do you deal with drime in the court proceedigns when judges dont
deal with it and the police and law society exclude it.. is this in line
with justice ?
3. Self-represented lawyers, the rules appear to focus on “
clients’ A lawyer holding themselves out as a lawyer appears to get
bias even being able to communicate with judges behind the scene
a. What consideration has been given to amending the conduct
rules to include a provision for self-represented lawyers in court , what
independent oversight is provided for the lawyers action and how is
accountbility to teh rule of law achieved.
4. With regards to the court the definition of “in the public
interest” what is the benchmark for the court for determining what is in
the public interest. Several years ago I was charged with breaching a
suppression order , it was deemed in the interest of the public to pursue
me and give me criminal convictions . these were later over turned when
the court of appeal recognised that there was actually no suppression
order discoverable which one could breach
a. It appears that we need a better test for “ in the public
interest it appears to be an excuse to prosecute or dispose of
proceedings at will in my matter with the lawyer the court of appeal
held that it was not in the public interest given that the events
commenced 20 years ago, the fact that the lawyer brough it to court in
2018 with lies appears to be beside the point .
5. How does one achieve a justice when persued by a self represented
lawyer who uses secrecy law to silence a person
For the record this began in 2006 when I questioned why Maf had given
coercive law enfocement powers to a fictional organisation whose
founder had writen and advised on the animal welfare act under which
he obtaine those powers for himself
rather than admittin gher as a mistake or holding hte corrupt accountable
it is easier to persecute the whistle blower
Yours faithfully,
Grace Haden
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[2][FOI #32951 email]
Is [3][Ministry of Justice request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Ministry of Justice? If so, please contact us using this form:
[4]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
2. mailto:[FOI #32951 email]
3. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
4. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
5. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: OIA@justice.govt.nz
Ministry of Justice
Tçnâ koe Grace,
While the Ministry acknowledged your correspondence on 21 November 2025
under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), we would like to inform
you that, due to the nature of the matters you have raised, specifically
your request for the Ministry’s views and legal opinion, your
correspondence will be best managed as official Ministry correspondence
rather than as a request under the Act.
The relevant business unit is working on a response, which you can expect
as soon as practicable.
Ngâ mihi,
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture
Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street, Wellington (6011)
[1][email address]
[2][email address]
[3][Ministry of Justice request email]
[4]justice.govt.nz
From: [Ministry of Justice request email]
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2025 4:24 pm
To: Grace Haden <[FOI #32951 email]>
Subject: RE: Official Information request - There is a gap in the law
which facilitates and condones self represented lawyers (ref: 128011)
Tçnâ koe Grace,
Thank you for contacting the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry).
We acknowledge receipt of your request under the Official Information Act
1982.
This has been forwarded onto the relevant business unit to respond to.
The Ministry may publish the response to your request on our website, you
can expect that if your OIA is to be published that this will take place
at least 10 working days after it has been sent you. Your name and any
other personal information will be withheld under Section 9(2)(a) (protect
the privacy of natural persons).
You can expect a response by 19/12/2025.
Ngâ mihi
Ministerial Services
Communications and Ministerial Services |Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture
DX Box SX 10088 | Wellington
[5]www.justice.govt.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Grace Haden <[6][FOI #32951 email]>
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2025 2:40 pm
To: [7][Ministry of Justice request email]
Subject: Official Information request - There is a gap in the law which
facilitates and condones self represented lawyers to commit crime in the
civil jurisdiction
Dear Ministry of Justice,
While the police have justly been in the firing line the problem with
the boys looking after boys goes much deeper than this and appears to
be an attitude throughout the legal fraternity and crown law
I have an affirmation with the evidence attached it is available on
request
In several blogs up to 2013 I made a factual mention that a lawyer did
not hold a practicing certificate when the lawyer had contacted me at 945
pm in 2006
in 2016 I was approached by NetSafe and was asked to change the
statements to reflected that the lawyer held a practicing certificate at
the time based on a NZLS email The NZLS became regulator in 2008 prior to
that the regulator for this particular lawyer was the ADLS also the word
lawyer had not been defined prior to 1 August 2008
I provided the lawyer and Netsafe with two documents which corroborate
the fact which I had established in 2006 direct from the ADLS that the
lawyer did not have a practicing certificate the time I was approached
These documents were problematic for the lawyer who sought assistance
from the manager regulatory NZLS in January 2018 . he subsequently
without any basis in fact or law produced two letters one to the lawyer
saying that the NZLS decision which I had provided was wrong and the other
to the LCRO seeking them to change their decision.
Based on these two letter the lawyer made a complaint of defamation to
the PSPLA .
The law society stood by their letters of January 2018 so I opted to
retire from my job as a private investigator ( I am ex police )
The lawyer immediately took defamation action based on the January 2018
Letters through discovery I was provided with a ADLS dossier which proved
the truth, and I communicated with the lawyer as to what the purpose of
the court action was Un beknown to me at the time .
In December 2018 the manager regulatory emailed the lawyer and advised
that his January letter had been in correct .
The lawyer stalled the proceedings and in February 2019 took harassment
action against me for having communicate with regards to the court
action In taking the harassment proceedings the original claim based on
the false letters was affirmed as true
in 2020 I did a privacy request with the law Society and received
documents which were almost entirely redacted , from these documents I
was able to contact a third party who by way of privacy act provided me
with the unredacted December 2018 documents which revealed that the
January 2018 letter were false and as a former police officer I
identified the affirmation in the harassment proceedings as perjury
almost simultaneously and without application to the court the judge who
had according to emails , advised the lawyer to take harassment action
,issued an interim restraining order , he then issued a full restraining
order in August of that year
The lawyer concealed the vital dec 2018 document, and this was only
produced in 2021 well after I had discovered it , it was never
provided for the harassment proceedings which continued to rely on the
original ( in my opinion perjured) claim
In November 2020 the lawyer amended the statement of claim and relied
on playing on the word lawyer which was defined only after 1 august
2008
The incident in 2006 occurred at a time when no such definition
existed.
The defamation and harassment were both found against me and I am now
paying the lawyer $75,000 out of my pension
The lawyer was self-represented and was believed without evidence, My
evidence did not appear to matter I appealed the district court
decisions to the high court who despite its stated objective in the
rules being “ The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of any proceeding ´ was no that and took
over a year and the only change was that the judge dropped the award
from 100,000 to 75,000.
I took this to the court of appeal who identified the errors I had
highlighted , proving that they were there yet the high court did not
" see " them " . The appeal court claimed that it was not in the public
interest for the proceedings to continue
The law society are refusing to hold the lawyer and the 2018 manager
regulatory to account .
By way of OIA there are several issues which come up and with respect of
each I would like documents which support the action taken and
discussion papers whcih consider the gap in the law that should be
addressed
1. It would appear that the law Society will not act in a
mater which is ,has been or potentially will be before the court ,
this means that all a lawyer has to do to give themselves protection
from accountability is to commence proceedings and that disposes of
accountability .
a. Please provide the legislative support for this stance
and address how this complies with the requirement to comply with the
rule of law
b. Who hold the law Society accountable in such a matter this
is particularloy revlvant due to the IPCA having identified shortfalls in
police actoin, ther is no such body for the law society
2. Criminal action in civil proceedings, this is surprisingly
common but to say its criminal leads to defamation , the police refuse
to touch it e.g. the perjury complaint for the blatant perjury which is
provable by the lawyers own subsequent affirmation.
a. What safe guard are in place to prevent the commission of
crime in courts
b. How do you deal with drime in the court proceedigns when judges dont
deal with it and the police and law society exclude it.. is this in line
with justice ?
3. Self-represented lawyers, the rules appear to focus on “
clients’ A lawyer holding themselves out as a lawyer appears to get
bias even being able to communicate with judges behind the scene
a. What consideration has been given to amending the conduct
rules to include a provision for self-represented lawyers in court , what
independent oversight is provided for the lawyers action and how is
accountbility to teh rule of law achieved.
4. With regards to the court the definition of “in the public
interest” what is the benchmark for the court for determining what is in
the public interest. Several years ago I was charged with breaching a
suppression order , it was deemed in the interest of the public to pursue
me and give me criminal convictions . these were later over turned when
the court of appeal recognised that there was actually no suppression
order discoverable which one could breach
a. It appears that we need a better test for “ in the public
interest it appears to be an excuse to prosecute or dispose of
proceedings at will in my matter with the lawyer the court of appeal
held that it was not in the public interest given that the events
commenced 20 years ago, the fact that the lawyer brough it to court in
2018 with lies appears to be beside the point .
5. How does one achieve a justice when persued by a self represented
lawyer who uses secrecy law to silence a person
For the record this began in 2006 when I questioned why Maf had given
coercive law enfocement powers to a fictional organisation whose
founder had writen and advised on the animal welfare act under which
he obtaine those powers for himself
rather than admittin gher as a mistake or holding hte corrupt accountable
it is easier to persecute the whistle blower
Yours faithfully,
Grace Haden
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #32951 email]
Is [9][Ministry of Justice request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Ministry of Justice? If so, please contact us using this form:
[10]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
4. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
5. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
6. mailto:[FOI #32951 email]
7. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
8. mailto:[FOI #32951 email]
9. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
10. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
11. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: Grace Haden
Dear [email address],
I wish to clarify my request as to how this gap has occured and how self represented lawyers lack accountbility to the rule of law
Lawyers and conveyancers act section 4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(b)the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
(c)the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
so much depends on definition
"regulated services" means,—
(a)in relation to a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—
(i)legal services;
" legal services" means services that a person provides by carrying out legal work for any other person
The problem is with the word "other "
"lawyer" means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor
courts treat lawyers as having obligations and accountability to the rule of law but a self represented Lawyer by definion has no such obligations yet the court prefers their " evidence " over any physical verifiable evidence provided by a lay littigant and treats lawyers who appear without supporting evidence favourably just on their word .....
...see the chief justice addresss to the otago womens lawyers association 2014 " There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law"
The law society is of the belief that self represented lawyers are only accountable to chapter 10 of the conduct rules
It appears that there has never been any consideration to rules for self represented lawyers they are treated as lawyers having accountbility by the court .
I request that under OIA I am provided with all discusion papers that consider the obligations of self represented lawyers and the accountability to the law society and the the law itself .
By holding themselves out as a lawyer the obligations should naturally follow as the do for police officers on or off duty .
we are all supposd to be equal under the law but as in animal farm some are more equal than others and by calling themelves lawyers and acting for themselves a lawyer has no apparent obligation to the rule of law or the high court and no accountbility
please also provide documents which show consideration as to whether a self represented lawyer is their own client and is being a self represented lawyer therefore not a conflict of interest ?
what considerations have been given to a self represented lawyer having oversight by another lawyer or law society to prevent the issues which I have faced with a lawyer commencing action on false documents and perjury and not being held accountable .
Yours sincerely,
Grace Haden
From: OIA@justice.govt.nz
Ministry of Justice
Tçnâ koe,
Thank you for contacting the [1][Ministry of Justice request email] mailbox at the
Ministry of Justice.
This automatic message is to confirm we have received your email - we hope
to acknowledge you and advise next steps within two working days.
Official Information Act requests can take up to 20 working days to
receive a response. If the Ministry needs more time, we will inform you.
However, over the holiday period in December and January there is a three
week period that does not count as ‘working days’, that period is 25
December to 15 January, inclusive. That means any OIA requests submitted
on 27 November or later may take a bit longer than you expected.
Please note that this mailbox is not monitored on weekends, public
holidays or between 17:00 and 08:00 hours on working days.
Ngâ mihi,
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice
Justice Centre I Aitken Street
DX Box SX 10088 I Wellington
[2]www.justice.govt.nz
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
2. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
From: correspondence, official
Ministry of Justice
Tēnā koe Grace,
Please find attached the Ministry’s response to your email of 21 and 28 November 2025.
Ngā mihi,
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tāhū o te Ture
Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street, Wellington (6011)
[email address]
[email address]
[Ministry of Justice request email]
justice.govt.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Grace Haden <[FOI #32951 email]>
Sent: Friday, 28 November 2025 5:46 pm
To: [Ministry of Justice request email]
Subject: RE: Official Information request (ref: 128011)
Dear [Ministry of Justice request email],
I wish to clarify my request as to how this gap has occured and how self represented lawyers lack accountbility to the rule of law
Lawyers and conveyancers act section 4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(b)the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
(c)the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
so much depends on definition
"regulated services" means,—
(a)in relation to a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,— (i)legal services;
" legal services" means services that a person provides by carrying out legal work for any other person
The problem is with the word "other "
"lawyer" means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor
courts treat lawyers as having obligations and accountability to the rule of law but a self represented Lawyer by definion has no such obligations yet the court prefers their " evidence " over any physical verifiable evidence provided by a lay littigant and treats lawyers who appear without supporting evidence favourably just on their word .....
...see the chief justice addresss to the otago womens lawyers association 2014 " There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law"
The law society is of the belief that self represented lawyers are only accountable to chapter 10 of the conduct rules
It appears that there has never been any consideration to rules for self represented lawyers they are treated as lawyers having accountbility by the court .
I request that under OIA I am provided with all discusion papers that consider the obligations of self represented lawyers and the accountability to the law society and the the law itself .
By holding themselves out as a lawyer the obligations should naturally follow as the do for police officers on or off duty .
we are all supposd to be equal under the law but as in animal farm some are more equal than others and by calling themelves lawyers and acting for themselves a lawyer has no apparent obligation to the rule of law or the high court and no accountbility
please also provide documents which show consideration as to whether a self represented lawyer is their own client and is being a self represented lawyer therefore not a conflict of interest ?
what considerations have been given to a self represented lawyer having oversight by another lawyer or law society to prevent the issues which I have faced with a lawyer commencing action on false documents and perjury and not being held accountable .
Yours sincerely,
Grace Haden
-----Original Message-----
Tçnâ koe Grace,
While the Ministry acknowledged your correspondence on 21 November 2025 under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), we would like to inform you that, due to the nature of the matters you have raised, specifically your request for the Ministry’s views and legal opinion, your correspondence will be best managed as official Ministry correspondence rather than as a request under the Act.
The relevant business unit is working on a response, which you can expect as soon as practicable.
Ngâ mihi,
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture
Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street, Wellington (6011)
[1][email address]
[2][email address]
[3][Ministry of Justice request email]
[4]justice.govt.nz
From: [Ministry of Justice request email]
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2025 4:24 pm
To: Grace Haden <[FOI #32951 email]>
Subject: RE: Official Information request - There is a gap in the law which facilitates and condones self represented lawyers (ref: 128011)
Tçnâ koe Grace,
Thank you for contacting the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry).
We acknowledge receipt of your request under the Official Information Act 1982.
This has been forwarded onto the relevant business unit to respond to.
The Ministry may publish the response to your request on our website, you can expect that if your OIA is to be published that this will take place at least 10 working days after it has been sent you. Your name and any other personal information will be withheld under Section 9(2)(a) (protect the privacy of natural persons).
You can expect a response by 19/12/2025.
Ngâ mihi
Ministerial Services
Communications and Ministerial Services |Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture
DX Box SX 10088 | Wellington
[5]www.justice.govt.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #32951 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Grace Haden
Dear correspondence, official,
Thank you for your response
It feels very much that the issue has been side stepped and my OIA had been ignored
First of all please advise me of the statutory provisions which allow for an OIA to be changed into a "general ministerial correspondence"
I appreciate that the judiciary and government are separate but as a citizen who is expected to comply with the law, I also expect the courts and the government to comply with the same laws.But there appears to be no way that those are held accountable by any means.
You correctly identify that the “ The Law Society’s regulatory functions are underpinned by statutory safeguards “ but I want to know how those safeguard are deployed when just as my OIA request is turned into something different the law society chooses not to comply with or address those statutory safeguards.
You go on to state “ A lawyer’s conduct not connected with providing legal services can also be found to not meet standards expected of lawyers or that would make them unsuitable to continue to practice.” By way of OIA please advise how one seeks to have a lawyers conduct examined when the police , law society and the courts do not act on requests for investigation becassue it is , has been or will be before the courts .
I am aware of the independent review I was a submitter , As a former police officer and police prosecutor I am very much concerned that while those at the lower end of the food chain are held accountable for relatively minor transgressions those at the top seem to cover up for each other and the McSkimming case is just one example of the larger issue which encompasses lawyers courts and the police .Corruption = monopoly + discretion -accountability . The police had accountbility to the IPCA where is hte accountbility for the law society and the courts ?
You state, “At this time, the Government’s justice work programme is focused on priority areas, including reducing violent crime and improving court timeliness.”
It appears that you have failed to consider that some crime has origins in injustice and court timeliness can be improved by keeping unnecessary action out of court such as the one which netted a lawyer $75,000 for using false documents and misleading the courts .
Any doctor will tell you that you are looking at the symptoms of the serious underlying issues that of the abuse of the legal system by lawyers and primarily the issue is that lawyers do not have strict enforcement on them requiring them to be honest e,g, in the UK The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down four law firms so far this week https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-ne...
In New Zealand the law society can simply produce false documents to turn the lawyers lies into apparent truth .
Thank you for your advice to report these matters to the police I have done so again , I reported the perjury to the police and it was the recommendation of their legal team that it not be perused despite the fact that I have an affirmation from the lawyer which total proves the perjury .
You have to bear in mind that the lawyers in the police are all members of the New Zealand law society, and all judges are former members its yet another conflict of interest
You also recommend “ you may find it helpful to seek further independent legal advice” where does one find “ independent legal advice" when all lawyers are members of the very same organisation which I have an issue with
I am sorry but I don’t find your information useful it simply wastes time and does not address the OIA questions requested
By way of OIA there are several issues which come up and with respect of each I would like documents which support the action taken and discussion papers which consider the gap in the law that should be addressed
1. It would appear that the law Society will not act in a mater which is ,has been or potentially will be before the court , this means that all a lawyer has to do to give themselves protection from accountability is to commence proceedings and that disposes of accountability .
a. Please provide the legislative support for this stance and address how this complies with the requirement to comply with the rule of law
b. Who holds the law Society accountable in such a matter this is particularly relevant due to the IPCA having identified shortfalls in police action, there is no such body for the law society
2. Criminal action in civil proceedings, this is surprisingly common but to say its criminal leads to defamation , the police refuse to touch it e.g. the perjury complaint for the blatant perjury which is provable by the lawyers own subsequent affirmation.
a. What safeguard are in place to prevent the commission of crime in courts
b. How do you deal with crime in the court proceedings when judges don’t deal with it and the police and law society exclude it.. is this in line with justice ?
3. Self-represented lawyers, the rules appear to focus on “ clients’ A lawyer holding themselves out as a lawyer appears to get bias even being able to communicate with judges behind the scenes
a. What consideration has been given to amending the conduct rules to include a provision for self-represented lawyers in court , what independent oversight is provided for the lawyers action and how is accountability to the rule of law achieved.
4. With regards to the court the definition of “in the public interest” what is the benchmark for the court for determining what is in the public interest.
Several years ago I was charged with breaching a suppression order , it was deemed in the interest of the public to pursue me and give me criminal convictions . these were later overturned when the court of appeal recognised that there was actually no suppression order discoverable which one could breach
a. It appears that we need a better test for “ in the public interest” it appears to be an excuse to prosecute or dispose of proceedings at will in my matter with the lawyer the court of appeal held that it was not in the public interest given that the events commenced 20 years ago, the fact that the lawyer brough it to court in 2018 with lies appears to be beside the point .
5. How does one achieve a justice when pursued by a self-represented lawyer who uses secrecy law to silence a person
I take it by your response that there is no research , documentation or even discussion papers addressing these issues
This is a serious situation where a lawyer succeeded in court using false documents created by the New Zealand law society Had these documents not been created there would not have been court action.
Not only did this waste an incredible amount of court time but it also highlighted what Justice Winkelmann states "There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law" https://otagowomenslawsociety.com/wp-con...
this effectively creates a bias in favour of lawyers and ensures the playing field is not level
I did everything I could to have the issue addressed and found it was impossible to have lawyer held accountable to the rule of law especially as in this case the law society itself was not complying with the rule of law and sought to cover up the wrong doing of their manager rather than address the matter
It might be rather naive of me, but I would have thought that the compliance with the rule of law would have been in the public interest but the court does not seem to think so
Where is justice when the courts cannot perform its statutory functions in particular the high court 1.2Objective
The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding
When the court takes over a year to reach a decision and not pick up the errors of the lower courts what is then is the purpose of the high court ?and in terms of the fair trading act it has failed to meet its objective
The appeal court while recognising that errors were made ( proving that they existed ) but opted out on the matter of public interest . in other words it was in the public interest to prosecute me and give me 5 convictions where no suppression orders existed and it is not in the public interest to allow an appeal where errors have been identified and the high court has not acted according to the objectives. .. to me this proves inconsistency in the court
Could you please address my OIA request and if you do no have the information please be honest and say so or you could refer it to the law Society it appears that they are happy to make up documents as required .
Yours sincerely,
Grace Haden
From: correspondence, official
Ministry of Justice
Tēnā koe,
Thank you for contacting the
[1][email address] mailbox at the Ministry of
Justice.
This automatic message is to confirm we have received your email - we hope
to acknowledge you and advise next steps within two working days.
Please note that this mailbox is not monitored on weekends, public
holidays or between 17:00 and 08:00 hours on working days.
Official Information Act requests can take up to 20 working days to
receive a response. If the Ministry needs more time, we will inform you.
Ngā mihi,
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice
Justice Centre I Aitken Street
DX Box SX 10088 I Wellington
[2]www.justice.govt.nz
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
2. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation – OIA #32951
“There is a gap in the law which facilitates and condones self-represented lawyers to commit crime in the civil jurisdiction”
(Requester: Grace Haden | Agency: Ministry of Justice)
Summary
This OIA request raises serious, systemic questions about accountability, oversight, and legal obligations when lawyers act as self-represented litigants in civil proceedings. While the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) initially acknowledged the request under the Official Information Act (OIA), it subsequently reclassified the request as “general correspondence” and responded without issuing an OIA decision on the clarified scope.
As a result, it is not possible on the public record to confirm whether the Ministry searched for, held, or refused the requested documents in accordance with the OIA.
⸻
1. What the requester asked for (in scope)
The original request (21 Nov 2025), and especially the clarification of 28 Nov 2025, sought existing information and documents, including:
• Any discussion papers, policy documents, or internal consideration of whether self-represented lawyers are subject to professional obligations under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA) and the Lawyers Conduct and Client Care Rules (LCCCR).
• Documents addressing oversight, accountability, or regulatory gaps when lawyers act for themselves rather than for “another person”.
• Material examining conflicts of interest, public-interest considerations, and pathways to accountability when alleged misconduct occurs in civil proceedings.
• Legislative or policy material explaining the New Zealand Law Society’s position when matters are before the courts.
These are classic requests for held information, not requests for personal legal advice.
⸻
2. How the Ministry of Justice responded
• 21 Nov 2025 – MoJ acknowledged the request as an OIA, with a statutory due date.
• 27 Nov 2025 – MoJ stated it would treat the request as “general correspondence”, asserting it sought “views and legal opinion”.
• 28 Nov 2025 – The requester clarified and narrowed the request to identifiable document categories, expressly seeking discussion papers and policy material.
• 12 Dec 2025 – MoJ issued a narrative response letter:
• No documents were released.
• No refusals were issued under s18 OIA.
• No statement was made that documents were “not held”.
• No transfers were made to other agencies.
• The response relied on general explanations (judicial independence, NZLS functions, Police role) rather than addressing the document request.
⸻
3. Core compliance issue: reclassification without an OIA decision
While agencies are not required to create opinions, the OIA still applies to existing information they hold.
After the 28 Nov clarification, the request plainly sought:
• documents,
• discussion papers,
• policy consideration,
• or confirmation that such material is not held.
However:
• MoJ did not issue an OIA decision on the clarified request.
• There is no indication that a search was conducted.
• There is no statutory refusal ground cited (e.g. s18(e), s18(f)).
• There is no confirmation that the information is not held.
This leaves the request in a procedural limbo: acknowledged as an OIA, then answered as correspondence, without the accountability mechanisms of the Act.
⸻
4. Key matters left unanswered on the public record
On the face of the FYI thread and attached letter, the following remain unresolved:
• Whether MoJ holds any policy or discussion documents on the regulatory position of self-represented lawyers.
• Whether MoJ has considered gaps in oversight or accountability where alleged misconduct occurs in civil proceedings.
• Whether MoJ holds material relating to NZLS accountability, including limits on investigation when matters are before the courts.
• Whether MoJ searched for, but does not hold, such information (which would require an explicit s18(e) response).
• The legal basis (if any) for declining to process the clarified document request under the OIA.
⸻
5. Why this matters (public interest)
This is not a dispute about an individual case. The request raises system-level questions affecting:
• public confidence in legal accountability,
• equality before the law when lawyers act for themselves,
• access to justice for unrepresented litigants,
• and clarity of regulatory responsibility between courts, Police, NZLS, and the executive.
The absence of a clear OIA decision prevents the public from knowing whether:
• no policy work exists, or
• policy work exists but was not disclosed, or
• the issue has never been examined.
⸻
6. Current status
Based on the FYI record:
• This OIA cannot be considered substantively resolved.
• The key document-based questions remain unanswered.
• Any assessment of compliance or adequacy is impossible without a proper OIA decision.
A formal complaint to the Ombudsman would be the appropriate mechanism to determine whether the Ministry was required to reprocess the clarified request under the OIA.
⸻
Closing note
This annotation is based solely on the public FYI record and the Ministry’s written response. It makes no allegation of intent, only records what was requested, what was done, and what is missing.
From: OIA@justice.govt.nz
Ministry of Justice
Tēnā koe Grace,
Thank you for your further email to the Ministry of Justice (the
Ministry).
We acknowledge receipt of your request under the Official Information Act
1982.
This has been forwarded onto the relevant business unit to respond to.
The Ministry may publish the response to your request on our website. You
can expect that if your OIA is to be published that this will take place
at least 10 working days after the response has been sent you. Your name
and any other personal information will be withheld under Section 9(2)(a)
(protect the privacy of natural persons).
You can expect a response by 2 February 2026. This response date takes
into account the OIA summer holidays which are between 25 December 2025 –
15 January 2026.
Ngā mihi nui,
Ministerial Services
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services
Ministry of Justice | Tāhū o te Ture [1]justice.govt.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Grace Haden <[2][FOI #32951 email]>
Sent: Friday, 12 December 2025 4:27 pm
To: correspondence, official <[3][email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to your correspondence (Our ref: 128011)
Dear correspondence, official,
Thank you for your response
It feels very much that the issue has been side stepped and my OIA had
been ignored
First of all please advise me of the statutory provisions which allow
for an OIA to be changed into a "general ministerial correspondence"
I appreciate that the judiciary and government are separate but as a
citizen who is expected to comply with the law, I also expect the courts
and the government to comply with the same laws.But there appears to be
no way that those are held accountable by any means.
You correctly identify that the “ The Law Society’s regulatory
functions are underpinned by statutory safeguards “ but I want to know
how those safeguard are deployed when just as my OIA request is
turned into something different the law society chooses not to comply
with or address those statutory safeguards.
You go on to state “ A lawyer’s conduct not connected with providing legal
services can also be found to not meet standards expected of lawyers or
that would make them unsuitable to continue to practice.” By way of OIA
please advise how one seeks to have a lawyers conduct examined when
the police , law society and the courts do not act on requests for
investigation becassue it is , has been or will be before the courts .
I am aware of the independent review I was a submitter , As a former
police officer and police prosecutor I am very much concerned that
while those at the lower end of the food chain are held accountable
for relatively minor transgressions those at the top seem to cover
up for each other and the McSkimming case is just one example of the
larger issue which encompasses lawyers courts and the police
.Corruption = monopoly + discretion -accountability . The police had
accountbility to the IPCA where is hte accountbility for the law
society and the courts ?
You state, “At this time, the Government’s justice work programme is
focused on priority areas, including reducing violent crime and improving
court timeliness.”
It appears that you have failed to consider that some crime has origins
in injustice and court timeliness can be improved by keeping
unnecessary action out of court such as the one which netted a lawyer
$75,000 for using false documents and misleading the courts .
Any doctor will tell you that you are looking at the symptoms of the
serious underlying issues that of the abuse of the legal system by
lawyers and primarily the issue is that lawyers do not have strict
enforcement on them requiring them to be honest e,g, in the UK The
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has shut down four law firms so far
this week
[4]https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-ne...
In New Zealand the law society can simply produce false documents to
turn the lawyers lies into apparent truth .
Thank you for your advice to report these matters to the police I have
done so again , I reported the perjury to the police and it was
the recommendation of their legal team that it not be perused despite
the fact that I have an affirmation from the lawyer which total
proves the perjury .
You have to bear in mind that the lawyers in the police are all members
of the New Zealand law society, and all judges are former members its
yet another conflict of interest
You also recommend “ you may find it helpful to seek further independent
legal advice” where does one find “ independent legal advice" when all
lawyers are members of the very same organisation which I have an issue
with
I am sorry but I don’t find your information useful it simply wastes
time and does not address the OIA questions requested
By way of OIA there are several issues which come up and with respect of
each I would like documents which support the action taken and discussion
papers which consider the gap in the law that should be addressed
1. It would appear that the law Society will not act in a mater which is
,has been or potentially will be before the court , this means that all a
lawyer has to do to give themselves protection from accountability is to
commence proceedings and that disposes of accountability .
a. Please provide the legislative support for this stance and
address how this complies with the requirement to comply with the rule of
law
b. Who holds the law Society accountable in such a matter this
is particularly relevant due to the IPCA having identified shortfalls in
police action, there is no such body for the law society
2. Criminal action in civil proceedings, this is surprisingly common but
to say its criminal leads to defamation , the police refuse to touch it
e.g. the perjury complaint for the blatant perjury which is provable by
the lawyers own subsequent affirmation.
a. What safeguard are in place to prevent the commission of
crime in courts
b. How do you deal with crime in the court proceedings when
judges don’t deal with it and the police and law society exclude it.. is
this in line with justice ?
3. Self-represented lawyers, the rules appear to focus on “ clients’ A
lawyer holding themselves out as a lawyer appears to get bias even being
able to communicate with judges behind the scenes
a. What consideration has been given to amending the conduct rules to
include a provision for self-represented lawyers in court , what
independent oversight is provided for the lawyers action and how is
accountability to the rule of law achieved.
4. With regards to the court the definition of “in the public interest”
what is the benchmark for the court for determining what is in the public
interest.
Several years ago I was charged with breaching a suppression order , it
was deemed in the interest of the public to pursue me and give me criminal
convictions . these were later overturned when the court of appeal
recognised that there was actually no suppression order discoverable which
one could breach
a. It appears that we need a better test for “ in the public interest” it
appears to be an excuse to prosecute or dispose of proceedings at will in
my matter with the lawyer the court of appeal held that it was not in the
public interest given that the events commenced 20 years ago, the fact
that the lawyer brough it to court in 2018 with lies appears to be beside
the point .
5. How does one achieve a justice when pursued by a self-represented
lawyer who uses secrecy law to silence a person
I take it by your response that there is no research , documentation or
even discussion papers addressing these issues
This is a serious situation where a lawyer succeeded in court using
false documents created by the New Zealand law society Had these
documents not been created there would not have been court action.
Not only did this waste an incredible amount of court time but it also
highlighted what Justice Winkelmann states "There is also another
aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation.
It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly
mislead the court in matters of fact or law"
[5]https://otagowomenslawsociety.com/wp-con...
this effectively creates a bias in favour of lawyers and ensures the
playing field is not level
I did everything I could to have the issue addressed and found it was
impossible to have lawyer held accountable to the rule of law
especially as in this case the law society itself was not complying
with the rule of law and sought to cover up the wrong doing of their
manager rather than address the matter
It might be rather naive of me, but I would have thought that the
compliance with the rule of law would have been in the public interest
but the court does not seem to think so
Where is justice when the courts cannot perform its statutory
functions in particular the high court 1.2Objective The objective of
these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of any proceeding
When the court takes over a year to reach a decision and not pick up the
errors of the lower courts what is then is the purpose of the high court
?and in terms of the fair trading act it has failed to meet its
objective
The appeal court while recognising that errors were made ( proving that
they existed ) but opted out on the matter of public interest . in
other words it was in the public interest to prosecute me and give me 5
convictions where no suppression orders existed and it is not in the
public interest to allow an appeal where errors have been identified
and the high court has not acted according to the objectives. .. to
me this proves inconsistency in the court
Could you please address my OIA request and if you do no have the
information please be honest and say so or you could refer it to the
law Society it appears that they are happy to make up documents as
required .
Yours sincerely,
Grace Haden
-----Original Message-----
Tēnā koe Grace,
Please find attached the Ministry’s response to your email of 21 and 28
November 2025.
Ngā mihi,
Communications and Ministerial Services | Corporate Services Ministry of
Justice | Tāhū o te Ture Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street, Wellington
(6011) [email address] [email address] [Ministry of Justice request email]
justice.govt.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #32951 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
2. mailto:[FOI #32951 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-ne...
5. https://otagowomenslawsociety.com/wp-con...
6. mailto:[FOI #32951 email]
7. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation (for followers of this request)
There is a gap in the law which facilitates and condones self-represented lawyers to commit crime in the civil jurisdiction
FYI Request #32951 — Status as at November 2025
This OIA raises system-level questions about legal accountability in New Zealand—specifically whether gaps exist that allow lawyers acting for themselves (self-represented lawyers) to avoid scrutiny, commit alleged misconduct, or rely on institutional protections that ordinary litigants do not have.
The requester seeks Ministry of Justice policies, legal justifications, and discussion papers relating to five major areas of concern:
1. NZ Law Society’s ability to decline complaints because a matter is “before the courts”, leaving no equivalent of an independent body like the IPCA for lawyers.
2. How alleged criminal conduct in civil proceedings (e.g., perjury, document concealment, false declarations) is supposed to be addressed when Police, NZLS, and judges all refuse to intervene.
3. How the Conduct & Client Care Rules apply to lawyers when they appear for themselves, given most rules assume a lawyer–client relationship.
4. How “public interest” is assessed by the courts and law-enforcement bodies in deciding whether to investigate or advance a matter.
5. What an ordinary New Zealander can realistically do when facing a self-represented lawyer who uses their status, procedural knowledge, or professional networks to their advantage.
The Ministry of Justice acknowledged the request on 21 November 2025, with a due date of 19 December 2025. No substantive information has yet been released.
⸻
1. Broader Context: A Known Pattern Across FYI OIA Requests
A review of dozens of related OIAs on FYI.org.nz shows that these concerns are recurring national issues, not isolated complaints. Multiple requesters have raised:
• Lack of external oversight of NZLS
• Inability to get Police to act on perjury or fraud committed in civil courts
• Courts refusing to engage with allegations of misconduct by litigants who are also lawyers
• Delays, non-listing, and judicial reluctance to police lawyer behaviour
• NZLS, LCRO, and MoJ referring complainants in circles with no resolution
There is a clear systemic theme:
When a lawyer is acting as a litigant, no single agency accepts responsibility for regulating their behaviour, creating an accountability vacuum.
⸻
2. Related OIAs on FYI.org.nz Addressing the Same Issues
Below are the strongest, most relevant cross-linked FYI OIA requests:
A. NZLS Refusal to Act / Accountability Gaps
• #32294 – NZLS refusing to investigate misconduct when lawyers act in personal capacity
• #31711 – Inconsistency in NZLS handling of complaints “before the courts”
• #29912 – Result of complaints about a lawyer acting without a practising certificate
• #30869 – LCRO delays and failure to address systemic lawyer behaviour issues
• #28070 – Public interest failures in NZLS disciplinary processes
All of these requests highlight the same gap:
NZLS treats “self-represented lawyers” as outside its regulatory reach, even when their conduct in litigation would be sanctionable if done on behalf of a client.
⸻
B. Perjury, Fraud, and Criminal Conduct in Civil Proceedings
• #32475 – Legal advice about criminal misconduct in civil litigation
• #31840 – Why Police refuse to investigate perjury even when evidence is provided
• #30970 – Crown Law policy on prosecution of perjury and judicial corruption
• #30411 – OIA about Crimes Act offences committed through affidavits
• #28299 – Failure of Police to act on sworn false statements
• #25671 – Misconduct in Family Court affidavits and evidential thresholds
Across these OIAs, the pattern is that Police routinely decline to investigate perjury, stating it is “a matter for the court,” while courts generally decline to treat perjury as a live issue unless it materially affects court process and is raised in real time—leaving no effective enforcement mechanism.
⸻
C. Judicial Accountability, Conflicts of Interest, and Access to Justice
• #32943 – Judiciary Accountable To The People (private prosecution delays & judicial independence)
• #32388 – Interaction between judges and NZLS in misconduct cases
• #30122 – Judicial recusals and conflict-of-interest procedures
• #30007 – Court administration transparency in civil cases
• #29244 – Backlogs, delays, and fairness implications in District Court civil jurisdiction
These OIAs reveal consistent public concern about:
• judges refusing to investigate serious allegations between litigants,
• delays undermining confidence, and
• limited transparency around judicial allocation and oversight.
⸻
D. Public Interest Decisions & “Bodies with Jurisdiction”
• #28950 – Misuse of “public interest test” by Police in declining prosecution
• #31088 – Why MoJ considers civil misconduct outside its remit
• #29401 – Who is responsible when multiple agencies decline jurisdiction
• #28314 – Ministry authority boundaries and systemic gaps
All implicate the same structural problem:
When multiple agencies claim “not our jurisdiction,” no one takes responsibility.
⸻
3. What Deep Research Shows About the Five Structural Gaps
A synthesis of FYI OIAs, academic reports, and official ministry statements shows:
Gap 1 — NZLS Refusing Complaints When Matters Are “Before the Courts”
NZLS often refuses to investigate misconduct if related litigation is ongoing or concluded.
However, courts do not regulate lawyers’ non-professional litigation behaviour, leaving a vacuum.
Gap 2 — No Realistic Enforcement of Crimes (Perjury/Fraud) in Civil Cases
Police have repeatedly stated (via FYI responses) that
“perjury is a matter for the courts.”
Courts almost never refer cases to Police or initiate perjury actions themselves.
Gap 3 — Conduct Rules Don’t Clearly Apply to Self-Represented Lawyers
The Conduct & Client Care Rules regulate lawyers in practice, not lawyers acting privately.
This loophole is well-documented across multiple FYI threads.
Gap 4 — Public Interest Tests Are Applied Inconsistently
Police, NZLS, and MoJ each apply the “public interest” test differently.
Requesters repeatedly report contradictory explanations.
Gap 5 — No Pathway for Ordinary People to Seek Justice Against Self-Represented Lawyers
Where misconduct occurs in civil litigation, and all agencies decline involvement,
there is no agency empowered to intervene.
This is widely described across FYI as a form of “legal impunity.”
⸻
4. What Observers Should Watch for in the MoJ Response
Key indicators in the Ministry’s eventual reply will be:
• Whether the Ministry claims not to hold any policy documents (s18(g)).
• Whether it asserts that these are court matters outside OIA scope.
• Whether it acknowledges the structural gap between NZLS ⇄ Courts ⇄ Police.
• Whether any policy documents exist at all to address misconduct by self-represented lawyers.
• Whether the Ministry provides clear public interest reasoning for any refusals.
Given the depth of the concerns raised and the number of comparable FYI requests, this may become an important test case for public-interest oversight.
If answers are incomplete, transferred, or refused, there may be grounds for an Ombudsman review, especially given the national pattern documented across years of similar requests.
⸻
★ Summary
This OIA is part of a broader, well-established pattern on FYI.org.nz:
numerous members of the public have reported that misconduct in civil litigation—especially by lawyers acting for themselves—falls into a legal grey zone where NZLS, Police, and the courts all decline responsibility.
The Ministry’s response (due 19 December 2025) will be significant for understanding whether any policies, oversight mechanisms, or legal safeguards exist to resolve these gaps.
This annotation will be updated once the Ministry releases its substantive decision.
Link to this