Anticorruptionnz's Blog


The dangers of private enforcement authorities.

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 5:45 am

OIA reply from Police on prosecution of Police *555 calls

I refer to my earlier blog where I was prosecuted on the say  so of a person who was engaging in road rage  , the police charged me  when they had no  evidence and relied on the say so of  this person  spoken to  only over the phone.

A reply has been received from the police   as follows

“I refer to that part of your email of 17 June 2010 to the Hon Judith Collins and others in which you request all policies, General Instructions, directions and codes of conduct relating to:-

1. The handling of *555 calls

2. The minimum requirements of proceeding to prosecution based on information obtained by complainant.

3. The need for a signed statement before laying a charge against a person based on the allegation of a member of the public .

4. What protocol the police have in acting or not acting on the say so of one person against another, why are some instances filed and why are incidents of the same evidential proof proceeded with

*555 calls reporting traffic incidents are dealt with as general traffic complaints and no information specific to their handling has been located .

No instruction that requires that a signed statement be taken from a complainant prior to prosecution being initiated has been located .

Accordingly, items 1 and 3 of your request are declined under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act in that the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found .

In relation to items 2 and 4 of your request, Police rely on the Solicitor General’s Prosecution Guidelines when making decisions as to whether or not a matter should be the subject of prosecution. This document is available online at

My concern is that  if the police were able to prosecute me without evidence in this  instance   a private law enforcement body can  do likewise.

What saved the day for me  in this instance was the ability to request information from the police under the official information act.

Private  organisations  such as the SPCA  RNZSPCA are   not  subject to the OIA and this information would not have been available  and a defence would  be more difficult .

The offences under the Animal Welfare Act are largely Strict liability offences  meaning that no intention is required.   when the police prosecute the  fines  go into the f\governemt  coffers  when the SPCA  prosecute  the money  goes into their own pockets.

I believe this is extremely dangerous and leaves the system open to abuse.



  1. Not only dangerous but possibly absolutely corrupt practice of possibly the crime of “gouging” – fraud and false pretenses all masquerading as a “animal rights event” , Could more become the norm , knowing how eagerly their officers like to bring -create business for themselves and their organization.

    What about deliberately aborted premature dairy cow calves, where does that fit in to animal rights or human babies all ???

    Comment by Afa Hanawhiti — 03/08/2010 @ 6:02 am

  2. […] The dangers of private enforcement authorities. […]

    Pingback by Spca Ontario Today , NZ tomorrow? « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 30/09/2010 @ 5:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: