Dear Ministry of Justice,

To the Hon Ms Amy Adams

Please provide to the writer the following details and information in accordance with the Official Information Act 1982 as set out in Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman (1988). Ms Harding is doing her own investigation into my request for a Review of the court case Police vs Karl Lobb, Pukekohe Courts 18/12/12 so this is separate to this inquiry. We ask you respond to these questions as Minister of Justice, and because the Government is of the people, by the people and for the people.

1/ Is there any time limit for prosecuting for perjury?
(Karl Lobb was the secret crown witness used by corrupt Police in the Thomas Commission of Inquiry 1980, in which the Royal Commissioner's report, stated he had committed perjury for corrupt police who planted evidence to implicate Arthur Alan Thomas for a crime he did nearly 10 years jail time for and for which he was later pardoned - we have now found a witness who stated Karl Lobb advised him he was paid to provide that perjured evidence. Hutton and Johnston were both also found to have perjured themselves in that Royal Commission of Inquiry, 1980. The Royal Commission of Inquiry document was provided to you in my previous e-mail as proof of the findings but I do quote the following, "482 - The pardon alone makes it clear that Mr Thomas should never havew been convicted of the crimes, since there was a real doubt as to his guilt. He should accordingly have been found not guilty by the juries. Our own findings go further. They make it clear that he should never even have been charged by the Police. He was charged and convicted because the Police manufactured evidence against him, and withheld evidence of value to his defence".
2/Does the prosecution or Defence have a legal obligation to the Bench, (Police vs Karl Lobb 18/12/12), to advise them of Lobb's past history as a Crown Witness in the closed court Royal Commission of Inquiry for which the Inquiry found he had perjured himself? Yes/No?
3/Please advise the reasons why Mr Robert Fisher,(now QC), prepared an affidavit for Karl Lobb, prior to that Royal Commission Closed Court hearing, when that affidavit was not signed by Karl Lobb?
(Mr Robert Fisher was the Police counsel representing Hutton and Johnston. Mr Robert Fisher was the High Court Solicitor who ensured Lobb was taken on a Saturday morning by the Police to see him in the city, (Auckland), before the Royal Commission Closed Court hearing to complete an affidavit, (which Lobb did not sign), implicating Arthur Alan Thomas by stating he saw what he thought looked like bundles which could have been bodies on Arthurs trailer outside the Crewe's property. The Thomas family have proven evidence that this affidavit was a lie because they went to Lobb's workplace; employer, Mr Tom Banks - and the times were not correct. In that affidavit, which Mr Lobb never signed, a Mr Wayne Howe, was implicated as also seeing these bundles on the back of Arthur's trailer but co-incidentally Mr Howe was killed at his workplace at Fletchers before the Royal Commission and before he could be called to give evidence. The Howe family did not even know their late brother was implicated and mentioned in this Royal Commission of Inquiry, Closed Court session, let alone an affidavit by Karl Lobb, (unsigned). They were horrified to learn of this. The late Mr Peter Williams, QC, was questioning that unsigned affidavit. Mr Robert Fisher, QC was endeavouring to halt any compensation to Arthur Alan Thomas. (Now he has done the same thing regarding David Bain even though Justice Binnie's report was favourable in that regard?).
4/ Is there a legal distinction between an "Informal' restorative justice 'type' meeting and a restorative justice meeting in the restorative justice process? (emphasis on 'informal'). Yes/No
5/If yes to 4/ above why was an 'informal' restorative justice meeting used in Police vs Karl Lobb, Pukekohe Courts 18/12/12 rather than a Restorative Justice meeting where criteria have to be met under the Sentencing Act 2002?
6/ If yes to 4/above, can you please explain if the criteria was met and how that criteria was met in the INFORMAL restorative justice meeting?
7/If no to 4/ above, can you explain why we were told we were to have a Restorative Justice meeting only for the Restorative Justice Process not to be followed and for all following paperwork to note "informal" restorative 'type' meeting?
8/ If yes to 4/above, should our family had had this distinction explained to us and what we should expect/the criteria is in an INFORMAL restorative 'type' meeting before that meeting went ahead?
9/ Under ANY restorative justice process, does the offender have to have plead guilty? Yes/No?
10/ Does the Registrar have to inform the Court that an appropriate restorative justice process can be accessed?
11/ Would an appropriate restorative justice be considered to have been accessed even though we, the Victims, were not allowed to read out our Victim Impact Statements? (We were advised two weeks before the Court Case 18/12/12, that our Victim Impact Statements were no longer required. Victim Support, Mr Kevin Tso, did advise that the Victim Impact Statements were provided to the Court prior to this however).
10/ After ANY type of restorative justice process, is there an obligation to report back to the Court Registrar, the Police/Prosecutor/Defence Counsel/Victims? Yes/No

Yours faithfully,

Sandra Heke