Dear Ministry of Social Development,

In an Official Information Act request response dated 5 December to Māmari Stephens the MSD states it decides to prosecute clients based upon both the Evidential test and the Public Interest test, both having their meanings supplied in that correspondence.

It is clear that in the recent High Court ruling by Collins J ( THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT v L [2018] NZHC 2528 [26 September 2018] ) that no legal authority existed for Boyle and MSD ( same thing legislation says ) to use false names on legal documents. That leaves the Crimes Act 1961 clearly showing those who signed the false names (ss255,256 and 257) and anyone procuring such actions (s66(1)(d) to have breached serious criminal law punishable by a maximum of ten years jail being a category four crime.

MSD clients regularly are required to sign documents declaring honesty.

It is clear that the “Evidential Test” as outlined in your letter to Māmari Stephens is met by Collins J ruling and the Crimes Act as stated.

It is clear the “Public Interest Test” is also met. To prosecute a beneficiary or non beneficiary for fraud using the same Crimes Act sections and clauses MSD has apparently breached and then not prosecuting MSD / Boyle for the very same criminal breaches would seriously damage the faith and public view in the MSD. It would appear a double standard applies between clients and the MSD itself. That can not be permitted due public need to have both faith and trust in fairness at all times but especially when a powerful ( controls people incomes thus lives to some extent ) State Service organisation is breaching what is required both legally and morally

Bearing the above in mind:

1. Does the Ministry of Social Development intend to prosecute the Ministry of Social Development for the alleged criminal actions of Boyle and MSD in using false names on documents?

2. If the MSD is not intending to prosecute the MSD for alleged forgery as above why not bearing in mind both the evidential and public interest tests would be well met in this instance?

Yours faithfully,

Gregory Soar