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
Currently waiting for a response from Ministry of Justice, they must respond promptly and normally no later than (details and exceptions).
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
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 requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Rules Committee Meeting documents - Costs to lay litigants or litigants-in-person
To Ministry of Justice by Joe
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