Bent Cops


Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 28/05/2023

Allan Hall miscarriage of justice is even more obscene


 Martyn Bradbury


May 27, 2023

‘It’s nothing to do with us’: Officials ignored warnings over Alan Hall case

A new report outlines how evidence of Alan Hall’s wrongful conviction was known to Crown lawyers and police for years, but officials did nothing.

Hall was convicted of murdering Arthur Easton in 1985, and spent more than 19 years in prison. He was finally acquitted by the Supreme Court last year.

In the wake of this, the Solicitor-General ordered an investigationinto the Crown’s role in Hall’s case.

The review, by Wellington lawyer Nicolette Levy, KC, was completed in November, but a heavily redacted version was only been released on Friday.

It details how Crown Law, which oversees all prosecutions in New Zealand and handles appeals, was sent detailed information by former Newshub journalist Mike Wesley-Smith in 2018, and again in 2020. The information showed crucial witness evidence had been deliberately altered and withheld by police and the prosecution during Hall’s trial and appeal.

The report is so much worse than we feared.

They fucking knew they had framed an innocent man and no one in the system lifted a finger!

It is an obscenity that just become an abomination.

Anyone reading the Alan Hall case would be shocked at the blatant attempt to frame him for the crime.

You honestly get the perception after reading the reports that the cops simply rounded up the most vulnerable person near the crime and bullied him into answers that were used to frame him while withholding evidence that proved he didn’t do it.

They fucking knew Alan couldn’t have committed the crime, but the simply framed him anyway because their interrogation techniques are manipulative and have little to do with catching the actual criminal and more to do with simply finding a prosecution.

With the recent litany of miscarriage of justice cases, seeing the inside of a corrupted police interrogation process happening in real time now suggests the Police have learned NOTHING from the mistakes and failures of the past, which is what we have been promised  every time one of these miscarriages of justice get exposed.

Look at how the NZ Police bullied false confessions out of people in the Lois Tolley murder case…

Police are refusing to release a review of the controversial investigation into the murder of Upper Hutt woman Lois Tolley, sparking accusations that they are covering up serious misconduct.

Tolley, 30, was shot point-blank in her home in December 2016, in what police described at the time as “an execution-type killing”.

After an extensive investigation, named Operation Archer, three men were eventually charged in 2019 with her murder.

But the charges against all three men, who have name suppression, were dropped by police last year, before the case went to trial, with a judge commenting: “There is presently really no evidence against any of them.”

…It is unacceptable in the extreme for the Police to not release this investigation into what went wrong with this case!

To have gotten prosecution this far advanced without any actual evidence because the police interrogation technique was so corrupted is gasp inducing in its conclusions…

This followed revelations that one of the accused had falsely confessed to the murder, after police used a contentious interviewing technique, the Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM).

…the whole case became so tainted with the inclusion of jail house narks and unreliable witnesses that there had to be an investigation into how badly Police screwed up…

High Court Justice Simon France said the man, known as X, had been manipulated by the detectives interviewing him, who had broken numerous fundamental rules of interviewing, and X’s “confession” was flawed and not credible.

The case against the other two men collapsed for separate reasons, largely related to the unreliability of key witnesses – including a woman twice charged with perverting the course of justice, and jailhouse informants with numerous convictions for dishonesty, who told conflicting stories.

In a rare move, police subsequently appointed Auckland King’s Counsel and former Crown prosecutor Aaron Perkins to undertake “an independent review of aspects of the police inquiry”.

…the corruption of credible evidence and process was so extreme that there had to be an independent investigation into how the fuck it got this far.

Turns out we won’t be allowed to know because the Police are now refusing to release the report…

However, police refused to release the terms of reference for Perkins’ review, making it unclear which parts of the failed investigation were being looked at and whether he was considering why the case collapsed against all three defendants, or just X.

Perkins’ review was completed in August.

But police are now refusing to release the report, or even a summary of its findings, saying it is “confidential and legally privileged”.


Yet it manages to get worse!

The defence lawyers of the men falsely set up using jailhouse snitch ‘evidence’ and this weird Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM) have all complained about tactics used by Police that are absolutely outside the law, like with holding evidence that proves their client innocent!

Wintour said that during the investigation, police deliberately hid material from him until the last minute that suggested his client wasn’t involved in the murder.

Yet it manages to get worse!

The refusal to release the report follows continued efforts by police to withhold material relating to the Lois Tolley investigation and the CIPEM interviewing method.

Stuff has twice been forced to get court judgments in order to obtain access to relevant documents.

It also comes after the retirement of the country’s top investigatorand architect of CIPEM, Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald, earlier this month.

Fitzgerald was closely involved with the interviews of X, but he insisted CIPEM wasn’t to blame for mistakes made by the interviewing detectives and said his retirement had nothing to do with scrutiny of the technique.

So the model being used allows Detectives to lie, bully and manipulate false confessions and the Detective Superintendent who created this model used in the Lois Tolley case, originally claimed the Detectives misused the model and it had nothing to do with him, when it turns out that wasn’t true and that he was actually monitoring the interview from a seperate room and was advising during the interview.

Yet it manages to get worse!

Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald also was responsible for that other great questionable miscarriage of justice case, the murder of Olivia Hope and Ben Smart.

Based on what we currently have in front of us with this case and the recent miscarriages of justice cases of Peter Ellis, Teina Pora,  David LyttleMauha Fawcett and Alan Hall you get a terrible feeling that Police are not following the evidence in case, but are merely rounding up the most vulnerable suspects and bullying confessions out of them or twisting the evidence to fit the crime.

What is happening here is a can of very sick and toxic worms are being ripped open while the media’s attention is on the petty and vacant.

What is being exposed here is a rotten process that reeks of corruption. I once thought that maybe as much as 5% of the prison population might be innocent, after looking at what has been starkly revealed in this police interrogation process, I think that number might be closer to 30% of the prison population being innocent.

What has been revelled here calls into question fundamental values of justice and Policing in a. democracy. The total lack of wider attention this case and the questions it raises must be addressed.

Of course, in all of this is the whanau of Lois Tolley, whose murder has not been solved and whose family can not rest.

Lois Tolley and her family deserved far better than this debacle.

Our justice system demands higher levels of professionalism than this shambles.

And our Police force should be ashamed.

With Detective Superintendent Tom Fitzgerald suddenly quitting last year from his role with Police, I think an urgent independent review of his previous cases is required and the media should be calling for it.

Allan Hall may be but the beginning of something far, far, far, larger.

Martyn Bradbury,Conviction%20overturned,the%20royal%20prerogative%20of%20mercy

Anne Hunt

a day ago User Info


Thanks for this update, and yes, you are right: this case is more than obscene. It is barbaric.

It is very easy to prove that I was aware of this case when I published a book that was vetted by Dr David Collins QC last century.

I recall discussing it with him because I was concerned that people with a slight disability could become the target of crooked cops wanting a quick conviction.

I have no confidence in the police or the legal system at all.

We still have a case before the CCRC that was lodged four years ago.

However, my current project is to replace the treaty with a codified constitution as our country’s founding document.

There is to be an Allan Hall clause, a body set up to deal with miscarriages of justice as soon as they become apparent.

26 other COMMENTS

  1. Henry Filth May 27, 2023 at 6:52 am

Ever since the miraculous appearance of the famed Arthur Allan Thomas Cartridge Case, the New ZealandPolice have painted themselves into a corner around questionable investigations, questionable evidence, and questionable prosecutions.


  1. Pat+O’Dea May 27, 2023 at 7:26 am

How we work in the Shadows.

….the Solicitor-General ordered an investigation into the Crown’s role in Hall’s case.
The review, by Wellington lawyer Nicolette Levy, KC, was completed in November, but a heavily redacted version was only been released on Friday.

[the] Perkins’ review was completed in August.
But police are now refusing to release the report, or even a summary of its findings, saying it is “confidential and legally privileged”…..

….The refusal to release the report follows continued efforts by police to withhold material relating to the Lois Tolley investigation…..

“What has been revelled here calls into question fundamental values of justice and Policing in a. democracy.” Martyn Bradbury

The sterilizing effect of daylight. (out of the shadows)

Democracy cannot does not work in darkness and secrecy.
For democracy to work, transparency is required.
If the police are allowed to hide their misdeeds behind a veil of secrecy these abuses will continue.


A Police Force that is a law unto itself is an absolute threat to our democracy.


  1. nathan May 27, 2023 at 7:58 am

Martyn – NZ needs a special, independent, Police Unit to investigate the Police…it is well over due






  1. Brian McDonald May 27, 2023 at 8:18 am

As Officers of the Court, it is everything to do with the Crown. Ignoring knowledge of false or hidden evidence is at the least contempt or more likely when it involves others Conspiring to Defeat the Course of Justice. Both the Watson and Lundy cases now sit on top, not under, a pile of similar events described here with the Watson case having “benefitted” from the full range of all Fitzgerald’s work and are very transparent such as much of been his knowledge that if there were any problems the Crown would say “it’s not our problem.”
Once the process of the deceit is understood it is quite easy to uncover and usually, it reflects right through the case.


  1. Ada May 27, 2023 at 8:27 am

Nothing will happen to the Police or lawyers involved, and no-one will be found at fault for whatever has happened.


Sadly, I believe you are right.


  1. Ada May 27, 2023 at 8:29 am

Finding someone at fault would set a precedent of accountability, and nothing unites the core public sector employees like their abhorrence of being held accountable for their decisions and (in)actions.


Yes I agree with your comments Ada and they absolutely appall me. Just like Lake Alice, seriously only one person has been charged over that… there will be more still alive.

It is all disgusting.

And what is it that stops the the parole board head from telling everyone what their concerns are over Lundy – this man is going to say he murdered them before they will let him out. So whose was the hair in her hand at the time of the murder and do the police still have this evidence or has it conveniently been discarded.


  1. MFNz May 27, 2023 at 8:42 am

Crown Law should not be allowed to investigate Crown Law and Police to investigate police. The only way through this is a specialised, non political, well funded unit that sits apart from both, is answerable only to the courts and whose role is to review cases. The police have become a more politicised entity that runs its own interference and PR. Of course this will be drowned out by the police association creating more noise and demanding that ordinary police officers carry guns at all time (they have an americanised view of policing), the police minister focusing on woke police agendas and National won’t help by shouting about ram-raiding when this is a political easy target for them.


Couldn’t agree more no organisations should be allowed to investigate itself if it is funded by we the public.


Cahill wants Police armed & citizens disarmed, and he certainly isn’t afraid to lie to push this agenda.


“Crown Law should not be allowed to investigate Crown Law and Police to investigate police.”

That’s it. And when the the shit really hits the fan the Minister or SG reach for a retired Judge or pet QC stooge to find a path out of it.
For example, disgraced former judge Robert Fisher was a reliable “go to” for years in doubling down on the Haig, Bain and other fiascos.


It’s Common Sense the Police should not be auditing the Police and Crown Law should not be auditing Crown Law. It’s not Rocket Science.


MFNz I think that something must be done. There has been dissatisfaction with police unwillingness to be questioned or brought to account. And their unsatisfactory behaviour is compounding. It does appear that American policing is a role model. I think it is also for Oz police and ours work in with them. This authoritarian and effectively lawless behaviour bodes
badly for our ability to come together and rise above our points of disagreement so we can plan for our future.

We have a government that is constipated, and administrative officers that are directed towards 105% compliance with any requirements set, and cannot attend to the most useful and simple actions that could lessen our burden in maintaining concord, such as decriminalising cannabis for instance. Things that help we humans can’t be done. Things that keep us in order are the order of the day! But does that help us prepare for keeping what is left of our civil society. And will that civility have a ‘social conscience’ which seems to be lacking in favour of a pragmatic, materialistic, mechanised, cyberocracy.

The police behaviour is affected by this; they could change and humanise their ways if they made a determined attempt to stand by old codes of conduct with the emphasis on practicality and minimum pain and damage to defuse and control the situation. So take tasers away – replace with something else to give the police facing uncertainty some lesser weapon. People become brutalised in our present situation as we have seen in USA from the George Floyd traumatic event and the hard-faced police officer’s response. We must remember that human brains can rationalise brutality and excuse it. We should not give our brains such fodder.




  1. Sinic May 27, 2023 at 9:57 am

And these are the big crimes. Have a thought too for all the little crimes that our people get convicted of, who are also innocent. NZ Police is a fascist gang of thugs.


  1. gagarin May 27, 2023 at 11:04 am

the administrative class protects itself, just like the irish ‘pub bombers’ in the uk, the law must not be called into disripute at any cost


  1. Tane. Male. Not Female Woman May 27, 2023 at 12:43 pm

Having the Crown as the Head of State and the Authoritative Body is the problem. The Government is the Law by the veto of Parliament being the House of Representatives.

Change the system.


Oh that easy is it. We should do it then, just get the better system. It may seem to many like the Taliban smashing the old deities set in the walls I think. And who is going to be Head of State? Someone that you picked? It seems that you have a sharp eye for appropriate targets, but so have the Palestinians. David was a little guy and had great skill with a stone and sling, but the mechanisms of power now are complex.

I prefer King Charles 3 before other luminaries here seen politically. He has power, and yet hasn’t, but has attempted to be himself through the sticky morass of required behaviour and maintenance of role, and been restrained and determined for good outcomes. Quite a role model I think. We haven’t anyone to match him with so many here being superficial, acquisitive, indulgent, social climbers with scant morals.

What future would such people give us, and could Maori find a way to hold onto their practical minds, good traditional concepts and do what is needed for all, resisting wealth attractions and partiality? Perhaps Dennis Potter’s tv series Cold Lazarus and Karaoke show us the state
humanity might be in, divorced from nature and our human interactive functioning communities.
Cold Lazarus, is set 400 years in the future, where Feeld’s cryogenically preserved head is used for historical and social research purposes until an American media tycoon realizes the astronomical ratings potential of a TV show where the ‘real’ twentieth century history of Daniel Feeld’s life, via his chemically induced memories, can be fed to millions of viewers. Whilst Daniel’s ‘memories’ ebb and flow and the TV moguls fight over him, a dissident organization of Luddites, R.O.N. (Reality or Nothing), seeks to return to what they believe to have been a gentler age – the twentieth century.


  1. Andrew May 27, 2023 at 1:16 pm

100% Martyn
How many cases like this do we need to see before the public loses trust in the justice system? Thomas, Ellis, Doherty, Hall to name but a few. How many more are locked up that we’ve never heard of?
It’s one thing to have a person convicted in error – no system is perfect, but it’s another story altogether to knowingly let a man rot in a cell when his defence is denied exculpatory evidence. If you think our situation is unique, watch this movie:

It’s high time some of these ‘top cops’ and crown lawyers faced their own court cases. If the current law doesn’t allow that, then it needs fixing.


  1. countryboy May 27, 2023 at 11:36 pm

Well done @ Martyn Bradbury and TDB for bringing this out into the Light of debate.


  1. Fantail May 28, 2023 at 12:57 am

Although this is particularly egregious because it involves the police and justice system (Which we all know needs a real review and overhaul as the events of the last 20 years have played out and continue to play out), you have touched upon something that seems to be occurring all over the public service.

Being Beltway ‘adjacent’ there are various stories floating around in the business community and to an extent on social media where a Govt Dept effs something up and the ‘victim’ or interested party asks (or demands) that they put it right. Apparently the go to behaviour in these cases is to not respond and to quietly hope that it will all go away. The complainant may have a clear legal right to redress but the agency pulls down the shutter and stops engaging.

This behaviour also seems to be mirrored in the OIAs that seem to be knocked back or increasingly ignored. Particularly the ones that look to expose something get frozen out at every turn.

I dont know if this is human behaviour by incompetent people but it certainly looks like obfuscation and non accountability is the name of the game across the board. And that says to me that it is likely an intentional and political decision from higher up.

We dont want bad publicity or anything getting out before the election so for goodness sake, sit on everything? Perhaps.


  1. Greywarbler May 28, 2023 at 11:00 am

I have said before that humans are devious – we should know our traits and make allowances when planning something for good outcomes. Deviousness in a person is I think essential – if only knowing it exists and how to spot it. It starts at toddler level! ‘Have you been eating the biscuits, the parent questions. Innocent or furtive eyes look up ‘No’. Then what are those crumbs around your mouth?’

@Fantail I dont know if this is human behaviour by incompetent people… I think we can say that this is a regular human behaviour by competent people of the type and training.

Bent Cops and other scum.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 07/11/2008



An exposé of corruption and perversity in The New Zealand Police.


“All members of the New Zealand Police have key roles to play in building and maintaining safer communities together. Those of us who have the privilege of holding the office of constable – that is, being sworn police officers – carry special powers to help protect life and property, preserve the peace, uphold the law and prevent and detect criminal offences. These powers come with important responsibilities. Chief among them, New Zealanders have a right to expect the highest standards of ethics, integrity and conduct from their police officers.” Rob Robinson, Police Commissioner. NZ Police standards of conduct. The following standards of conduct are expected of all police officers:

  • Honesty and integrity
  • Fairness and impartiality
  • Respect for people
  • Respect for confidentiality
  • Obedience to the law and lawful orders
  • Reasonable exercise of discretion
  • Efficient performance of duties
  • Not damaging the reputation or relationships of the Police



1   If it’s true it would be the story of the year. weizguy. 17/11/2004

 2.  paula wrote: It’s a very informative site. There’s nobody more motivated than a Dutchman who has a grievance concerning money and reputation!

3.  Bentcops is quite a revealing insight into NZ’s police. I’m personally familiar with some of their devious and heavy handed machinations. Greg

4.  I feel secure in the knowledge that there are people among us capable of clear communication. I am impressed by your work Jack. I have understood the complexity of what you have said. I myself have limited academic ability. There-for I am grateful to be privy to this particular educational gem. Regards Steven

5.  This is a very impressive piece of work. I’m concerned that the damning criticisms of the police on this site have gone unanswered and I suspect I know the reason – I think they must be valid. Anon

6.  This website shows you what a (NZ) Dutchman with various grievances can do if he is pissed off! You can be assured of several hours of informative and entertaining reading. (Jack, the person concerned, has that blunt and obscene turn of phrase characteristic of his demographic) It will take you into the compromised world of the NZ Police.

7.  “I think this site has a genuine purpose and seems to be monitored by a humorous (in spite of the experiences he’s had to endure), careful (in so far as collecting evidence to present a truthful account) and remarkably emotionally/mentally resourceful man (again in light of what he has had to endure – a lot of people would lose the plot but Jack has put a good deal of his no doubt frustrated energy into attempting to restore some sort of logic to the chaos of the events instead of resorting to ignorant violence).”

8.  As a person that joined the Police in my 40’s the biggest shock I encountered was the continual lying, bullying and deceit that is a deliberate systemic part of the NZ Police culture right from little lies by Constables to the bigger lies by Commissioned Officers at PNHQ. They seem incapable of understanding how much extra public respect and understanding they would get by simply telling the truth about all kinds of matters. New Zealanders seem to have some naive belief that there is something special about our police in that the corruption that is evident in places like the Australia police does not happen here. After all the evidence that has been produced over the years, why would anyone still believe that we are any different?  omand

9   The police are like any children. We need them, love them, but their behaviour is sometimes execrable. When they are unquestionably wrong, destroy families and individuals, it is a far healthier society if we lead them to the truth and force them to do what is unthinkable in their culture currently, admit they were wrong, apologise, and compensate.  hobbes123

10  good grief, Quite a read!
I completely understand the mindfluckery and injustice you feel, to say the least.

11  ” It is clear this Britton character is unhinged and a menace not only to your family Jack, but I would assume anyone else who might happen to upset him. It reeks of delinquency in their duties (at best) that the police haven’t at the very least had cause to get his guy looked at by a psychiatrist. I can only guess they’re mates of his who feel sorry for him (or somebody is directing them to try and assist him in his pursuit of you).
Either way it is clear the police are not being neutral in their dealings but are showing a bias towards the fruitcake.”

12   I learnt much from sitting on that enquiry. Once it was clear that Mrs Shipley was not implicated it became my first experience of Parliamentary bi-partisanship, as the committee grew increasingly appalled at the untrustworthiness of Police witnesses. No MP on that committee was unaffected. Most shattering was the simple stupidity at senior levels, in sticking to incredible denials in the face of overwhelming evidence, including video footage. The committee had no desire to destroy public confidence in Police integrity. We noted our unhappiness with their evidence and focused the report on protocols for preserving constitutional propriety. It appears from reports of the Wang affair that Police agreement on those might have been as unreliable as their evidence to the committee.” .

The NZ Police force is inherently well resourced, funded from the public purse, and more than capable of fooling the average New Zealander, a fact that has been repeatedly proven over the years with an extraordinary volume of questionable police practices, investigations, cover ups, prosecutions and the many innocent victims that have eventually been released from prison, but not before their supporters and advocates had experienced the Machiavellian machinations of the New Zealand police force and their well feed Crown attack dogs.























































01 Home Invasion (drugs 1984) JERRY CORNELIUS aka James Creedmore, Detectives COLIN IRVINE, Peter Scott, Rob Butler et al.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 02/11/2008


Perverting the course of justice # 1

This letter started it all off.

ARMSTRONG BARTON 4 December1984 The Treasurer Riamaki Society Incorporated RD 6 RAETIHI


Dear Sir


We have been instructed to act on behalf of Mr J Van der Lubbe concerning his membership of the abovenamed Society. We refer to various correspondences your Society has had with Mr Van der Lubbe and particularly letters dated the 8th of March 1983, 15th of March 1983 and the 8th of August 1983. In each of these letters you state that Mr Van der Lubbe is no longer a member of the above Society. It would appear that the Society’s conclusion is based on the amendment to Rule 7 of the Society’s Rules, that amendment having been registered in early March of 1983. Rule 7 now reads “subscriptions remaining unpaid on the 2nd day of May each year shall be deemed to be in arrears. If these arrears remain unpaid 3 months from the due date the member automatically ceases to be a member of the Society and his or her share moneys shall be paid out to them in the same manner as resigned members”. We note that on the 7th of March 1983 you wrote to Mr Van der Lubbe advising him of the date of the 6th Annual General Meeting of the above named Society. However on the 8th of March he received another letter stating that he was no longer a member. It is now clear that Mr Van der Lubbe’s membership was withdrawn because his annual subscription for the years 1979 to 1980, 1980 to 1981, 1981 to 1982 and 1982 to 1983 remained unpaid. However the amendment to Rule 7 states that annual subscriptions remaining unpaid on the 2nd day of May each year shall be deemed to be in arrears. This amendment was not registered until early March 1983. Therefore, the subscriptions in issue relate to years prior to the amendment to Rule 7. Your Society has therefore purported to retrospectively implement the amendment to Rule 7 without any authority to do so. There is no general right at law or any specific right in the amendment to Rule 7 to implement the somewhat draconian measures set out in that Rule on a retrospective basis. Furthermore on the 15th of March 1983 Mr Van der Lubbe forwarded to the Secretary of the abovenamed Society the arrears requested and also an advance payment for the oncoming year. This cheque was not accepted. A further cheque was forwarded to the Secretary on the 1st of June 1983 and this cheque was also not accepted. However, your Secretary did state that the arrears still remained owing as a debt to the Society. If that is the case on what basis did you purport to advise Mr Van der Lubbe that he was no longer a member of your Society? The annual subscription fee for the oncoming year had not yet fallen due and therefore if arrears for the previous years remained an enforceable debt then clearly they were enforceable against a member. It is also to be noted that under the amendment to Rule 7 once the member ceased to be a member of the Society, his or her share moneys would be repaid to them in the same manner as resigned members. Mr Van der Lubbe has never received such a repayment. If in fact, in your view, Mr Van der Lubbe is not now a member of your Society, why has this money not been repaid? Therefore, in our view your Society has acted quite improperly by purporting to prevent Mr Van der Lubbe from exercising his clear right of membership. Your Society’s actions are wrong both in general law and one not permitted by the Rules of the Society. We finally refer to your letter of the 8th of August 1983 when in writing to Mr Van der Lubbe you suggest that he obtain further clarification of this matter from a Solicitor. Mr Van der Lubbe has obviously now done this and views with considerable anger the actions that your Society has taken against him. We further understand that there are several other people who have suffered the same fate as Mr Van der Lubbe. No doubt now Mr Van der Lubbe is, aware of the legal position, these people will also learn of your Society’s improper actions and may also wish to take the appropriate measures. We look forward to your early reply to this letter and your recognition of Mr Van der Lubbe’s continuing membership of the abovenamed Society.

Yours faithfully


* Every man’s house is his castle. Legal Maxim. “If one is willing to make allegations, one must also provide credible evidence to support them.” Gordon Waugh. The Riamaki Society Incorporated was formed by a group of people to control what could be described as a private Ohu, at the end of Croatons Road, Ruatiti Valley, Raetihi. All went well with this arrangement until Jerry Cornelius arrived on the scene. From that time until the winding up of the Society there was factional fighting (divide and rule) and illegal actions such as that described in the lawyer’s letter. Cornelius and the other remaining members of the society secretly wound up the Society and sold the assets, which included a one thousand-acre bush farm to Jerry Cornelius while the matter of my membership was before the Court. Cornelius paid me out my full share money out of his own pocket after I placed a Caveat on the Title to the farm. I was proved right and my lawyer, who is now a Judge, took all the money. Lesson number one. Less than two weeks after the lawyer’s letter was sent to Cornelius (4/12/84) the Wanganui Drug Squad, detective Colin Irvine, came a-knocking at my door. He told me that he had a warrant and that he wanted to search the property for illegal drugs. “Principles are a mug’s game.” JVDL After complaining about the legalised home invaders to that brick wall the Police Commissioner and his cronies, I was suffering from righteous indignation, I complained to the then last resort the Ombudsman. I have numbered his report and will comment on it where I thought it necessary. clip_image002 Cornelius cooked his goose when he lied to Irvine about me being a druggie and Irvine cooked his goose when he uttered that “large scale cannabis cultivation” crap to the Ombudsman. 2u 3u 1 No Police Reports or files were made available to me. 2 If it was true that Irvine ‘was told by the informant on a number of occasions over a week that [I] was involved in the distribution of hard drugs’ it would indicate that the informant had an ulteria motive for the Police to take action. A person acting without malice or an agenda would go to the Police, give the information and let them get on with it, not go back several times to hound them into action. And why would they need to be hounded into action? Because I was unknown to Irvine and unknown in drug circles. 3 Shows that the informant associates with at least three hard druggies and or chemist shop burglars. The informant’s knowledge of what was stolen in the burglary shows that he didn’t just pluck his information from the newspaper, those details were not reported in the papers. It could also be that Irvine simply added the unreported details in order to obtain the search warrant/s for his fishing trip. 4 For the first three months of that year (1984) I was living 783 kilometres from Wanganui at Hihi Beach, Northland so Irvine’s statement is demonstrably false. He made up the whole of that paragraph to vilify my name to mislead the Ombudsman. It’s quite clear that he was sucked in by Irvine’s lies. When Sandra, the wife, read what Irvine had told the Ombudsman she nearly spontaneously combusted. She shot straight into the Police Station and demanded that Irvine prove his malicious accusations but all she got for her efforts were some bruises on her arms when she was unceremoniously ejected from the premises by a couple of “goons”. 5 The Police had no ‘reasonable grounds’ to obtain a search warrant and that was the first thing I told Irvine after he said that he had one. A single, persistent informer with no supporting or corroborating evidence are not the ‘reasonable grounds’ that are required.

4u More bogus search warrants Rana Waitai 6 ‘The file suggests’ is a bit thin. Irvine’s visit to my traffic cop brother Eric was to test the reliability of the ‘recent’ information, nothing else. He hadn’t received any other information ever. Eric told Irvine his information was bollocks but still he went ahead. 7 I was aware from the beginning of who the informant was. On the night of the home invasion I said to Irvine “I know who’s done this, Jerry Cornelius.” At that Irvine flinched and walked away without denying my allegation. Another Policeman piped up saying, “Well if you know him you must be guilty.” I then showed Irvine the lawyer’s letter but he refused to read it. If you try to explain matters they either ignore you or they say, “Look I’m not here to argue with you” and then they barge on with their nefarious business. To that time I had met Cornelius just once and on that one occasion he volunteered to me that he had done time for burglary. Why did he do that? He was fishing to see if I was a criminal like him. I guess that if I had told Cornelius that I was a burglar like him the burglary squad would have invaded my home. He chose drugs (I did have long hair) and his gullible and corrupt mate Irvine. 8 The Ombudsman has omitted the fact that two warrants were issued. Irvine got the address all wrong on the first one, an address nowhere near my place. He went to that address armed with his bogus warrant and found that he had cocked-up. So much for his ‘reliable intelligence.’ Without a second thought, an alarm bell should have rung, he went back to the previously ‘satisfied judicial officer’ who granted him a second warrant. If a cop asks for a warrant he will get it, simple as that. No probing questions asked. All lies believed. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From Comments on page 03, I came upon this site quite by accident. I haven’t read all the site, but the names #Van Der LUBBE# and #BRITTON# appear to feature so far….let it be known for the record that I was a serving copper in Wanganui from 1980 until 1986. Let it also be known that I was part of a team on one occasion that executed a drugs warrant at the Van Der LUBBE address in Ballance Street Wanganui, in the early 80’s. Quite surprisingly, Det Colin IRVINE made the mistake of speaking with a Van Der LUBBE family member (brother of the warrant target) the day before (probably because the brother was a traffic cop), with the consequence that no drugs were found. However, we coppers were all shocked to see a loaded high calibre rifle under the master bed, shocked because the Van Der LUBBE’s had young children living in the house. What was even more surprising was Mr Van Der LUBBE knew the loaded rifle was under his bed, but was not at all concerned about the fact. I can also say that the BRITTON family living up the para paras often came to notice of us boys in blue. I also seem to recall Matthew(?) BRITTON coming to national prominence by setting up camp in parliament grounds. Be your own judge… Mike Cannon | February 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm (edit) ——————————————————————————– I just love it when cops get their “facts” provably wrong. 1. The “drugs warrant” was executed at an address in Paterson Street. Irvine got it all wrong and he got the first warrant for my fathers place in Ballance Street. He had to tell his lies all over again to get a second one for the right address. 2. Believe it or not my brother did not warn me that a raid was in the offing. Irvine found nothing because there was nothing to be found. I am not and have never have been a druggie and Irvine approached my brother and asked him if I was involved in drugs because he had absolutely no information (other than the lies fed to him by the probable double killer Jerry Cornelius, that I was. 3. Saying that the rifle was loaded is an outright lie. The rifle was under the bed in the box it came in and a packet of bullets was in the box with it. That’s not loaded but it was a bit silly I must admit. Irvine said as much at the time but I told him my kids knew not to go near the gun. A bit nieve of me I know. 4. The Brittons` never lived up the “paraparas”. They lived in the Parihauhau Valley when their kids young (pre-teen) and unknown to the police. And as for Mathew Britton setting up camp in parliament grounds don’t make me laugh. He might have been there for the big cannabis smoke up but that’s all. You’re either a liar or a fool Mike. Jack | February 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pm (edit) ——————————————————————————– Thanks for the corrections Jack….I haven’t been back to Wanganui for many many years, so obviously I need to consult a street directory to know the difference between Ballance / Paterson Streets. I don’t have a particular axe to grind, I did my 16 years as a copper, and left more than 10 years ago. I’m no longer in NZ now, but I can tell you that the rifle WAS loaded, and yes, it was in a box with spare ammo. Yes, the Brittons did live in the Parihauhau valley, which runs parallel to the parapara road at the Upuk end. I think you’re ’splitting hairs’ by drawing the distinction – you know I was referring to that general area. I’d like to think I’m no fool, and I am certainly not a liar (nor exaggerator). In my experience, this web site indicates someone continuously crying foul, which is a form of mock outrage. This only gets people wondering if the person(s) crying foul are not hiding some home truths anyway. If you had a beef against the cops, ok, but do what most of us do after a while – just move on. Mike Cannon | February 26th, 2007 at 6:32 pm (edit) ——————————————————————————– You’re wrong Mike, the rifle was not loaded and saying it was (only drug dealers have loaded guns under the bed) and also saying the only reason you didn’t find any drugs was because I was tipped off is nothing but another attempt to smear me. How do you know the rifle was was loaded Mike? Irvine didn’t pick it up and work the bolt. You are a liar Mike. Were you the uniformed cop who accompanied Irvine to Ballance Street, Paterson Street or both addresses? Were you the “We’ll get you!” cop. The NZ Police NEVER move on as you put it Mike so how the hell am I to? I’ve been waiting for over three weeks for a cop (Sergeant Andrew McDonald) to come round and take a statement from me about a case of intimidation. A week ago I phoned him and he said he was sorry for being “tardy” and would come to my address the next day. Same old shit from the boys in blue. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 5u Superintendent Norm Stanhope, like most cops, is a liar. “Another good trick, or so we thought, was executing search warrants. There were always tame JPs willing to sign our applications for search warrants and so you would get a handful of warrants and off you would go to fight crime. You would have an amazing strike rate because in those days crims would, with minimal coaxing, tell tales on other crims. All crims and folk who associated with crims, had a habit of collecting photos, of each other.” Rana Waitai,  Rana Reckons, Wanganui Community News June 11 2009. 9 I made comments but to no avail. The last thing one of Irvine’s co-invaders, the “If you know him you must be guilty” cop said to me as they left my place empty handed was, “We’ll get you.” And man did they try! I should have had my blood tested for illicit drugs, another thing I didn’t think of. That would have proved Irvine and his informant were/are full of crap. The Police then entered into my Wanganui Computer file, ‘Has made a complaint against Police.’ Not long after that I went with a friend and a land agent to look at a farm that was for sale in the same valley as the Cornelius farm and as soon as Cornelius learned that we had been in ‘his’ valley he complained to his buddy Irvine that I had stolen some (unspecified) tools from his farm. Irvine, the shameless fool, believed him again and tried to interview me about it. I told him that there was now no doubt whatsoever as to who his ‘earlier informant’ was. I never heard any more about the stolen tools. 6u

During the search I got angry and kicked up a bit of a stink and some cop, maybe Irvine said, “Only guilty people kick up a stink.” The Dog handler, Brechmanis said, If this was America you would have been shot by now.” That after he insulted the state of our unfinished house. Another cop piped up and said, “It looks alright to me.” Next day after I told my lawyer what had happened he said, “I hope you kicked up a fuss?” _______________________ 25. nicky59 My chosen field continues to disgust me. (Lawyer) Judges/JPs are corrupt (some of them – especially the JPs – ALWAYS give police the warrants they ask for), police officers routinely lie in court (to the point where most of them -with a pitiful few exceptions – can’t even tell the difference between the truth and a lie after a few years), defense lawyers routinely reveal privileged information to the police/prosecutors, or deliberately do not push a strong line of defense, to help convict their own clients (there are countless innocent men in prison BECAUSE of their own corrupt defense lawyers), most prosecutors have entirely lost sight of their obligation to withdraw charges (or ask that they be dismissed in extreme cases) when they form a reasonable belief that the EVIDENCE does not support the charge (they seem to think trials are some form of “game” that they need to “win”). posh_paws (3 ) 9:58 pm, 16 Mar 09 ———————————————————————————————————————– LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS Friday, 28 April 2006 The Police Commissioner Office of the Commissioner PO Box 3017 Wellington Dear Sir, Back in 1987 I complained to the then Ombudsman John Robertson about a case of Police corruption concerning a Detective Colin Irvine of the Wanganui Drug Squad and his rewarded criminal informer Jerry Cornelius. My complaint was that Colin Irvine used false information to obtain two search warrants and later failed to prosecute Jerry Cornelius for supplying information to the Police that he knew was false and malicious. The Ombudsman dismissed my complaint because Detective Irvine told him a pack of lies about me, his alleged reliable informants and his relationship with Cornelius. If you go to and click on 01 Home Invasion (drugs)

you will gather what I’m on about.
Attached is some fresh information that I received via email from a
visitor to page 01 on my site which I believe shows that my 1987

  allegations about Detective Colin Irvine and his probable double killer mate Cornelius were correct and that Colin Irvine lied to Mr Robertson to protect himself and his criminal informant Jerry Cornelius from justice. ******************************************************************** “Jack I came across your site while searching for information regarding the suppressed information in the Louise Nicholas case. I didn’t find what I was looking for, but I found the name of Jerry Cornelius. When Jerry Cornelius first arrived at the Riamaki commune up in Raetihi, he was already a valuable informer of some years standing for the police. Jerry had done some valuable work for the police in regards to the infamous Mr Asia drug conspiracy. Colin Irvine from Wanganui was Jerry’s controller and protector. You had no chance. (My emphasis) From the very beginning Jerry Cornelius intended to gain control of the land, which was known as Riamaki, as you know the rest is history. It was used to grow weed with the full knowledge of Irvine and co and this weed was later sold to the underworld via jerry who then passed on the information to Irvine and co who used it to arrest the wrong doers and put them in prison. (They call it justice) To say Jerry and Irvine were friends would be an understatement. IRVINE_01 Evil bastard. Are policemen who turn a blind eye to or actively avoid investigating or prosecuting a reported case of perverting the course of justice also guilty of that crime? I say YES! Jerry changed his name to James Creedmore in the early nineties to give himself a new persona but as they say, “the leopard cannot change its spots”. Cornelius often hosted members of the Wellington and Wanganui drug squads at Riamaki for “lost weekend” hunting trips. Another reason why he did what he did to keep people out of “his” valley. He made people frightened of him. He used his friendship with the police to hide his nefarious activities. Which included growing large amounts of weed that the police never officially knew about but helped him distribute while he was on the job for them. I suggest the police had an idea this might be the case but since Jerry was delivering the goods they turned a blind eye. In his own way Cornelius was very clever. Eventually the police woke up to the fact Jerry was a socio-path and as such very dangerous to them as well as to others. Jerry’s usefulness was coming to an end, and he was retired as a credible nark. But while he plied his trade he did a great deal of damage to the innocent as well as the guilty. I am lead to believe he is still on very friendly terms with Irvine. Around 1997-8 after receiving information from a very reliable source, the Ohakune police under the direction of then sergeant Mike Hill launched a very discreet double murder inquiry in the back blocks of Raetihi with Cornelius as the prime suspect. It was a very comprehensive investigation carried out of the public eye, but with the alleged murders having been committed some 20 years previously and no bodies, it didn’t get very far. But Cornelius remains the major suspect. A very difficult situation for the police to deal with. To get the police off his back and to cover his tracks Jerry eventually sold the land to Gary Rawnsley and moved north with a pocket full of cash. The last I heard (about 2000) he was living in Auckland. Those murdered were a nephew of Jerryand his friend. The nephew (Lionell Russell) was the son of jerry’s sister. She lives-lived up Whangarei somewhere. Because Jerry was the last person to see the boys alive he always maintained they had decided to go to Australia, This is the story Jerry told his sister. She lived in hope he was alive and would come back. I remember Mike Hill drove up to Whangarei from Ohakune to interview her. They had gone bush with Jerry to put in a dope plantation back in the late seventies. Sometime during that period the nephew and his friend became disenchanted with the idea of growing dope and wanted out. Because they were so far into the bush Jerry agreed to take them back to civilisation. (A couple of days hike through the bush) That was the last anybody ever saw of the nephew and his friend. The theory is that Jerry would not have trusted them to keep quiet so he shot them both with the shotgun he always carried and disposed of their bodies in the wilderness. The police started their investigation with a missing persons inquiry. This is back about 97-98 and is a matter of public record. They made extensive enquiries around the Raetihi district seeking information. There was a story about the missing pair on the television show Crimewatch and a newspaper article in the Auckland Herald if my memory serves me well. But at no time did the police make any mention of Jerry Cornelius. It was kept as a missing persons enquiry. But while all of these enquiries drew a blank, I assure you the police investigation under the control of Mike Hill is in no doubt foul play took place and the finger is pointed at Jerry Cornelius. Because of the way this all developed, concern was raised by vested interests with Mike Hill about the connection between Jerry and the police and who could be trusted (in this instance Mike Hill is the good guy) Mike assured everybody concerned this matter was being treated with upmost seriousness. When police first questioned Jerry about the missing pair he denied everything of course. But what he did was run straight to Colin Irvine to find out what was going on. Eyebrows were raised in the police ranks by Irvine’s enquiries about the case and he was kept out of the loop, strange as it may appear, It seems Irvine is not trusted by some in his own ranks. A lot of the people Jerry narked on were his friends or so they thought and would never believe him capable of treachery towards them. As far as I am aware the people he helped put in jail for his own rewards never knew of his deceptions. Jerry has always been very good at creating divide and rule. Promote confusion and doubt and offer friendship. A very treacherous man. I suggest to you Cornelius saw everyone as the enemy to be used in whatever way he deemed appropriate to further his own aims and objectives. (whatever they were) I also suggest to you the chemist shop burglary you mentioned was carried out by Jerry and he then fingered you to the cops for his own ends but also to discredit your credibility. With the cops on his side it wasn’t hard to do. Not that they knew Jerry did the burg. After the accusation is made its very hard for you or anybody to disprove. It’s a tactic Jerry used many many times to discredit those around him. It was suggested to me that jerry would steal property from one person and then secret it at the property of another, then tip of the cops. He would then sit back and play both ends against the middle. Could he have done this with you? I remember a time when he was milling native timber at Riamaki. He was having a running battle with his own son Max. Jerry hammered 4-inch nails into several rimu logs and then accused Max of sabotaging his operation. He would create the suspicion. Who after all would destroy their own property? Jerry could spin a story so well and convince the gullible as to its authenticity. Jerry would go to the pub, buy drinks for people and them tell them stories about people, places and events that were nothing but lies. I suggest to you generally speaking people have no comprehension of how “EVIL” Jerry Cornelius is.” LooseLips ******************************************************************** So there you have it, someone in the know but unknown to me has confirmed my allegations that Jerry Cornelius was Colin Irvine’s ‘nark’ and that Cornelius used the gullible Irvine in attempt to scare me off my civil legal action against the Riamaki Society Inc. Even though Irvine knew he had been duped by his “reliable” informant he did what all “good” cops do, he lied to all the people he needed to to protect himself and his man Cornelius. I believe it’s called noble-cause corruption. Colin Irvine therefore perverted/defeated the course of justice by lying about me and my history, the circumstances of the search warrants, his alleged informants and by not prosecuting Cornelius for supplying false, malicious information about me to the Police. He is also guilty of lying to Judge Bill Unwin. (1987) It is because of Irvine’s lies about me that my family and I have been denied our civil rights by the NZ Police since 1984. I for one am not at all surprised that certain people, a little less stable than myself, run amok when they tire of bashing their heads against the brick wall that has been erected by evil police officers to protect themselves and their equally evil criminal mates. Just think, if Cornelius had been prosecuted by Irvine for making false statements about me in 1984 his informer’s cover would have been “blown” and the killing of the two aforementioned would-be cannabis growers would not have happened. What I want to know at this stage is this; did detective Colin Irvine of the Wanganui Police ever employ/use Jerry Cornelius as an informer and if so was Colin Irvine Jerry’s controller and protector and also did sergeant Mike Hill of the Ohakune Police ever launch a murder inquiry in the back blocks of Raetihi with Jerry Cornelius as the prime suspect? This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982. Yours faithfully Jack Van Der Lubbe Wanganui. ———————————————————————————————————————– 18MayPNH_01 ———————————————————————————————————————– 26/4/06 Sergeant? Mike Hill Wellington District Headquarters PO Box 693 Wellington Dear Sir I have received the below information via email from a visitor to my web site Please correct any inaccuraties. “Around 1997-8 after receiving information from a very reliable source, the Ohakune police under the direction of then sergeant Mike Hill launched a very discreet double murder inquiry in the back blocks of Raetihi with Cornelius as the prime suspect. It was a very comprehensive investigation carried out of the public eye, but with the alleged murders having been committed some 20 years previously and no bodies, it didn’t get very far. But Cornelius remains the major suspect. A very difficult situation for the police to deal with. To get the police off his back and to cover his tracks Jerry eventually sold the land to Gary Rawnsley and moved north with a pocket full of cash. The last I heard (about 2000) he was living in Auckland. Those murdered were a nephew of Jerry and his friend. The nephew was the son of jerry’s sister. She lives-lived up Whangarei somewhere. Because Jerry was the last person to see the boys alive he always maintained they had decided to go to Australia, This is the story Jerry told his sister. She lived in hope he was alive and would come back. I remember Mike Hill drove up to Whangarei from Ohakune to interview her. They had gone bush with Jerry to put in a dope plantation back in the late seventies. Sometime during that period the nephew and his friend became disenchanted with the idea of growing dope and wanted out. Because they were so far into the bush Jerry agreed to take them back to civilisation. (A couple of days hike through the bush) That was the last anybody ever saw of the nephew and his friend. The theory is that Jerry would not have trusted them to keep quiet so he shot them both with the shotgun he always carried and disposed of their bodies in the wilderness. The police started their investigation with a missing persons inquiry. This is back about 97-98 and is a matter of public record. They made extensive enquiries around the Raetihi district seeking information. There was a story about the missing pair on the television show Crimewatch and a newspaper article in the Auckland Herald if my memory serves me well. But at no time did the police make any mention of Jerry Cornelius. It was kept as a missing persons enquiry. But while all of these enquiries drew a blank, I assure you the police investigation under the control of Mike Hill is in no doubt foul play took place and the finger is pointed at Jerry Cornelius. Because of the way this all developed, concern was raised by vested interests with Mike Hill about the connection between Jerry and the police and who could be trusted (in this instance Mike Hill is the good guy) Mike assured everybody concerned this matter was being treated with upmost seriousness. When police first questioned Jerry about the missing pair he denied everything of course. But what he did was run straight to Colin Irvine to find out what was going on. Eyebrows were raised in the police ranks by Irvine’s enquiries about the case and he was kept out of the loop, strange as it may appear, It seems Irvine is not trusted by some in his own ranks” This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982. Yours faithfully Jack Van Der Lubbe Wanganui. ——————————————————————————————————————— MikeHillscan_01 The offence of Perverting the course of justice is committed when an accused:- does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice. The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:- an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or proceedings have started or are about to start. In (R v Cotter and Others [2000] TLR) it was held that ‘the course of public justice included the process of criminal investigation following a false allegation against either an identifiable or unidentifiable individual.’ The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as “attempting to pervert the course of justice”. It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. ————————— The following are examples of acts which may constitute the offence, although General Charging Principles, above in this chapter and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this chapter should be carefully considered before preferring a charge of perverting the course of justice:- persuading, or attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence; interference with jurors with a view to influencing their verdict; false alibis and interference with evidence or exhibits, for example blood and DNA samples; providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution; ———————— giving false information, or agreeing to give false information, to the police with a view to frustrating a police inquiry; for example, lying as to who was driving when a road traffic accident occurred; ———————— lending a driving licence to another to produce to the police following a notice to produce, thereby avoiding an offence of driving whilst disqualified being discovered; agreeing to give false evidence; concealing or destroying evidence concerning a police investigation to avoid arrest; assisting others to evade arrest for a significant period of time; and

making a false allegation which wrongfully exposes another person to the risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence.
It is likely that perverting the course of justice will be the appropriate charge when:-

  the acts wrongfully expose another person to risk of arrest or prosecution; the obstruction of a police investigation is premeditated, prolonged or elaborate; the acts hide from the police the commission of a serious crime; a police investigation into serious crime has been significantly or wholly frustrated or misled; ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Informant wins appeal. August 21, 2008 A recidivist burglar has had his jail sentence quashed and case sent back to the district court because of his role as a police informant. Conrad Gray, 24, smashed his way into the house of a Rotorua man last November and threatened him with an axe, said a Court of Appeal judgment released yesterday. Gray was sentenced in Rotorua District Court to three years and three months on charges of assault with a weapon and burglary. The Court of Appeal judgment said information about Gray’s assistance to police in a separate investigation was not brought to the sentencing judge’s attention. His lawyer had argued that Gray’s sentence was excessive when his role as an informant was taken into account. The Crown disagreed, saying his list of convictions and the seriousness of his recent offending – committed while on parole – made the original sentence adequate. But the Court of Appeal quashed it and said rather than reconsider the sentence, it should be returned to the District Court. ____________________________________________________________

1.       Terry Batchelor of the NZ Police who interviewed the Rainbow Warrior bomber suspects Marfat and Preur said this, “ I explained to them that they weren’t necessarily suspects but the fact that they were seen around the waterfront, we would like to speak to them and clear them before they flew out of New Zealand. We were quite pleasant, there was no nastiness, there was no yelling, no screaming, no raised voices, none of these things and they were surprisingly cooperative under the circumstances. If they were totally innocent I think you’d be creating a scene somehow, I think the average person would be, you know, what the hell am I doing here, I haven’t done anything wrong, we’re on holiday, this is stupid. You know these are the things normal people would do” NZ Police Applying for a Search Warrant: Section 198 fo the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 allows any person to make an application for the issue of a search warrant to any District Court Judge or Justice of the Peace or Community Magistrate or Registrar (not being a Constable). Although any person may make such an application in the past it was primarily Police or Government Agencies that applied. It is now more common, with the likes of ACC having private investigators, for other people to apply. Note: Police are still required to execute the search warrants in those instances. The majority of applications are made under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 but search warrants can also be applied for and issued by the Registrar under various other Acts, eg: Customs and Excise Act 1996, section 167 Fair Trading Act 1986, section 47 Fisheries Act 1996 Gambling Act 2003, section 340 Prostitution Reform Act 2003, section 27 and 30 Animal Welfare Act, section 131(1) Film, Videos and Publication Classification Act 1993, section 109 Sale of Liquor Act 1989, section 177(1) Note: Fisheries refers to Right of Entry but the process is the same. Issuing a search warrant is one of the most important powers that a Registrar exercises because it allows the Police to breach an individuals human rights by searching their personal property. High priority is given to issuing search warrants, due to the need to balance civil liberties (an individuals freedom to use their property, and freedom from interference from the State) against the need to investigate crime. A Registrar is not liable for anything in the warrant that is untrue, that is if an officer swears that it is, and it is not, the Registrar can not be to blame, although the Registrar must not sign and seal anything that does not seem right. Although most applications are in writing and supported by an affidavit, if it seems proper to do so the Registrar may issue a search warrant on an application made on oath orally. But in that event he/she SHALL make a note in writing of the grounds of the application. Likewise if further information is required on a written application the applicant can be put on oath and questioned by the Registrar with a written record being kept. If the application is in relation to a solicitor or doctors practice it should be referred to a Judge, usually in chambers. The issue in relation to these cases is that of confidentiality of information. Another type of search warrant, but one which a Registrar doesn’t sign is a data search warrant. This is a warrant sought to search computer data bases of companies etc, where it becomes like spying sting on the ring involved. The Registrar will have the officer swear on the bible in front of a Judge in chambers, the Judge will sign to it, the Registrar will place on a seal on the envelope and this copy is locked away until the case is resolved (as the only other record of this undertaking) The granting of a search warrant is a judicial act – not an administative one. The Registrar must be satisfied that there is reasonable grounds for belief. Suspicion is not enough. ———————————————————————————————————————— 27 April 2006 GREYMOUTH: West Coast police officer Peter James McCutcheon, 42, of Ross, has received a registrar’s remand to May 30, when he is expected to enter pleas to four charges related to alleged incidents in July and August last year. Cutcheon is charged with two counts of dishonestly using phone records and two of making false statements under oath to obtain a search warrant. ———————————————– Bent Greymouth cop to plead guilty May 31, 2006 A West Coast police officer facing conviction on criminal charges is set to plead guilty, but he says he has no regrets. Ross Constable Peter McCutcheon has been suspended on full pay since February. He was charged with two counts of dishonesty and three of making false statements following an audit of police paperwork. McCutcheon has been in the police force for 15 years – four of those in Ross which has now been left with no local officer. The community constable is accused of abusing his police powers. It is alleged he got warrants to check phone calls being made to his girlfriend, police Constable Lynda Hine. The pair are still together and McCutcheon says he has no regrets despite the charges. “What I did was wrong, but there were other ways they could have dealt with it, but this is the way they’ve chosen so that’s fine,” he told One News. Hine was also suspended from her job in Greymouth in February and like McCutcheon has been on full pay. Police say the ongoing internal disciplinary inquiry into Hine should be completed in a couple of weeks but she won’t face any criminal charges. McCutcheon told One News that he will be pleading guilty and resigning from the police force in due course. ———————————————————————————————————————– Police admit paying narks for drug-dealing info 30 May 2006 By MICHAEL CUMMINGS Members of Palmerston North’s criminal underworld are being paid by police to nark on drug dealers. The revelation came yesterday at the High Court trial in Palmerston North of a 40-year-old woman charged with possession of LSD for supply and possession of cannabis for sale. Patricia May Walsh was found with 235 “trips” of LSD and almost a kilogram of cannabis in the boot of her car in Stillwater Place on December 2, 2004. The jury was told the drugs are worth as much as $14,000. Walsh was also found with $1400 cash rolled up in a bundle in her pocket. Palmerston North police Strategic Crime Unit head David Thompson, said the SCU received an anonymous phone call claiming Walsh was in possession of the drugs. Under cross-examination from defence counsel Val Nisbet, Detective Thompson said some of the informants the SCU uses are from the criminal underworld and get paid for information “on occasions”. How much was not disclosed. Walsh told police she was giving a man she identified as Jason Whakarau a ride to a Freyberg Street address when he asked to stop at the Stillwater Place house to “score P”. Det Thompson told the court Mr Whakarau was “in and out of the gang scene” and affiliated to the Mongrel Mob. Acting on information from an anonymous tip-off, Detective Constable Matthew Akuhata and Constable Kimberley Hawkins of the SCU drove to Stillwater Place in an unmarked police car. Walsh walked out of the address and was intercepted by the officers. A search of her vehicle uncovered a bucket in the boot containing 935 grams of cannabis. Walsh was arrested and yelled repeatedly “f–- you Jason, you nark” toward the house Mr Whakarau was in, Det Akuhata said. Walsh told the officers she had been “framed”. A search of Walsh at Palmerston North police station found a plastic pill bottle containing granules of LSD, a class A drug. In an interview with Det Akuhata, Walsh said Mr Whakarau put the drugs in the boot of her car without her knowledge when she picked him up earlier that day. She said she picked the pill bottle up off the floor of the house in Stillwater Place, and didn’t know what was in it. Det Akuhata said to Walsh: “I put it to you that the drugs do belong to you, that you’re making this up to avoid prosecution.” “Knowing what sort of person Jason is and knowing what sort of backlash I’m going to receive for saying this, it’s Jason’s. “I’ve gone down for him in the past and I’m not going down for him again. I’m scared of Jason, he threatens me all the time. He’s making me pay to live in Palmerston North. I know what the backlash will be. He’ll order a home invasion or burn my car or something.” Walsh insisted the drugs did not belong to her. “I’m not guilty, it’s not mine.” —————————————————————————————————————————

—————————————————————————————————————————————16 February 2012 The Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall Police National Headquarters 180 Molesworth Street, Wellington. Dear Sir, Is it a fact that one time Police informer and probable double murderer James Creedmore aka Jerry Cornelius aka Philomel Cornelius has died and that he made a deathbed confession to the Police that he did in fact murder Lionell Russell and one other male in the Raetihi/Ohakune backblocks? If so would you please forward to me at the below address a copy of the said deathbed confession. Thank you. This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982. Yours faithfully, J Van Der Lubbe 22A Paterson Street, Wanganui 4500

Truckie awarded $83,754.50 and cleared of false allegations
Rob Stock10:13, Nov 02 2019

Canterbury truckie was awarded just under $85,000 for unjustified dismisal, and had his name cleared of “specious” allegations made against him by his former employer.
Canterbury truck driver Peter Adams has been awarded just under $84,000 from his former employer, which made unjustified allegations of serious misconduct against him when he lodged a claim seeking unpaid wages.
Adams took his complaint against Heavy Transport Services Canterbury Limited to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), which awarded him $83,754.50, including $23,000 compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to his feelings.
ERA member Geoff O’Sullivan also dismissed “specious” claims by Heavy Transport Services Canterbury that Adams had behaved inappropriately at work.

The company made those allegations in its “statement of reply” after Adams filed claim with the ERA, O’Sullivan said.

“The statement in reply included very serious allegations against Mr Adams including that he had acted in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner towards other employees,” he said.
“None of the allegations or complaints had been raised with Mr Adams during the course of his employment. Further, the prime complainant retracted her statement to the respondent, in writing, which was shown to me. I was told she had made the statement under extreme pressure by Mr Radley and that the allegation was incorrect.”
O’Sullivan said Mr Radley was the director of Heavy Transport Services Canterbury, but did not give Radley’s first name in his determination.
The Companies Office register showed Heavy Transport Services Canterbury was owned by one Michael Edward Radley, who was also the company’s sole director.
Adams began work with Heavy Transport Services Canterbury in February 2018 earning $35 an hour for a 45-hour week, but during his employment, which ended in November 2018, he was only paid sporadically.
“Mr Adams was concerned regarding the inconsistency and non-payment of wages and eventually approached the director of the company Mr Radley, to make his concerns clear,” said O’Sullivan.
“He says that Mr Radley responded by advising he would dismiss two other employees to help with outstanding bills, wages and to reduce overheads. Mr Radley apparently stated that the place wasn’t paying its way and he was sick of putting money into a sinking ship.”
In November 2018, Adams was contacted by the Inland Revenue which told him Heavy Transport Services Canterbury had failed to pay Adams’ KiwiSaver, child support, and ACC levies.
O’Sullivan said Adams asked Radley what had happened, and Radley told him there had been a “break down with the Inland Revenue site and that everything was sorted”.
But the non-payments continued, O’Sullivan said.
“By Thursday, 22 November 2018, in the absence of any steps having been taken to correct the issue by the respondent, Mr Adams told Mr Radley he could not survive being paid irregularly, less than his entitlement and had had enough,” said O’Sullivan.
“Mr Radley responded by advising there was no money and that the company was a sinking ship.”
O’Sullivan found Adams had suffered significant financial and emotional harm, and that the non-payment of child support had soured his relationship with his ex-partner and child.
Heavy Transport Services Canterbury did not attend the investigation meeting, said O’Sullivan.
“I considered whether to proceed in light of the nonattendance but was satisfied the Respondent was aware of the investigation and the consequences of non-attendance,” he said.

02 The SIS and the NZ Police cover-up a case of manslaughter, CONFIRMED by the offender Eric (Louisa Marie) van der Lubbe. From Detective Colin Irvine all the way to the top.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 09/07/2008



Perverting the course of justice #2 Just prior to the 1987 general election I happened to speak to Detective Colin Irvine at a Labour Party election meeting. I asked him if he was tooled up and he said, “discretely” and he then asked me a question about my brother Eric. I don’t remember the question but I do remember replying, “Why what’s he done?” Irvine shook his head and refused to say what Eric had done. My asking about his tool/firearm must have twigged his memory. Later Eric told me that a bloke had hassled him at a night club in Wellington/Porirua or thereabouts and Eric had pulled out his privately bought pistol (he thought he was James Bond) and had frightened the hassler off with it big time. He said, bloody good job that the bloke, in a panicked rush to get away, jumped over a wall, fell several meters and sustained fatal injuries on concrete below. He also said that Irvine was involved in the investigation (cover-up) and that Irvine was a real bastard. I remember seeing an item about the incident on TV (before Eric told me about it) and that the cops were appealing for witnesses. Eric lost his firearms licence, got the sack from his flash (double-nought spy) job at the Security Intelligence Service and got away with manslaughter because the SIS and the cops, including Irvine, engaged in a conspiracy to cover up Eric’s crimes so as to save both organizations the embarrassment of having to admit that SIS had employed a pistol-packin plonker. Makes the pie and the Playboy in the briefcase scandal seem a bit lame. It’s easy to see why Irvine was so relaxed about vilifying my (nobody) name to the Ombudsman and posterity. Eric’s crimes, manslaughter, presenting a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded and restricted firearm. Bound to be a few more charges that would have been thrown at a non protected joe blogs. —————————————————————-

I made an emailed complaint about the above to the PCA, below is the reply. PCA 1



Louisa ( Eric ) van der Lubbe. said, on 19/03/2011 at 2:08 am (Edit)

Wow, I’m famous at last. However, dear bro I think you ought to own up to a couple of errors on this story.

The incident to which you refer happened when I caught a petty thief trying to steal the radio from my car and when I confronted him, he threatened violence. He changed his mind very quickly when I showed him the ( unloaded ) 9mm pistol I was carrying. I had, in fact been to a gunsmiths with it to have the grips changed and was on my way home. A perfectly legal operation.

Yes, the turd did run off and jump over a wall to escape, fell about 5 metres and ( probably ) broke a leg as he was still howling his head off when I drove away. Not dead as you claim and certainly not part of a cover up by the Police/SIS.

I suppose I should have called an ambulance but I was a bit annoyed at him at the time. In hindsight I should never have told you about it as you seem to have exaggerated the whole thing and it’s consequences…which were none in fact. I never heard another thing about it. I guess the turd crawled off and is still limping..I hope so anyway. I paid a lot of money for my car stereo!

To claim there was a death and subsequent cover up is absurd. The police would have been all over me like flies on shit for two reasons.

1: They never could stand the fact that a brother of yours was involved in law enforcement and later an officer in the SIS. That was aneathema to their credo that if one member of a family is a ” crim “, so must be all the others.

2: The police despise and envy the SIS because it used to be their job ” Special Branch ” They would have used any excuse to make the SIS look bad and would have plastered me all over the front pages of the Dominion and Evening Post with ” leaked ” reports. As they did with the agent who had his briefcase stolen from his car and ” left ” conveniently in the driveway of the house of a left wing reporter for the Evening Post. He must have annoyed a cop somehow.

Anyway… I have no desire to be implicated in something of that nature by my own brother simply because it furthers your interests….another example of how badly you have treated me during my whole life.

Remember smashing up my car while I was away with the army and covering that up…shame on you. I could go on for hours with other examples but why bother you have a good memory , if no conscience.

On with the real facts.

The reason for my forced resignation from the SIS was a fabricated offence under the Firearms act..granted..but no charges were ever laid or even considered. They resulted from a complaint from a massage parlour owner who was a police informant, who was actually acting in good faith. Strange but true, the police did act correctly and in a considerate manner and I have no beef with them. They were given false info which came from a normally reliable source and I cant blame them for that. That woman had her own agenda, that of protecting ” her ” girls from potential harm. I was, unkowningly, dating one of them and she was a bit freaked out with my owning handguns, which I enjoyed using in regional shooting competitions. She thought I was a crim….lol. (perceptive lady)

The internal watchdogs of the SIS are much more effective in digging up dirt however and they put me under surveillance and they discovered I was taking counselling in preparation for a sex change. You can imagine how well that went down..” laughs”

They put a blank paper in front of me and told me to write a letter of resignation, put me on an unofficial blacklist for any govt job, ever, and showed me the door. Nothing more, nothing less.

Still, working for them was the MOST boring job I’ve ever done, so no loss. I made much better money elsewhere and didn’t need to lie about my identity anymore.

I have absolutely nothing to hide anymore and revel in my freedom. The shopping in europe is wonderful and my passport doesn’t ring alarm bells in airports.

I’m happier now than ever except in finding that you are bullshitting about me. Stop that will you?….there’s a good chap.

I never had any dealings with Colin Irvine after leaving Wanganui so he has no input in this affair whatsover. I do think he is a bent cop though.

HE did come to see me at the MOT office before raiding your house and he did fish about for info on you which I found most amusing. I know you were never a drug dealer or involved in burglaries and I’ll defend you to the hilt on that even though I have a strong personal dislike for you.

I did tell Irvine that he was barking up the wrong tree but hey, when the cops get a name they aren’t happy until they have the whole family, down to the 3rd generation, locked up. They get quite fixated…goes with having a power trip.

Jack, I’m sorry that these things are following you to this extent but you seem to revel in the muck so I’ll not try to convince you to drop it all and start a new life elsewhere…..even in as much as it has worked for me and my family here.

For the rest of you… Jack has been definately dumped on from on high, unfairly and with considerable venom, by the NZ police, some of whose members are definately corrupt. They have been shown up on numerous occasions by Jack and they really dont like that. They’ll do anything they can to get him for that, no question.

If I was in Jack’s shoes, ( which I’d hate because I prefer mauve pumps to basketball boots ) I’d have packed up and left NZ years ago and good riddance to it.

Wait… I did !….he should do the same. No earthquakes here.

Lastly…Jack..remove this falsehood from this site. It hurts me emotionally but it hurts your credibility more. I have no axe to grind with you and I thought until today that I had sucessfully removed you from my life. Do us both a favour and either edit the story to tell the truth or delete it altogether.

The ” he thought he was James Bond ” comment cracked me up though… Jane Bond is more accurate.

cheers… Louisa… your sister. :-))))


Jack said, on 20/03/2011 at 4:10 am (Edit)

The word fantasist came to mind when I read your dribble Eric. If you lied to me about why you got the sack from the SIS that’s your lookout. I’ve written what you told me at the time and I won’t be changing a word of it.


Jack said, on 22/03/2011 at 3:36 am (Edit)

You know if dopey Eric had kept his gob shut, stayed silent like Irvine and the SIS have done all these years, this matter would have remained inconclusive. But no, the “Wow, I’m famous at last.” fantasist couldn’t resist returning to the scene of the crime and confirmed for all to see that the “9mm pistol” incident did happen, that he was the offending gunman and that there were no “consequences” over the matter.


“I had, in fact been to a gunsmiths with it to have the grips changed and was on my way home. A perfectly legal operation.”

If you want anyone to believe that claim give us the name and address of the gunsmith and the date you allegedly visited him or are you another one of these forgetful types?

The day before he  skipped NZ, leaving his sordid past, mounting debts and rubber cheques behind, ERIC burned his bridges with me by blaming me and my alleged criminality for his inability to get even the most demeaning “govt job.”

“They [SIS] put a blank paper in front of me and told me to write a letter of resignation, put me on an unofficial blacklist for any govt job, ever, and showed me the door. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Then, like the true coward he is, he blamed my alleged criminal proclivities for him being a penniless poser.

Hoist with his own petard!



03 Home Invasion (guns 1990) Constable S W Rudsdale

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 16/05/2008


 “They are hell on earth once they want to get a man.” – J Mulgan.

In 1988 we moved to Whangarei and built a house on a few acres at Three Mile Bush. We only had one hiccup, neighbour wise, when one morning we started building at 7.45 am and our nearest neighbour Christopher Black appeared at our boundary fence and demanded we stop our work or he would “Ram my hammer up my arse.”

I told him where to go and filed the matter away. Sandra (the wife) tried to reason with him but he stormed off spluttering about us having a nerve building our house in view of his and invading his privacy. He must have been smoldering about it since we started building.

I didn’t report the matter of Black’s threatening behavior to the cops, the less I saw of them the better. I did however commence to plant a Leyland Cypress hedge between him and us.

A few months later Black discovered, to his horror, that he didn’t have the legal right to use his septic tank that was on our side of the boundary fence on an easement. A lawyer cock-up apparently. I wonder why he went to see a lawyer? Anyway, instead of keeping it under his hat, (we had no idea) the dozy sod tries to put matters right by sending some bloke with a legal form round for me to sign. Black also apologised to Sandra for his earlier threatening behaviour. (he needed us now) I declined to sign the form. The ‘form’ bloke agreed with me saying that he wouldn’t have signed it either. We allowed Black to continue to use his illegal septic tank.

All went well over the next 18 months. We finished our house, the Blacks ignored us and we reciprocated by not even bothering to ignore them.


“Foul whispering abroad.” Shakespeare.

Then the Cullums’ moved in along our Northern boundary.

I had agreed to build a new boundary fence between the Cullums’ and us but because I took a bit long in doing it, I had a crook back at the time, Gary Cullum decided he would hurry me up by denouncing me to the Social Welfare. I had also earlier agreed with Cullum that he could top up his rainwater tank from our pump supply that was on our easement on his land. He was allowed to take water from our supply between the hours of midnight and 6am. He in turn agreed to pay for half the power and maintenance of the water pump.

Cullum got nowhere with his D.S.W. denunciation so he then started to abuse his water rights by taking water outside the times he had agreed to.

Because our house was higher up than Cullums’ our water supply would stop when they took water from our pipeline. We had no header tank and there was not enough pressure for two houses at once. I asked Cullum why he was taking water during the day and he replied, ‘Because your fence is no good.’ I had finished the fence at last. I told him the fence was legally adequate and to stick to the water pump times agreed to. He promised that he would. The fence was ‘no good’ in Cullum’s eyes because I had used half round posts and not full round posts. ‘It’s not legal’ he whined. Of course he was wrong.

Then one afternoon while Sandra was having her after work shower our water stopped again. Cullum had turned it on at his place to water their garden. I shouted at him, ‘Turn the fucken water off.’ I had lost all patience with him. You tend to do that when you are maliciously denounced to government departments and agreements are repeatedly broken. Next day Sandra and I were both served, by a bailiff, with trespass notices from Cullum and his de-facto Jill Hayward. Some know-nothing down at the Whangarei courthouse had told them that they could stop us having access to our water supply on our easement on Cullum’s land.


Trespass notice 03

And then they got real dirty!


02 report form

Note: ‘I have advised Cullum/Gary of the result to date.’ And also notice how the dirty liars had already told the cops that I had been trespassing on their place.


03 Job Sheet


Constable Rudsdale told me during his legalized home invasion that Telecom workers, who he said were working outside Black’s house, had complained to the Police. He lied to protect his informant just as Irvine had done but then forgot to black out Cullum’s name on the Report Form. You will notice that the informant ‘Cullum/Gary’ was told of the result to date. I knew who had done the dirty deed but I didn’t kick up a stink, no mileage in that. That evening I was twiddling the dial on my multi band radio (sw1) when I heard a voice I recognized. I cranked up my tape recorder. I thought that a good idea considering what had happened earlier in the day.

The following is a transcript of the conversation between two of our other neighbours, both allegedly intelligent females, who would be regarded as reliable witnesses in the eyes of the Police and most Judges. I was pretty bloody shocked to hear that I was reputed to be, among many outrageous things, an abuser of my two boys. I was able to hear this broadcast because the Blacks used a cordless phone.

“It has been very truly said that the mob has many heads but no brains.” Rivarol.

6/12/1990 Evening. Mrs. Black to Mrs. Thompson.

B…’Now I’m going to fill you in on some amazing gossip.’

T…’Oh neat, goody.’

B…’Gary Cullum.’


B…’Gary Cullum, you know the guy who’s built that place you call shanty town.’

T…’Oh yes, yes, yep.’

B…’Chris has spoken to him a couple of times before and he rang this morning at half past six and he rang to say that Van Der Lubbe has been causing a bit of trouble.’

T…’Yea I heard that, Cathy said he had.’

B…’When did you hear?’

T…’Oh a couple of days ago Cathy was saying that there was a lot of trouble about the water or something. Yea he cut the water pipes and pulled up the alkathene piping. He was saying filthy words to Mrs. Cullum when she went down to the water tank.’ (Like I’d cut up my own pipes.)


T…’Anyhow go on.’

B…’Then he said you know it’s getting quite bad, um that’s just one of the things. Anyway he rang at half past six this morning and he and Chris were having a bit of a chat saying you know that things were bad and blah, blah, blah and also he rang to ask if we heard a rifle shot last night.’


B…’Which I did, I was in the computer room on the computer and I heard this gun go off about nine o’clock and I heard this big bang and it sounded fairly close. Well I didn’t investigate, when you live in the country if people want to let off guns that’s….’ (Not concerned in the slightest)

T…’Yea that’s right I often hear them at the back here.’

B…’Hmm. Anyway he rang this afternoon and he wanted to talk to Chris and Chris wasn’t home. He said to me “Have you seen any action at the Van Der Lubbes?” and I said, “Well I’ve really just gotten home.” And he said that they are getting the phone put in and Van Der Lubbe doesn’t ….Mr. Cullum wanted to put a um, um an underground cable in but because the ground’s too rocky he has to put power lines through. And Van Der Lubbe’s gone absolutely berserk and said that that’s just not on that he will have to look out and see these power lines. And Telecom men arrived today to install a portable phone just to do in the mean time till they get their other one and he fired two shots over their heads.’

T…’Oh really! Today?’


T…’Oh man!’

B…’And Gary said last night when the gun went off he said, we didn’t know where it came from but he said it was awfully close and we were just so frightened.’

T…’Oh they should have called the Police straight away.’

B…’Well I think they did, I think they did last night. Anyway he must have phoned the Police again this morning or today after he’d fired at them and cause he was lucky enough to have the Telecom guys there who saw it.’

T…’Shit I bet they were bloody scared some mad cunt firing at….’

B…’Right, he probably went off his rocker when he saw Telecom come in to install the phone.’

T…’Pardon, was that about nine o’clock?’

B…’I don’t know Robyn.’

T…’I went to work about ten to nine, I saw some men which I presume were, I thought they were post and telegraph vehicles outside Cullum’s driveway.’

B…’Right. So he phoned the Police and the Police checked up and he doesn’t have a firearms licence.’

T…’Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.’

B…’Not up here he doesn’t.’


B…’But they are going to check and see if he has one from wherever he came from, if not they’ll charge him, they’ll book him, they’ll actually arrest him.’


B…’And he said, ‘had we seen the Police out’ and Chris said ‘he had at four o’clock’ and I said that’s when Gary said they were due to arrive and so we don’t know if he’s been arrested or not.’

T…’Well I saw him, um I went to get Peter, I left about half past three.’


T…’He must have an old man staying with him.’

B…’He has.’

T…’His father?’

B…’I think it’s probably hers.’

T…’And I could see him standing under the veranda there.’


T…’Um I couldn’t see any sign of Police and then I came back up the road at quarter past four.’

B…’Right, but when I was talking to Gary Cullum he said, that guy has threatened us with so much.’ (Cullum later admitted to Police that I had never threatened them but he still maintained that they “ran in fear of what I might do to them.”)

T…’Really, I didn’t, I mean I’ve heard from Cathy (another neighbour also poisoned by Cullum) because she was quite friendly with them. (Us.) She used to go up there for visits, um they have often said to her that they can’t stand him (Cullum) and all that stuff but I didn’t think things were really that bad with them. And then Cathy just told me the other day that he had been using filthy language to Mrs. Cullum when she went down when their water got cut off.’ (I asked her if she was a bit nutty for trying to stop me using my easement and to watch out for the men in white coats.)

B…’Yea, and he said that he’s been doing that again today.’


B…’Yea. So I said to him, you must feel so frightened, he said yes we do.’ (They were so frightened it caused them to wave and smile at us every time they saw us.)

T… ‘Because a guy like that is unpredictable.’


T…’He could go off and completely go loopy.’


T…’I mean we could have another bloody Aramoana with that guy around.’


T…’Hey but why didn’t the Police come up straight away because that’s pretty serious?’

B…’I don’t know Robyn.’

T…’Have the Telecom guys reported the matter?’

B…’Yea, Yea.’

T…’Oh they have good.’

B…’Yea they said that they would be prepared to be witnesses.’

T…’Oh good.’

B…’I said to him, you were very fortunate that they were there.’

T…’But did he actually fire at them or at Mr. Cullum?’

B…’No over their heads.’

T…’Well even so over the Telecom guys….’

B…’Yea well I suppose Mr. Cullum was out there as well. But Robyn he lives about twenty yards from our bedroom window.’

T…’I know, I know and I tell you what I wouldn’t like to live with that guy around…’ (Two years of peace, not counting Black’s outburst, and suddenly I’m another David Grey.)

B…’I know Robyn.’

T…’What are you going to do? I think you should ring the Police and tell them you’re frightened.’ (Start telling hysterical lies even.)


T…’Because it’s the unpredictability of someone like that.’

B…’Yea Yea I know, and Gary Cullum dobbed him into the Social Welfare.’

T…’Good job, what for?’

B…’And he thinks it’s us.’ (Why would we think that? Because Chris Black had done it a year earlier in retaliation for us having woken him up at 7.45am. Threatening me with violence wasn’t enough he had to denounce me to the Social Welfare as well.)

T…’Ha, Ha Trevor says ‘are them neighbours fuedin,’ he says he’d offer his protection services for…..per hour per night ha, ha.’

(A few months later “Trevor” got caught out with explosives he had stolen from the Papakura Military Base. He was in the Territorials but because he was a “friend” of the corrupt system, a bailiff, he was allowed to get away with theft and possession/use of stolen explosives.)

B…’Oh Robyn!’

T…’But I wonder if his parents are up because he’s sort of going off the deep end.’

B…Oh I don’t know. They have been up before.’

T…’So do you not know if the Police have actually come up or not?’

B…’I know they’ve been up but I don’t know if he’s there or not.’

T…’If who’s where?’

B…’If Van Der Lubbe is in the house or whether he’s been arrested. See if they arrested him he’d be down at the Police Station.’

T…’But for something like that…..’

B…’Well Gary Cullum said he thought that the Police gave him the impression they would hold him for four days.’



T…’As I say I definitely saw him when I went to get Peter and that was about…’

B…’Yes that was before the Police came out.’

T…’Right, it’s not going to be safe with someone like that living…..we don’t want people like that living here.’


T…’This is what happens, people are complacent, they think oh well you know and then.’

B…’But we can’t do anything about it Robyn.’

T…’If enough of us rang up the Police and said we are not satisfied with what’s going on, we are not satisfied with what they’re doing about it and we want to know what the story is we’ve all got children you know, well what’s going on.’


T…’If enough of us do it it’s gonna make them think twice.’


T…’You know when Cathy’s cat was killed, cause you know their cat was perfectly healthy.’


T…’When Cathy’s cat was….a perfectly healthy cat and it disappeared and it was missing for days and Greg finally found it behind…oh some bushes somewhere and they still think he poisoned it.’

B…’Is that right?’

T…’He hates animals.’

B…’Yea well we were, you know when our cat went missing?’


B…’It had been over there and I suppose we’re just lucky that it’s still alive.’

T…’Cathy said he’s cruel because she seen him be cruel to Flyn.’


T…’Not just like getting annoyed with the dog for being somewhere he, it shouldn’t be but really cruel.’


T…’Put the boot into the dogs stomach, in front of her too.’  (A knee in the chest when it jumped up at me.)


T…’She was just shocked, she is the sort of person who loves animals.’


T…’He’s just cruel.’


T…’I don’t actually know the Cullums but I’ve waved out to them when I’ve….but that’s about all I’ve had to do with them.’

B…”Ummm yea.’ (But I believe every bit of malicious gossip they say about third parties.)

T…’And what does Chris think about the whole thing, does he think the Police should do anything?’

B…’Oh he thinks it’s a bit of a joke.’

T…’t’s a bit of a joke if it’s not you that’s…or it’s something you read about in the newspaper and see on TV.’


T…’Time and time again things like that have happened and things have escalated.’


T…’Small beginnings.’


T…’Especially with someone like him who is to put it mildly eccentric isn’t he?’

B…’Yes, Yea definitely. So anyway I thought I’d fill you in, I thought you’d like to hear that bit of news.’

T…’Yea we’ll have to wait and see what the outcome is.’


T…’I know that Cathy was saying that he told the Cullums’ that he was taking them to Court about the water.’


T…’Or something like that.’

B…’Yea, Yea.’

T…’It’s a pity the sale on his place fell through isn’t it?’

B…’Yea. Oh I nearly came down tonight. If you’d have been home I would have but I kept ringing and getting no reply, in fact I started to get a bit worried with all this hanky panky going on, I though he might have you hold up as hostages.’

T…’I tell you what, I wouldn’t bloody put it past him.’ (Well fuck me, now I’m a potential hostage taker)

B…’No, I know Robyn. You know Robyn I feel sorry for the kids.’

T…’For your kids?’

B…’No for his kids, because to me they are always, they look so timid.’


T… ‘It’s awful isn’t it?’

B…’Yea it is.’

T…’I feel a bit sorry for her, actually Cathy said she’s not actually too bad.’


T…’A person like that will probably get worse as he gets older.’


T…’He’s the sort of guy, he’s sort of teetering on the brink and he just needs something to push him off it.’


T…’It’s as though he sort of sets out to um, it’s as though it gives a bit of excitement to his life to get out and upset people.’


T…’Oh well I’ll be very interested to hear the outcome of all this.’

B…’So will I.’

T…’We’ll have to get the heavies to go up and rough him up a little bit. Get Trevor to dress up in his commando gear.’


T…’Go up there and do a rekky on the place. I’ll get Trevor to take his Browning up. He’s got one of those rifles that you’re not suppose to have.’

B…’But he’s probably got it registered?’

T…’Oh yes it’s all legal and everything. I shouldn’t say you’re not supposed to have them, the ones you are not allowed to buy anymore.’


T…’That would make a big hole in the back of his chest, ha ha.’  (And I’m supposed to be the violent one.)


“Rumour flies round the world twice before the truth gets its boots on.” Anon.

Chris Black to John? 6/12/1990.

B…”Shit we’ve got fun and games next door John.”

J…”Have ya?”

B…”Ho, fucken hell!”

J…”Hasn’t fired a shot yet?” (Strange question?)

B…”Oh yea, yea he, the guy um um Cullum.”


B…”Um he had the P and T down there, ah, putting a telephone in.”


B…”And the old buggerlug fired a couple of shots over their heads.”

J…”Is that right?”

B…”Yea. They called the Police.”

J…”The man’s got to be crazy.”

B…”Oh he is, he’s apparently, what he’s really pissed off now is see, Cullums got to put in poles for his telephone.”


B…”And Van Der Lubbe doesn’t like the idea of his view being distorted by poles, well fuck my days mate, he put poles about thirty feet away from our house and I laughed.”

J…”You could go him.”

B…”Awe god I laughed…he, he’s a nutcase, he really is.”


B…”You know poor old Cullum, he’s scarred shitless.”

J…”Yea he would be.”

B…”He didn’t have a phone and they couldn’t put one in so they’ve given him a mobile.”

J…”Awe yea.”

B…”Cause they recognize the fact that um you know mouhhhh.”

J…”Yea a dangerous man.”

B…”Yea he is yea.”

J…”You wouldn’t want your kids playing around outside would you?”

B…”Oh no I know John, and it’s not a twenty two he’s using it’s a Three-0 or I don’t know. I thought it was a shotgun to start with but Douglas said, Douglas was away from school for a couple of days and he said he heard them firing this thing. Apparently the range you know must have been about fifty yards or so, well a shotgun can’t shoot a target at fifty yards.”


B…”Too soon after Aramoana ha ha ha.”

J…”I hope he doesn’t cut loose on Saturday night.” (Party at Blacks)

B…”Ooh shit he he he, oh I hope they lock him up before then, I hope they do that. Ha ha ha ha shit that would be fun wouldn’t it?”

J…”Yea it would be.”

B…”OK John.”

J…”I’ll get back to you in the morning.”

B…”Right you ho, bye for now.”


Next day I wrote a letter informing Black that he should make other arrangements regarding the discharge of his sewerage. ”Ooh shit he he he, oh I hope they lock him up before then, I hope they do that. Ha ha ha ha shit that would be fun wouldn’t it?”


“Cutting honest throats by whispers.” Scott.

And eight days later Cullum rings Black.

B…”G’day Gary.”

C…”Yea G’day Chris.”

B…”What’s happening?”

C…”Um, we’re having big problems with your neighbour.”

B…”What do you mean my neighbour?”

C and B …”Ha ha ha he he he.”

B…”I’ve got just a bigga problems with em.”

C…”Have you?”

B…”He’s given me a registered letter stating that he’s going to cut my septic tank off.”

C…”Oh yes well that’s good because we received one yesterday too.”

B…”What’s he gonna do to you?”

C…”About the water and um he’s charging us for all his time doing repairs and maintenance on the pump for the last twelve months which is $650 labour.”

B…”Ha ha ha ha.”

C…”Still that’s beside the point and that’s as far as we’ve had, he’s been firing shots at us and god knows what last week.”


C…”Yea, he had the one shot that night.” (The one Mrs. Black thought nothing of.)

B…”Yea didn’t he hit the Telecom van or something or other?”

C…”He went right over the top of the Telecom van, the bullet ricochet right over the top and that, so any rate they’ve witnessed and the Police has been out and god knows what.”

B…”Yea.” (The cops told Cullum what the true story was but he kept up the lying like a true shit-stirring coward.)

C…”Um now we’ve just been in to the solicitors again and now cause we’ve filed Court action and that through the small claims court, so we had to go in just a few minutes ago to see the guy that’s in charge of it all to see if he can, cause they told us it may not be able to go through till February and we said well we have to have water.”


C…”He’s been disconnecting our water you see.”

B…”Umm.” (I disconnected him only once, much later, when he refused to pay his half of the power bill and it never went back on.)

C…”So um one thing leads to another and the matter’s getting very complicated. We’ve just been in to the guy from the Court and he’s informed us what we are to do and everything. We are just to carry on and use the water whenever we like, how long we like and if he puts one foot on our property at all he’s going to be arrested no beating about the bush. He’s not allowed on our property at all.”

B…”Yea he can’t even get to the pump then can he?”

C…”No he’s not allowed down to the pump at all so if he goes down there to disconnect our water he’s a goner.” (1)


C…”So in any rate that’s beside the point, um regarding this firearms business and that, his wife has the current licence for the firearm not him.”

B…”Is that right?”

C…”Yes. And I always understood that um with a firearms licence as long as there is one in the house anybody can use the firearm.”

B…”Shit no, no way!”

C…”Um, when I was talking to your wife last week.”

B…”To Dia?”

C…”Yea, and she said that your son had seen him having target practice out the back when he was home one day from school.”

B…”That’s right yes, that’s right, he and his father, yep.”

C…”Well um the guy down at the Court of the solicitors and he wants to know if he can please interview your son and that about this.”


C. “And if he’s prepared to say yes he has seen him using it, um the firearms will be confiscated and he is going for a skate.” (2)

B…”Oh well I’ll talk to Douglas.”

C…”And I said that I didn’t know if you’d want your son to get involved as far as that goes or not, and he said, well he said it’s the only thing we’ve got on him. He said we know he’s used it but nobody can prove that they’ve seen him with that gun in his hands.”

B…”Yea, well I’m pretty sure Douglas was ill that day and he watched them outside the window.” (My father was in Wanganui at that time and had they gone ahead with their dirty little scheme they would have come a gutser.”)

C…”Yea, yea. Well if your son can sort of say, yes he has seen him using it, well he’s a goner” (3)

B…”Yea, is that right? OK I’ll talk to Douglas and I’m pretty sure he’ll do it, well I’d advise him to cause you know it’s um, but it’s not gonna be, he’s at school now so.”

C…”Well look what he wants you to do is if you would ring um.”

B…”Who do I speak to?”

C…”Shit now I’ve left my card in the bloody car now, um it’s a Noel Cockerello.”

B…”Noel Cockerello?”

C…”Yea and he’s with Web Ross and Co.” (Another bright bunch of lawyers.)

B…”Oh yea.”

C…”So if you just ring them, their number is 483099, just ask to speak to Noel Cockerello.”


C…”Or if you can’t get him, um please ask to speak to Nicola please.”



B…”Yep, Gary have you got the phone on?”

C…”Got it on yesterday.”

B…”What’s the number?”

C…”Um, 4352547.”



B…”Has Van Der Lubbe got the phone on?”


B… “I was in the Police yesterday morning.”

C… “Were you?”

B…”Um because we’ve been getting calls for the last three weeks where um nobody answers, nobody, and it’s you know quarter past six in the morning, ten o’clock at night all over the place. You know one and one don’t make three but, um I put it on the line cause I said to the cop down their at Whangarei Police, I said you know this guys been reported um.”

C…”Well do you know the guy Thompson the bailiff that lives over behind Greg (Cathy’s husband) and….”

B…”Oh hell yes, I know them very well, yes he’s had problems. He (wasn’t Trev) had to serve a thing on him apparently about a month or so ago.” (I won that case, in the Disputes Tribunal, over faulty building materials.)

C… “Yea.”

B…”And he’s having problems with him.”

C…”Yes he’s having problems because he’s now after his wife now.”

B… “Yea well Robyn’s been harassed by him.” (Asking a cop, Baker, to tell her to stop her slanders is harassment in their eyes. You will see later.)


B…”She, she’s talked to the Police.”


B…”I think you ought to have a good talk to, um, um what’s a names next door, um oh Greg and what’s a name.”


B… “Yea because I think that since that trespass notice has been put on, I think Cathy’s seen him on your place.” (On our water easement.)

C…”Yea she told me last night I rang her up.”

B…”Oh good.”

C…”Yea she told me she’d seen him. So we’ve told the Police about this and that so.” (And did the cops do me for trespass? No they did not, the cops told Cullum I had a legal right to go onto our easement.)


C…”So it’s fun and games, so he just won’t listen to anybody, take no for an answer or nothing.”

B… “Yea.”

C…”He’s got a law of his own.”

B…”Yea. I don’t know what he’s going to do to my septic tank.

I’ve got my lawyers working on it and um I’ve got to contact them this afternoon and just see what, shit he could put an axe through it, he could actually legally do it.” (Black had to fork out for a new sewage system?)

C… “Yea.”

B…”Which really shits me off but.”

C…”Yea, did you know he’s been telling everybody round the place that um you, us, Cathy and them have been spreading slander round the neighbourhood about him?”

B…”No, who’s he been telling that to?”

C…”He told oh everybody that comes down to our place, all the Telecom guys, he’s been up there and told them all.”

B…”Is that right (And what are they doing right now?)

C…”Yea, he even told the Constable at Kamo, (Baker) we had to go in there last week about the water.”

B… “Yea.”

C…”Work something out for a week and now it’s expired, now he, the Constable rung him up today to see if he would extend it till we can get this Court case business and he said bluntly no. Now he doesn’t, won’t even allow us to have water for our cattle except for between ten o’clock at night and six in the morning.” (You’ll see what a lie that was later.)

B…”Oh god.”


B…”So he can’t even come down to the pump now, no?”

C…”No, no. So if he puts a foot on the place he’s had it.” (4)

B… Yea, does he know that?”

C…”No he doesn’t know that at all and they are not going to tell him either and that, he’s had a warrant sort of, he’s had a trespass thing issued to him.” (Bright boy is Gary.)


C…”And that which says keep off the property and that but because he doesn’t actually own the pump, we own it, he won’t believe that.” (That’s not what he said in Baker’s office.)

B…”Is that right.”

C…”He’s actually trespassing.”

B…”Who pays the power bill for the pump?”

C…”Ha ha ha ha nobody. At this stage he’s been skiting for two years that the meter has never been read.”

B…”Is that right?”

C…”Yea, so Northpower have been notified about it haven’t they.”

B…”Ha ha ha ha.”

C…”So he’s in for a nice big power bill.” ($127)

B…”Oh shit a beauty.”

C…”He will try to thump it off onto us.”


C…”I contacted Northpower last week about it.” (A serial dobber inner.)


C…”Because Cathy said to me that he had been raving on to her and Greg for a long time about it”.

B…”Ha ha ha ha.”

C…”Well we were wondering in that because if the deal goes through on his property and that we will be lumbered with this bill.”

B…”Has he still got the deal going on his property?”

C…”Yes, yep, middle of January.”

B…”Is it?”


B…”Oh my God.”

C…”But Graham hasn’t had any joy with his place yet, I was talking to him yesterday.” (Was there anyone he didn’t talk to?)

B…”Yea, so his place is still on the market. Ohhh God please, please get him to sell his house.”

C…”Yea I know that’s what I’ve been saying to Graham ho ho ho.” (Cullum scared potential buyer ‘Graham’ off with his whining. Who would want a moaning wanker like him for a neighbour?)

B…”Oh Jesus.”


B…”Ahh ha ha ha ha. OK well I will ring Mr. Noel Cockerello.”


B…”Um and arr we’ll sort it out.”


B…”Isn’t he, ohh he’s unreal.”

C…”Yea is he ever.”

B…”Is his wife just as bad as he is?”

C…”Yea is she ever.”


C…”Oh yea you should have seen the performance just last week in the Constables office in Kamo, She’s a smart mouthed little bitch.” (No drama at all except for them trying to claim ownership of our pump and then having to admit that it was ours.)

B… “Is that right?

C….I said to Jill I’d like to slop her right across the mush. (Remember I’m supposed to be the violent one! Or did Gary want to kiss her, have you seen Jill?)

B….He he he.

C….I sure would.

B….Ha ha ha.

C….We got to sit there, we all got told that it wasn’t going to be a yelling session or anything, that if one of us raised our voices, there was the door, we could get out.

B…Is that right?”

C… “Yea

B…”Who by the cop?”


B…”Where, in his office?”

C…”In the Colonial Arcade in Kamo.”

B…”Oh yea.”

C… “He’s a hell of a nice guy.” (lol)


C…”So believe me we’ve had fun and games.”


C…”So how about if you contact that guy.”

B…”Yea I’ll contact him right now. I’ll ring him right now.”

C…”And could you give us a tingle tonight and let us know what?”

B…”Oh Gary I can’t, see Douglas has got school and he’s got swimming and I might be able to take him down tomorrow, oh no, it’s got to be to who the Police or the solicitors?”

C…”No to the solicitors, the guy Cockerello wants to interview him.”

B…”Yea, yea.”

C…”And that, but I said to him, I said well he’s most likely to be at school today anyway.”

B…”Yea, yea. So well I don’t think he, well I suppose he’d like him there today?”

C…”I suppose but if he can’t, well he will have to wait till Monday.”

B…”Yea, yea. I’ll have to check with Douglas for the exact, he said to me that he saw them both doing target practice.”

C…”Yea, yea.”

B…”So you know.”

C…”Well see the thing is in that, um if he will tell him, stand up and say yea he’s seen him with the gun in his arms and fire it and that, um they can go in there and confiscate all the guns.”

B…”Oh that’s what I’d like, that’s what I said to the cop last night, I said this is just ridiculous.” (8 days earlier Black thought it was all a “big joke.”)

C…”Yea, yea, no they said the minute he says yes and the guns are gone but until then they can’t be confiscated.”

B…”They can actually confiscate guns from the house although there is somebody holding a licence in the house.”

C… “Yep.”

B…”You see she could say that they are her guns.”

C…”Yea it doesn’t matter as long as um somebody can prove that they’ve seen him holding and fire one of those guns.”


C…”They are all gone.”

B…”Ho Kay shit what a…”

C…”Yea I know.”


C…”We feel terrible having to involve anybody else in it and that, but oh struth.” (So he involves anyone red-necked or simple enough to listen to his ravings.)

B…”Oh no look I’m involved I could be having to shit, I might have to go to a night cart or something for my shit, he he he he.”

C…”Oh I’ll let you come and use ours, ha ha ha ha. I’ll even give you a key to come in and go, ha ha ha ha.”

B…”Ha ha ha ha. You mightn’t have any water to flush it, he he he he.”

C…”We’ll have bloody water all right don’t worry about that.” (My turn to laugh.)

B…”Yea shit. O.K. I’ll ring him and give you a buzz back tonight.”

C…”O.K. bye, bye.”


“What some invent the rest enlarge.” Swift.

And a few days later. You will notice that the story is developing with repetition. Chinese whisper or malicious exaggerations?

Black to his mother.

B…”We’re having fun and games with our Dutch neighbour, in fact everybody is, oh all the people, he’s gone, he’s doing some really weird things. The Police have been out a couple of times, he fired a shotgun to the other neighbour and.”

M…”No into the air pray God, what, you mean in the direction?”

B…”Well yea and actually the Telecom people were there and apparently some of the pellets hit the van. So I don’t know what happened.” (It’s amazing the shit some people talk.)

M…”Oh he will have to be dealt with won’t he?”

B…”Oh apparently the Police haven’t done anything about it, they reckon they were target shooting, well I don’t know how you target shoot with a shotgun.”

M…”That’s pretty poor because I would have though Telecom was powerful enough, you know their organization, to show the Police the pellet marks.”

B…”And he’s put the, do you remember me telling you about the problem with the easement for the septic tank here?”


B…”He dropped a note to me yesterday, a registered letter saying, ah you will attend to this immediately or I will cut it off or something. So I passed it on to the solicitor because it’s going to be a battle between the solicitors and the surveyors as to who pays cause it was their mess up.” (So-called Professionals again.)

M…”Was it? Oh Lord that’s awful him letting off his shotgun.”

B…”Oh he’s, he’s a, he’s a real nutter.”

M…”Still the Police, I can’t understand it. He must have been strange before because…”

B…”Oh he’s got a bee in his bonnet now someone’s potted him to the Social Welfare which they have, which someone…another neighbour has, I think he thinks it’s me ha ha.”

M…”Oh you mean he’s drawing something that he wasn’t entitled to?”

B…”Well he’s on a benefit, I don’t know what sort of unemployment?”

M…”Did you say he’s a Dutchman?”


M…”How old?”

B…”Oooh he’d be in his thirties, late thirties, he looks like, he looks like J C. You, you’d really put nail holes through his hands. No he really looks; you could crucify him ha ha ha ha. He’s a nutter all right, Yea.” (And a Dutchman.)

M…”And what’s his wife like is she pretty nutty? or….”

B…”Just about the same, just about the same, right under his thumb I think.”

M…”And any children?”

B…”Two boys yes they are aged about 14 and 12 I think.”

M…”Oh he must be well over thirty in that case but ah..but are they all right or are they…”

B…” But we have absolutely nothing to do with them.”

M…”No I don’t suppose you do but this firearms thing, there have been such awful things happening.”

(I didn’t listen to them anymore after that on account of me beginning to harbour murderous thoughts. Not really lol.)



04 Dick Dastardly, Constable Richard Baker

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 09/05/2008


“I have never seen a situation so dismal that a policeman couldn’t make it worse.” Bredan Behan.

As mentioned in the Rudsdale Report Form of 6/12/90 Baker did arrange and preside over a meeting between the parties at his office to sort out the water pump business. At the meeting Cullum reluctantly  conceded that the water pump and pipeline were ours but he wanted an extension to the hours he could draw water from the supply. He wanted to be able to take water between 10pm and 6am instead of 12 mid-night and 6am and for an hour between 9am and 10am. Even though Cullum had been plotting and conducting a campaign of fear and loathing against us, I, for the sake of peace and not wanting to get offside with Baker, agreed to give Cullum the extension he sought for the requested period of one week. Cullum said he needed the extension so that he could water his chooks and gardens. That’s what he said but it was another lie.

When the extension ran out a week later Baker phoned me to see if I would grant another extension until the end of January 1991 when the lawyers got back from their holidays. Baker said they needed the extension to water their gardens and stock.

Remember, they were trying to use lawyers to usurp the ownership of our pump and pipeline to deny us our sole water supply even though Cullum had already conceded that we owned it.

During the week of the temporary extension I kept a note of when and for what purpose Cullum took water from our pump between 9am and 10am.

I told Baker that every morning of that week between 9am and 10am they ran the water into their 5000-gallon tank. Only once did they water their gardens and chooks and that was for a total of 15 minutes. And every night at exactly 10pm the supply to our house would stop only to come on again at about 11pm. I doubt that they were watering their gardens or chooks in the dark. We could tell what was going on by the noisy bubbles that occurred when our water came back on. In other words they wanted the extension solely to deny us water as they already had six hours each night to fill their tank. They couldn’t add water to their tank anymore than the two hours daily because it was already 90% full; My son Danial checked it.

I told Baker all that and that Cullum had broken the spirit of the agreement and that I wasn’t going to give them any more extensions. This was Bakers reply. (All on tape.)

“Either you do it like that (give the extra extension) or they’ll run the tank (he meant the water) whenever they want to. If you’re not going to be co-operative and let them have that temporary extension they will use the water whenever they want.’ (Cullum was legally entitled to the water to fill his tank for six hours every night @ 300 gallons per hour) ‘They are asking for an extension to that temporary agreement because of weather conditions, the fact that they have stock and they do not want to cause problems. If you say OK you can only use it between 10 and 6 they are going to use the water outside of that time.’ (He should have said between 12 and 6.)

Baker hadn’t listened to a word I’d said and continued to try to bully me into doing what he and Cullum wanted. He went on. ‘You’ve got to look at this logically. I’m trying to avoid what could possible be a serious incident in which the Police will become involved, people will be arrested.  OK I’ll go back to the Cullums’ and I’ll say that the agreement stands that you use the water between 10 till 6, if you use the water between that time go for it.’ (The agreement was for between 12 mid-night and 6am.) Clearly an idiot.

I told him he had no authority to give them permission to take water outside the time agreed to. Baker replied, ‘I have to look at the possibility of stock dying, as an inspector (And here’s me thinking he was only a Senior Constable) I’m entitled to in that respect if I see that stock are being ill treated. I told Baker he had been misled by the Cullums because their stock water trough was on our pipeline so their stock would have water while we did. Not to mention the creek which ran through the bottom of Cullum’s cow paddock. Again Baker ignored what I told him and he barged on saying, ‘What I’m trying to get through to you Mr. Van Der Lubbe is that as far as I see it you’re being totally uncooperative. I’m trying to avoid a possible or a potential incident involving you and the Cullums.’ I said, ‘Fair enough, you tell them to behave and everything will be OK. I have no intention of creating an incident.’ Baker replied, ‘OK I’ll tell them the water goes back to 10 till 6 (he got it wrong again) and if they use the water outside those hours that’s their problem. But if you cut the water off in any situation OK, you will be provoking an incident because the Cullums will be extremely annoyed. They will come over to you, there will be problems and the Police will be called.’

You will have deduced that if Cullum cut off our water the rules might be different. So much for Baker’s Police oath to act without fear or favour.

Us, with no header or water tank and no alternative supply, had no right to get “extremely annoyed” and come over to them and cause problems. Baker then hung up and I said to myself, that guy is a bloody maniac.

In the end Cullum refused to pay his half the power bill and maintenance as agreed, his reason, ‘Huh, my stock get their water from the creek so why should I pay.’ What do you do with people like that? It’s illegal to beat sense into them so I cut them off our water supply altogether. They had to get their own pump and pipe line to top up their water tank and fill their one stock trough which I disconnected from our pipeline. Talk about shitting in your own nest.



05 Intimidation, Constable Richard Baker

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 27/10/2007


Prior to the Cullums’ moving into the area my boys built themselves a couple of huts using the volcanic rocks that litter the ground at Three Mile Bush. Then they played games with their walkie-talkies and binoculars. They continued to do that after the Cullums arrived on the scene. Any person who is without malice and or not nutty would take it for what it was, kids playing. Not the Cullums though, they were seen taking photos of the kids at their huts and then they called Richard (Half-baked) Baker who once again charged into the fray. Read on and see how that maniac spends your tax dollars. He informed me that a complaint of intimidation had been made against me.

Wanganui Computer printout:

computer printout

2letter from baker


my letter to baker


 report form

What a total plonker!



06 Gates don’t walk do they? Constable Richard Baker. Again!

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 01/02/2007



 06 “Gates don’t walk do they?”

A few weeks after Baker gave up on his cherished intimidation madness I hung a couple of gates along Cullum’s Right of Way drive to keep stray stock off our place. That done we went away to the beach for a couple of days in our old converted bus. On our return I noticed that one of the new gates was missing. I wandered over to the Cullum estate and spotted the gate leaning against the back of one of their sheds. The Cullums were not at home so, bearing in mind the trespass notice, I sent my boys down to retrieve the gate. I had an idea why Cullum had taken the gate from our place and put it behind his shed so I played along with his silly little game to see what would happen.

A couple of hours later the Cullums arrived home and about ten minutes after that our phone rang. It was Baker and this was how the conversation went.


Baker…’Mr. Van Der Lubbe?’


B…’Richard Baker, how are you?’

J…’Not bad.’

B…’Um, some gates, I understand the Cullums have changed some gates over and the smaller gate’s gone missing.’

J…’Is that right?’

B…’Gates don’t normally walk do they?’

J…’You’re telling the story.’

B…’Well do they? You own the gates don’t you?’

J….’You tell me.”’ (I was testing to see if the Cullums had claimed that I had stolen one of their gates.)

B…’Do you own the gates Mr. Van Der Lubbe?’

J….’Which gates are you talking about?’

B…’The ones at, er Cullum’s driveway.’

J….’What do they say?’

B…’I’m asking you a question Mr. Van Der Lubbe?’

J….’Do they say that I own them?’


J….’Good, I’ve got them.’

B…’You’ve got the little gate?’


B…’How did you get the little gate?’

(There was a five second pause by me at this point because I could not believe that Baker would be so stupid as to fall for Cullum’s latest little scheme to get me into trouble with the law. Maybe it was Baker’s idea.)

J….’I’m beginning to doubt your sanity Mr. Baker.’

B…’No, because there’s a trespass on….’

I cut him off and said, ‘Yea, I’m honestly beginning to doubt your sanity Mr. Baker.’

B…’It’s not my sanity that’s in doubt Mr. Van Der Lubbe.’

J….’No honestly…You have been backing them to the hilt for so long, they are losers, I cannot understand why you back them.’

B…’I’m not backing anyone.’

J….;You are.’

B…’You have breached the trespass notice.’

J….’You are making a fool of yourself Mr. Baker, again and again you make a fool of yourself, why do you keep doing it?’

B…’I’m paid to do that.’

J….’You’re paid to be a fool are you?’

B…’Yea, I really am,..a fool in the making.’

J… ‘You’re a complete bloody fool that’s all there is to it.’

B…’I really appreciate it Mr. Van Der Lubbe, my wife tells me that every day.’

J….’Yea she’s dead right, you must be a complete fool.’

B…’You went on the property to pick up the little gate did you?’

J….’You tell me Mr. Baker.’

B…’Well they don’t walk Mr. Van Der Lubbe.’

J….’You tell me if I was trespassing. What happened to this intimidation thing?’ (I was referring to his rock huts madness.)

B…’What intimidation thing Mr. Van Der Lubbe?’

J….’Aye, that you were trying to screw me with.’

B…’I’m not trying to screw you with anything.’

J….’Yes you were.’

B…’Put it this way Mr. Van Der Lubbe, you went on their property to pick up the gate, you’re breaching the trespass notice for which we’ll have to prosecute.’ (At this point I should have laid a complaint of theft of a ‘little gate’ against Cullum but I didn’t think of it. I wonder how Baker would have reacted to that.)

J…’Go for you life Mr. Baker, make another big fool of yourself, just like the intimidation thing, you’re a fool and that’s all there is to it.’

B…’I appreciate your comments…’

J….’You’re a bigger fool than the Cullums are….’

B…’I know.’

J….’Yea, they are losers and you’re a loser.’

B…’I’ve known that for years Mr. Van Der Lubbe.’

J….’Yea good man it’s time you learnt your lesson.’

B…’Bye, bye.’

I heard nothing more about the ‘little gate’ matter and eventually Baker lost interest in running to Cullum’s beck and call and trying to screw me. He continued to wave and smile at us, just like the Cullums, when he saw us in Kamo but he stopped that after I laid a complaint against him with the Police Complaints Authority, but he still couldn’t resist one last display of smart bastardry, he sent us a Christmas card.

After that Baker had his off-sider Arundal-Fag deal with the Cullum complaints, yes they kept coming, but this new cop didn’t take sides as Baker had done and he wasn’t an imbecile.

He listened, looked at the evidence without bias and eventually the Cullums gave up their mad campaign when they realised that this new cop wasn’t going to make a fool of himself as Baker had done.

The Cullums took me to the Disputes Tribunal over the boundary fence, water pump and other imaginations but they came unstuck when I proved that Cullum’s de-facto Jill Hayward committed perjury 21 seconds after she swore on the Bible that she would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It was all down hill for them after that.

She even got the sack from her job at the local movie theatre after her boss got into deep doodoo by threatening me with violence over the telephone. She had sucked him in with her malicious lies too. He accused me of all sorts of vile things so I told him that at least I didn’t fuck little boys and hung up. It wasn’t long before he phoned back bowing and scraping saying he was very sorry for what he had said and pleaded with me not to take the matter of his threats any further. I later discovered that this middle aged dope lived at home with his mother. Maybe I hit the nail on the head with my random kidfucker insult.

The cops later told me that a lie told while under oath in Court is only perjury if it affects the outcome of the trial/case, which was total bollocks of course. Be a different story if it was me that had been caught out committing perjury.

As I said earlier, I laid a complaint against Baker with the PCA and this was Baker’s answer to it.



Spot the lies?



I need to comment on the paragraph marked 1. Black’s lawyer repeated to the Court a lot of the slanders contained in the telephone transcripts (plus a few new ones) and the Whangarei Judge (Beattie) lapped it up. He thought up a technicality and declared Black a good bloke. Criminals get off every day the cops tell us.

Then paragraph marked 2 reveals why Baker acted the way he did towards us. The Police files compiled by Irvine and Co. must state that I am an unstable person who could resort to violence if provoked. So what does Baker do? He allows and encourages Cullum, Black and the rest of the half-wit rednecks to do their utmost to provoke me into violence and thereby prove the Police files correct and gain him a scalp.

I proved by my actions that I don’t resort to violence even when sorely provoked and an unstable person would not have put up with the shit I put up with for so long. I proved by my actions that Irvine’s files about me are counterfeit.

Paragraphs marked 3 and 4 are concerning a letter Baker wrote for Cullum to mislead the Disputes Tribunal. It repeated a lot of the defamations I heard over the radio. I didn’t think to ask for a copy of it then, I was, as usual, a bit slow in the wits department. I later asked Cullum for it but he said no so I asked Baker to rewrite it from memory but he refused. Notice the “concoct” slant he put on it in his fraud of a statement. Baker commits the crime and then shifts the blame onto me.

Then comes a letter in Baker’s defence from his boss.




You will have noticed that the overseer of Baker’s madness gave him a totally positive report and he couldn’t resist giving the knife that Baker stuck into me a twist by saying that it would be dangerous to speak to me further. This is the sort of malicious crap that the Police dish up to and is so keenly believed by their lapdog the Police Complaints Authority. Of course he found in Baker’s favour and my Police file now contained a heap more demonstrably false assertions, which set the scene for, what was shortly to come.

I’ve never heard a positive word about the PCA. When the establishment of a PCA was first mooted the then Police Association boss Harding said, ‘A PCA would not be conducive to good policing.’ Now the Police sing its praises and are quick and very keen to refer any complainant against the police to it. After a few years of PCA operation a lot of people were complaining of its bias in favour of the Police so in reply the then Commissioner of Police John Jamison said, The people wanted a PCA now they have to live with it. What does that tell you? Jamison was happy with the state of affairs and the ‘people’ would have to lump it. The PCA is a sop to a gullible public and it should be abolished.



Complaints procedures have zero credibility

The matter at issue in this case had previously been the subject of investigations by the Police Complaints Authority and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Both incorrectly found nothing improper in the Police search of my house.

Only one of the eight police officers who gave evidence in the hearing of this case confirmed that he had been interviewed during the PCA investigation. And this was the officer (Detective Boyd) whose evidence in the hearing led the judge to conclude, in effect, that the search was unjustifiable political harassment.

The PCA concluded that it was not unreasonable for the police to suspect me of involvement in the hoax bomb because in an interview with Inspector Rob Pope I “confirmed a loose association with (Gatt Watchdog), empathised with its principles and engaged in some activities including speaking to meetings and taking part in a demonstration conducted on the week of the APEC summit”.

In coming to the conclusion it did, the PCA itself seems to approve of the kind of political harassment that Justice Young considered the worst aspect of this case.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was asked only about the actions of the SIS and not the Police, but he nevertheless volunteered the view that “it was not unreasonable for the Police to include Dr Small in the application for search warrant”.

Both these “investigations” were based on questionable assumptions and flawed processes and, not surprisingly, therefore, reached wrong conclusions.

As a result of my experience, I have no confidence at all in either of these complaints procedures.

“It was only through taking a private prosecution that I was able to discover that most of the police involved in my case had not even been spoken to in the course of the PCA investigation.” – Dr. David Small.


Comments Off on 06 Gates don’t walk do they? Constable Richard Baker. Again!

07 “I’ve got you now, you’ve made a fatal mistake” (1992) Constable Cullum McGillivray. Sergeant Gary Patterson, et al.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 26/01/2007


07 “I’ve got you now, you’ve made a fatal mistake”

Perverting the course of justice #3

In late 1991 Donald Britton (a long time “acquaintance”) contracted to sell his farm property at Makirikiri Valley, Wanganui to my wife Sandra. Then he changed his mind about selling and tried to get out of the deal by intimidation.

On January 7 1992 Donald Britton said these things to me outside my fathers place in Wanganui. All on tape.

Britton “Jack, at the moment I’m in a fairly stable frame of mind, not every third day I’m not, every third day I’m fucken”….

Jack “That’s not my problem.”

B “Nothing’s your problem at the moment, until this goes ahead, until it actually takes place. If this sale goes ahead, then it will be your problem.”

J” Why?”

B” Oof, fucken hell, fucken, it just will be. I fucken, listen I know, I fucken know, I don’t fucken sleep at night, I know right?

J” What, you’re going to get violent?”

B” Oh fucken hell man, I don’t know myself. The money doesn’t mean anything to me so I’ll spend it real easy and real quick, this money doesn’t mean anything to me. (He’s hinting that he’ll hire a hitman?) From here on I honestly do not know…what I’m like because I fucken spend a lot of fucken sleepless nights and all sorts of fucken shit, right. If anyone dies you’ll go to hell. If you take my land off me you’ll die on the place, you and your family will die on the place. You’ll not survive January.” (Remember his avarice is exceeded by nothing, not even his sexual perversions.)

The police, Constable Cullum McGillivray and Senior Sergeant Neville Haggart, refused our request to remove Britton’s firearms from him at this time saying that we were probably trying to use them to further our civil claims against Britton. (Our Specific Performance proceedings.)

This is page 2 of a statement made by Britton’s then “girl” friend Carole Smith. Note the underlined.

carole smith

Then On March 19, after he again changed his mind about selling up and just minutes before he signed the Transfer Document at his lawyer’s office, he said this to me.  (again all on tape) “I’ve come that fucken close to fucken suicide about five times over the last couple of months and about that fucken close to murder. It can’t be good for me. I can’t get past that state when I’m in that state. Look I laugh sometimes and the next minute I’m crying so I’m not sure.” (Guess who he wanted me to think would be the murder victim.)

Then during the period March 19 to May 19 (after the sale went through.) Britton said these things to me at the Makirikiri farm.

“You know I poured Roundup on the roof, only to kill the moss though. Ha, Ha, Ha.”

“See that tree there it’s shaking, that’s a bad omen.”

“You know this house is built on a fault line.”

“I caught two poachers on my land one day and I made them beg for their lives. I had my gun and a shovel with me. I made one of them start to dig a grave and then I told them to fuck off. I had Mike O’Keefe with me.”

“I punched Hugh Speed in the face on the boundary fence one day. Mike O’Keefe was with him and he told me later that he thought I’d lost it.”

“I fired a shot near a bloke on James’ one day. He told Alan James that he was going to tell the cops about it but Alan James advised him not to because I would get him back.”

“I’d like to be shot in the thigh with a high-powered rifle just to see what it feels like.”

“I’ve been very lenient with you.”

“I’m a fucken schizophrenic are you worried?”

“When Maryanne left me I nearly shot myself, fuck it was a close thing.”

“Tom’s my puppet, he’ll do anything for me.”

“Nighttime’s my prerogative, that’s when I do things.”

“Remember those two deer that you shot near Wrights bridge?” I only pretended that I couldn’t find them and picked them up later by myself.”  So this Britton character admitted he was a lying, thieving, greedy shit right from day one. It’s a pity I didn’t tell his Mrs. what a scumbag he was well before I actually did. 

“You pissed a lot of people off up North.” (Proof that he had been conspiring with Police. (Haggart, McGillivray et al)

Had the perverted wanker offered to reimburse me my deposit and other money (15k) instead of resorting to intimidation and threats things may have taken a different course. As things turned out every one of his cunning plans failed and he lost all of his “gear” and blew thousands on useless lawyers trying to “get me back”. WANKER!


After burning his final bridges on the evening of 18 5 92 the long-predicted attack happened.

19 May 1992

“Yeehaa, I’ve got you now, I’ve got you now, you’ve made a fatal mistake.”

Those words were gleefully shouted at me when Britton discovered the bullet holes in his vehicle.



Senior Sergeant Nigel McRae got the sequence of the shots back to front and the ‘dispute’ was not about property.

Had McGillivray and Haggart removed Britton’s firearms from him as we had requested earlier the above shooting would not have occurred. They were just as culpable as Britton for what happened.

I fired at the vehicle because of Britton’s threats of the evening before and the fact that he carried a firearm in his vehicle whenever he came to our property.

And what did the cops charge Britton with? Trespass! It should have been Disorderly behaviour likely to lead to violence, threatening to kill, being unlawfully in an enclosed yard and making a false statement to Police, (he admitted in Court that he’d lied to Police about certain aspects of the shooting) but no, they charged him with the bare minimum and then advised him how to get off the charge by telling the judge that he had to do it because it was an “emergency”.

As he left the scene Britton did a handstand and walked on his hands a short distance. He was ecstatic with the outcome of his “cunning plan” to get me into trouble with the law. 

*   *   *   *   *

08 Shots Fired, Sergeant Chris Roe.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 12/12/2006


08 Shots Fired

Perverting the course of justice #4

Then for the next 3 to 4 years the Police turned a blind eye to a continuous campaign of provocation, assaults, firearms offences, intimidation, vandalism and theft by Britton, his son Mathew Britton, Angus Mars, Hayden Irvine, and a few other young manipulated shitheads who had nothing better to do.

The below incident led to the unmasking of THREE more Police liars, first there was this Chris Roe joker,


And then came Roe’s final word on the matter.


23 September

Officer in Charge (Gary Patterson)
Wanganui East Community Policing Centre

“As per our discussions, I have attached the correspondence relating to the latest allegation made against BRITTON by Jack” (Not me! Sandra) “VAN DER LUBBE.”

“In brief, on September 19 at about 1540 hours VAN DER LUBBE” ( Sandra) “contacted the Bell Street Police Station on 111 to inform us that DONALD BRITTON had fired shots from a rifle towards his” (her) “house.”

“I went and obtained a written statement in my notebook from VAN DER LUBBE at his address and this is reported on a job sheet.”

(Roe did not interview all the witnesses as is required in bona fide investigations and he in fact he only bothered to interview 2 out of the 6 witnesses to the incident. Britton and myself and he buggered off back to town without disarming Britton which allowed him to fire a couple more shots over our house.)

“Later that day, at 1922 hours, I spoke with DONALD BRITTON, who acknowledged he had been up the valley shooting that day, but denied aiming any shots in the direction of VAN DER LUBBE.”

“There was no corroboration of VAN DER LUBBE’S allegations, other than the other members of his family agreeing with everything he said.” (That was an outright lie and the tape I made of the interview proves it.)

“On 22.09 I was contacted by Sandra VAN DER LUBBE and advised her that because of this lack of corroboration and the existing domestic problems between them, no further action would be taken on this complaint as Police had insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution in open court.” (Compare that with what Judge Willy said about the veracity of my family in 16 PRIVATE PROSECUTION.)

“She was quite happy to accept this and began to give me a long list of previous wrongdoings alleged to have been committed by BRITTON.” (Do you see the contradiction in that statement?)

“I forward this for your information as there is if necessary grounds which may assist in revoking the firearms licence of BRITTON should this become necessary to ensure the safety of the parties involved.” (What grounds? He’s just finished saying that there was insufficient evidence to do anything.)

Sergeant C647


This case classic example of the corrupt way the Police were treating us at that time.
Roe had 4 credible victims/witnesses but he still brushed it under the carpet with provable lies.

And he didn’t interview Matthew Britton even though he was an accomplice to the crimes (it was his rifle) and he didn’t recommend the firearms license revocation for fear of jeopardizing the pending Police case against me.


Then later, on the evening of the shooting,


Then the dirty bastards tried to do me for making a false statement to Police (verbal) and misuse of a telephone.

First they withdrew a “unlawful possession of a firearm” charge that they said had been mistakenly laid. ‘Mistakenly’ my arse, they added that already failed charge  just to make me look bad in the eyes of the judge.

Then the trial proper got underway and the first liar to take the stand was the above silly bugger Constable Philip Randal. He gave sworn evidence repeating that all my calls that evening were abusive. He didn’t know that I had recorded them all and NONE were the slightest bit abusive. Proven perjury! He went a bit pale when I told him that I had recorded all of my calls.

Then Britton took the stand and he ended up dobbing in his mate Haggart as the balaclava wearing fool of 10/10/92. See 09 Agent Provocateur

I represented myself in Court that day after my then lawyer Peter Brosnahan reckoned I may as well plead guilty as they had me banged to rights but I proved him wrong and pissed the cops off  no end into the bargain.

Then later this failed prosecution was written up as a conviction by the cops and used as an excuse to dismiss all further complaints by us against Britton as a probable lie.  See 30 The Mansell Memo That’s why I always tell the truth, once they catch you out in a lie you’re fucked. Mind you they never caught me out but I was still fucked.


Criminal harassment

2.10 Clause 8 creates a new offence of criminal harassment, which is punishable by 2 year’s imprisonment. A person is guilty of criminal harassment if that person harasses another person and either:

intends to cause the other person to fear for his or her safety, or the safety of another person with whom he or she has a family relationship; or
knows that the harassment is likely to cause that other person reasonably to so fear.

2.11 I support the enactment of clause 8. I believe it provides an appropriate new offence to combat harassment. It criminalises the worst type of harassment where individuals are caused to fear for their safety.

2.12 I realise that some overseas “stalking” offences of this type have not been entirely effective because it can be quite difficult to prove that a person intended a pattern of behaviour to cause another person to fear for their safety or their family’s safety. There may be calls to broaden the scope of the offence or to remove the mens rea element. However, I think the alternate limb of the offence should meet that concern, since in cases where an intent to cause harm cannot be shown, it may be able to be shown that the harasser nonetheless knew that the actions were likely to cause the victim to so fear.

2.13 I think that we should be cautious about extending the bounds of criminality further as there may be unforeseen effects and the law may be invoked in circumstances which are not anticipated. For instance if the element of intent was removed there may be a risk of the law being used in the area of political or industrial protest. Harassment which is not reached by the criminal offence should be able to be covered in appropriate circumstances using the civil remedy which does not require an intent to cause fear to be proved.

2.14 Nonetheless, I would be disappointed if the criminal offence turned out to be impossible to effectively prosecute. That would be of little use to victims of harassment. I do not believe that this is the case with this provision but I suggest that its effectiveness ought to be reviewed after several years in operation.


09 AGENT PROVOCATEUR, Senior Sergeant Neville Haggart.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 25/11/2006



Perverting the course of justice. #5

“I’m well aware of the capabilities some of those porky bastards have got.” Former cop Frank Miessen

A few days prior to 10/10/92 the wife Sandra and I both made long statements to Senior Sergeant Neville Haggart about how Donald Britton was terrorizing our family; we wanted the Police to put a stop to his criminal campaign and revoke his firearms licence . So what does this Haggart genius do about it?



10/10/92  Senior Sergeant Neville Haggart, wearing a balaclava, with Britton about a 100 meters from our house. And he did that when he knew my wife and kids were at home, but he didn’t care if anyone was frightened by his criminal behaviour.



Here he is again compounding matters with a tough guy stance. Britton is playing for time, “checking” his radiator water, in the hope that, given time, I would react to Haggart’s provocations.

Then on 14/10/92 I went to see Haggart at his request  (he wanted “a few lines” off me) to make a statement about what happened on 10/10/92. For over an hour he tried to catch me out in a lie, asking me leading questions about what went on that day. Remember, I didn’t know it was him in the balaclava at that stage. During the interview this was said. (All on tape.)

Jack…Have you identified the joker? (The fool wearing the balaclava, I’d shown him the photos.)

Haggart….No.  (Straight away a lie.)

Jack….Isn’t it a crime to wear a mask?


(To frighten or provoke people it is!)




Haggart….Could he be a farmer or anything like that?


Haggart….If I call Britton in and we ascertain who this guy was, I don’t know how truthful Britton is likely to be?

Haggart is wondering how truthful Britton is likely to be! At the end of the interview I asked Haggart if he thought I was “bullshitter”. He said, “No”.

When I later (21/12/92) found out just how big a dirty liar (bullshitter) Haggart really was I complained to his bosses in Wellington and this is what I got back.



Note 5. how Mansell dodged the core of my complaint.

In the end Haggart made a statement about his criminal antics of 10/10/92 and this is how the last page went.

(End of page 5) As having investigated this file in respect of Van Der Lubbe’s allegation that ;



So here we have Haggart, the filthy liar, making a false statement (written) to Police and in it he has the gall to accuse me of being untrustworthy twice and that after he admitted to me that he didn’t think I was a bullshitter. He was right about being taped. He admitted to Sandra that our statements to him were “accurate, very accurate”. This duplicitous bastard’s evidence is used by prosecutors to put people in prison. Now there’s a scary thought.

Only liars fear the tape recorder.

Haggart has stated elsewhere that the reason he did what he did on 10/10/92 was, “To test my reaction.” A clear case of provocation.

That little episode taught me to never, ever trust another cop.


NOTE THE STANCE!____________________________________________________



10 Half Baked Rambo, Senior Sergeant Neville Haggart, Sergeant Bob Burns, Sergeant Paul Donnellan.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 03/11/2006



Perverting the course of justice. #6


Wanganui AOS
District Commander Inspector MANSELL
Britton was located at Mike O’Keefe’s house. Donnellan did not look for the rifle (O’Keefe’s) or the balaclava at the address.
Donnellan dismissed my family’s allegations preferring Britton’s utterly ludicrous version of events in which he claimed that I had fired a pistol shot at him earlier that day and that that was why he returned with his camera to try and take photos of some of his property that still remained on our farm. Donnellan did not ask Britton to produce the camera he claimed to have in his possession that evening. Again Britton was allowed to get away with his crime and a family of four witnesses/victims were callously dismissed as liars by police who were loathed to upset their malicious prosecution of me by charging their star witness with a violence or threatening offence.

11 Depositions, Constable Cullum McGillivray, Sergeant Gary Patterson, Senior Sergeant Neville Haggart et al.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 08/10/2006




“Most of us live in the belief that our Police are honest, trustworthy, well we have to, without that confidence our very sense of security is threatened.” – Cameron Bennett, Reporter.

“The Integrity of the Police is priceless.” – Rob Robertson, Police Commissioner.

Contrary to what police so often imply, self-defence is certainly legal. Section 48 of the NZ Crimes Act states that “Everyone is justified, in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use”.
This is exactly the same law used by police to justify them having the right to carry and use firearms for their own protection yet there is nothing in the Act which gives police special rights over and above those of the citizen. Clearly EVERYONE, no matter what their job, no matter who they are, has the same right to self-defence under New Zealand law as the police have. What is missing of course is the level playing field, the ability to use equal means. This, however, is purely due to how police policy currently interprets the law to disadvantage the law-abiding citizen. What seems to have been forgotten is that internal police policies do not have any real legal status, so the use of policy to justify restricting a legal right is almost certainly illegal. Be that as it may, it is high time police throughout New Zealand were reminded that they do not yet have any special right to better self-defence than the people they are sworn to serve and that, no matter what their personal feelings on the matter, our common law right of self-defence is precisely that – a legally enforceable right.

Donald Peter Britton (Sworn)

That is my full name. I reside locally and am currently unemployed; I am in transition. Earlier this year I owned a property at Makirikiri Valley and sold that property to Jack Van Der Lubbe, or Sandra Van Der Lubbe, but Jack came up I’m not sure when it was, March maybe. When I sold the farm there was everything I owned there virtually, such as sheep, horses, shed, posts, timber, stove, everything on the farm virtually and deer.
On the evening of 18 May of this year I went to the property the night before the incident to get some posts, rammer, wire strainers and fencing gear. Whilst I was there I spoke to Jack for quite a while. In relation to me retrieving the property nothing was said, a few things came into it at that time. I said I bought a place down the road, that is what I wanted the property for and Jack gave me the third degree of what I bought etc.
The following morning 19 May I was in the shed at my home address and Mrs. Van Der Lubbe came round. I was laying in bed and I sleep with the door open and she walked straight in and threw a piece of paper onto the workbench which is above my head and said this is a trespass notice and started to insult me and provoke me for some strange reason and said you are lazy and all sorts of things. I took her word for what she was saying and tried to argue my case such as what are you on about, I told Jack the night before I would be up in the morning to get my gear. As a result of her coming to my place it took me probably a good minute or so before I could get out of bed because I didn’t have any pants on, only a nightshirt. I jumped out of bed as she was walking down the drive yelling. I was trying to explain to her that I told Jack that I would be up in the morning to retrieve my gear for the property down the road. From there she just kept hurling abuse and trying to provoke me and I felt flustered and picked up a piece of steel on the back of the ute and said piss off and there was a lady asleep in the house next door and a mother and child and she left finally.
After she left I went back and got changed. I subsequently went out to the property and got a friend to give me a lift with the longdrop. I needed a lift with some of the heavy stuff. I went out to the property. I went in my Subaru. When I got there, I looked up at the house, I lived there for six years and looked up and there was no one home, there didn’t appear to be anybody there and I didn’t notice the gate was locked. I looked at it and studied it and saw a chain around it and a big padlock and meantime Tom was just sitting in the car and I looked around to see how I could get into the gate and beside the gate was a six by one, about eight feet long. I put it under the gate and started to try and lift the gate off the hinges and looked up at the house and saw there was no life there and the board broke. I then looked over the fence and there was an eight by two. I climbed over the gate on the hinges side and got the eight by two. I climbed back over the fence and started to try and lift the gate off the hinges. I knew what the gate was like because I hung the gate for him as a favour about 3 weeks before. While I was trying to ease the gate off a yellow Mazda ute went past with a man about fifty years old in it. I was crouched down and looked around and he just carried on and my ute was opposite but enough room there for him to go past. I looked up at the house again to see whether anybody was there and to check another vehicle going past and there was still nothing. I eventually got the gate to come off the hinges. I opened the gate still padlocked onto the other post at the other end. I walked back over to the ute, looked around to see if there was any deer close by the gate which wouldn’t come out during the day. I looked at the house again, still no life and just started to drive up towards the house which was where all my gear was stashed.
As I approached the second bend there was a bang. It sounded as though someone banged on top of the roof – dooomb. I looked up and saw Jack about ten feet from the end of the post where there was rails and a post. Tom said, “fuck he is shooting at us.” I said, “don’t worry about it,” because I thought he must have come from somewhere and fired a shot to be funny or scare me or something. I didn’t feel scared or anything at that stage because Jack had done something similar like that once before, but the window was down on my ute. It all happened as I was coming into the bend and I navigated the track again thinking he was just clowning around and he fired another shot, bang again and I felt a jar under my feet. I thought the bullet had gone down under the car and it was a vibration on the ground. At the same time the car stopped. I thought it had just stalled. I stuck my head out the window and I said I’m just coming to get my gear, why don’t you shoot me in the head, because I still thought he was clowning around. I wound the car over and it wouldn’t go. So I hopped out and Jack then…when I hopped out I looked up and saw Jack move over to the post and then take aim, like more accurately but by then I was out of the ute and had turned my back on him. He was yelling I’ll kill you and all sorts of verbal things, seemed pretty hyped up. I looked under the bonnet and couldn’t see why the thing had stopped, must have jarred something or whatever. Then Tom got out and came around the front of the ute to see what the story was and sat there for a minute and came out. While I was trying to find out why the ute wouldn’t go Tom spotted the bullet hole in the front of the ute, the second bullet hole. He said I think he is going to kill us. I then had a funny feeling on the back of my neck and back, strange sort of feeling. I then thought that Jack probably would shoot me in the back of the head or neck when I told him to because I thought he was clowning around. A lot of thoughts raced through my mind at this stage. I had seen Jack before shoot at things, deer for instance when he has been exited and clean missed them. Then I turned around and pointed at him because I knew I was safer facing the guy and said, you idiot you have shot my ute. The ute wouldn’t go at this stage. He yelled something at Tom and I just got back in the ute thinking darn it I can’t get my gear and Tom got back in the ute and I let it run back down through the gate and stuck the gate on the hinges. I never saw Jack again after that; he disappeared again. I started to walk up the road and thought I’d better do something and Allan James stopped and picked me up, the ute couldn’t go anywhere it was shot up.
When I left my address that morning first I had a .22 behind the seat, when I went round to pick Tom up I thought I’d better throw my rifle out of the car because when I go to get the gear if Jack is at home and seriously clowning around, he might conjure up something so I took it out of the ute.
You have to remember the night before when I said I would be up in the morning to pick up my gear; it was like a bolt from the blue. Jack is in Court today seated next to Mr. Brosnahan. Mr. Van Der Lubbe had a .243 calibre rifle. When he fired the shots he would have been maybe 30 or 50 yards away from me, it is hard to say. As I started to approach and he shot the first bullet hole. I didn’t retrieve any property on this day as I had no vehicle and as a result of my going there I have been charged myself with trespass.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Your contract for the sale of your farm to Mrs. Van Der Lubbe was entered into by you on Oct of last year?… Could have been I don’t know. And you signed that contract at a time when you thought you were buying another business or property?…No that’s wrong. Sometime after you signed the agreement and shortly before it was due to settle in December you indicated you were refusing to settle and wouldn’t move out of the farm, is that right?…I didn’t particularly want to sell the place to start with. (So he listed it for sale with Elders Real Estate.)
Shortly before you were due to settle, be paid for and hand over possession of the farm property you made it plain that you didn’t want to and wanted to get out of the contract, is that right?…I had spoke to Jack. I am not a person for date’s right, but I spoke to Jack, I wouldn’t know exactly how long after, when I had my head cleared. What was wrong with your head before?…My head, I was depressed. You were depressed. Why were you depressed?…Why was I depressed, I don’t know you tell me. I get depressed now and again. Weren’t you facing some other charges, threatening behaviour that sort of thing?…No just depressed in general, probably mid-life crisis.





(Is that perjury or what?)
And do you behave a bit strangely when you are depressed?…No not necessarily strangely. You do things you regret and things you don’t really want to do, is that what you are saying?…Well I’ll tell you something, are you referring to signing my property over? Tell me what you are referring to. You said when your head cleared, I’ve asked you what you meant and you said you were depressed and I am asking you what impact you’re saying it had on you?…The affect was that in reality, right, I had done something stupid by referring to Jack. By referring to Jack?…By offering Jack my property when he had been asking me on and off for years to sell it right, land is like a love affair.
(I said just once to him, “If you ever want to sell it let me know.”)
So you regretted having offered Jack your property, is that what you are saying. Because it was something stupid, is that what you’re saying?…I actually didn’t want to befriend the guy right, but I had told him prior to his coming up the morning before, forget it now I’ve changed my mind. Are you saying that happened before you signed the contract?…That’s correct. I see. But you did sign the contract?…I did sign the contract because he said, strike while the irons hot and the thing is he actually brought his father and a typewriter and an agreement. And you signed the contract?…I signed it. Right. Now that we’ve established that with great difficulty. Before you were due to be paid and move out of the property, did you say you had changed your mind and didn’t want to sell?…Yes I said that. In fact did you refuse to move out and refuse to sell?…I tried to talk to Jack actually about it. Did you refuse to sell and refuse to move out?…Yes. And you were very bitter and angry over the fact that the Van Der Lubbes, or Mrs. in particular, would not release you from the contract weren’t you?…I felt befriended. You felt befriended?…Yea. What does that mean, does that mean that they were being friendly to you or you felt you had no friends?…I had been befriended right. I don’t know what befriended means in that context?…Prior to me talking to Jack about this I had rung him and said I might come and see you, I need a holiday. So did you feel angry and upset you weren’t being released from the contract?…I’ll tell you what happened. I rung Jack and said, look I’ve have made a mistake right, I wasn’t thinking straight and he said yea you signed it, you signed it. He said, will you pay me $20,000 and I said anything you like. What do you want me to say? Right, so were you upset that you weren’t being released from the contract?…Um no, I accepted after a while. That was after Court proceedings were issued and you had been served and it was coming up for Court action for an order to force you to sell that was where it had reached hadn’t it?…Put it this way, I thought I’d better do something because he started going round to the house that I stayed in the shed at the time of this incident, the lady’s got a child and he was stopping her on the walkway on the way home and asking all sorts of questions about me. Started going to another property of mine and talking to the woman in the house but would not talk to me. So were you upset that you weren’t being let out of the contract and angry?…No I wasn’t angry, disappointed. So did you at one stage go to see Mr. Van Der Lubbe to try and persuade him to let you out of the contract at Ballance Street?…I had talked to Jack on the phone on a couple of occasions and got my lawyer to talk to him. Is the answer to my question yes?…Yes I saw him. Did he at your request sit in your vehicle to discuss the issue?…Yes he did.
And did it become clear to you in the course of that discussion that he wasn’t going to wear it and he wasn’t going let you off?…That was clear when he sat in the vehicle with the door open and didn’t look me in the eye. All right, so that became clear to you?…Didn’t seem like the guy I knew as a friend. And in the course of the discussion did you make threats on his life and his families life?…No, I did not. Well eventually through Court action you were forced to sell the property weren’t you?…That is correct, it didn’t get to Court. You saw the writing on the wall and were told you were going to lose?…Well the thing is how do you know how it will go, you know you wrote it up yourself and there was some pretty funny stuff in there, threatening to sue me for $20,000 for a little bach and $20,000 for this and that. It is scary for a guy with out any gold. So the upshot of it all was you gave in and sold the property?…That’s right. And that was after you had taken your own legal advise wasn’t it?…Well that sounds okay but Jack altered a bit of legal advise, altered a bit of the legal document. I’m just asking whether you gave in after you had taken your own legal advise, the answer is either yes or no?…No it’s is not that simple. You can explain it afterwards but did you take your own legal advise?…You have the right to stand in this Courtroom and if this man here says there is a bomb here and paid you to leave would you leave?…Yes, yes, yes. The thing is you know yourself you were attempting to sue me for $60,000; I had to, had to take that advise. I was really just asking if you’d had some advise?…I showed the contract that Jack had altered to my lawyer but he said it meant nothing, I had signed it and I didn’t want to lose everything. And that is how you felt, at risk of losing everything?…Correct. And with that feeling in your mind and with the advice you had been given you sold the farm and moved out?…That’s right. But you were very, very angry about it weren’t you?…No, no. Quite pleased about it?…No not pleased but I had to accept it.
Lets come to the night before the incident, the subject of these charges…Don’t you want to know the two months previous when I used to up and ride my horse there and take stock and stuff, we got on quite all right. Sandra Van Der Lubbe gave me a meal. Now on the night before you had gone up to get some other gear?…Correct. And you got the posts and fencing equipment that night?…Right, well it wasn’t that night it was in the afternoon and it ran into night talking. So there had been not a problem you say in the intervening period between you and the Van Der Lubbes?.. Correct. And you even had a meal there?…Correct. And were you wanting to lease a couple of acres of land from them?…No Jack said prior signing this place, you can build something up on the back there on the flat, go on mate, buddy sort of thing.
In my depressed state I didn’t worry too much about it. I mentioned it when I signed this thing. For me I take things as words not times and date’s and writings. I said I wouldn’t mind keeping my pine trees down the road, my plantation. He said, yes they are only scungy pines anyway, you can have them. And he said, we will give you a 999-year lease on it and I said yes that is pretty good okay then. Okay, so were you wanting to lease a couple of acres of land down the road?…Jack’s suggestion prior to signing. As at the night or afternoon before, had a problem developed over the leasing of that land?…Well there wasn’t a problem but the thing is Jack said, draw up an agreement on it at Tripes and it is all legal sort of thing, which I had done but that was probably a month or so back. Well were there any problems about that lease on the night before, the afternoon or night before?…Well I don’t know because you are asking a question that involves a lot of things. Coming back to these pines and bit of land Jack suggested, I took as his word, it went from a 999 year lease on this land down to, oh you can pay me $2000 for it now and then down to instead of taking $2000 he’ll take the remainder of my deer. I’ve been breeding Fallow deer for eight years or more and I have been breeding some pretty coloured deer. The 20 unusual coloured deer I was going to keep, then this night before this incident, I said just prior to that I said, okay I’ll give you the 20 deer of my choice which I have a receipt for, for the pines and the lease. Jack said yea, okay then. This was the afternoon before?..The afternoon before, I said after picking up the material from down the road and having a general discussion, oh yea, what about this lease. He said, Oh there’s too many mistakes in it. I had already had it altered once before because he said that and I, if you don’t want to sign the lease I might as well take back the 20 deer of my choice. Jack said, and this is when he started getting irritated, I’ve sold those. Looking back over the last month or so when I have been there riding my horse, talking to him, going for a walk with him, hanging his gate, doing different things for him, it’s not a bad place to be, I still have to get my stock on there, he then turned around and said I have sold those deer. I said no you haven’t I saw them there today and I said I’ve still got a receipt for them. Then, that is how that incident arose over the signing of this lease. So can we now answer my question of was there a problem the night before about the lease?…I didn’t see it as any problem, it was just whether he gives back my 20 deer of my choice that I’ve got a receipt for or he wants to swap it for the pine trees on that block. Was there an argument?…There wasn’t an argument. There was not?…No. Up until then over the preceding month or so you had been up there riding quite happily with the Van Der Lubbes?…No I rode on my own.
But you were up there with them quite happily and you were up there riding on their property?…Yes. You’d been there for a meal?..Yes. You’d been up and collected some of your materials?…That’s right, some of the stuff from the house.
And your posts and everything on that afternoon you had all loaded up didn’t you?…No, no I’ve got truckloads of posts there. Everything had been relatively harmonious hadn’t it?…That’s right. There was no argument that afternoon?…No but Jack seemed a bit annoyed when I said I still had the receipt for the deer, the tempo changed in his voice, the tempo changed when he started questioning me about that I bought a property down the road. And did your tempo change?…No. And did you make any threats yourself that day?…No. Did you say that if you didn’t get the lease signed there would be drastic consequences?…No. I said if you don’t sign the thing within two weeks I’ll know you have been having me on. It had been dragging on for a couple of months. Did you say you would be taking drastic action?…No. You left there that night and everything apart from the change in tempo of Jack’s voice, everything was just as it had been over the previous month or so?…As I was there. It must have come as a complete shock to you the next morning to receive a trespass notice?…That is correct! Because there had been absolutely nothing that had happened to prompt it in your mind?…Not a thing. Not a thing. You hadn’t had an argument with Mrs. Van Der Lubbe?…No. So you received the trespass notice, she told you what it was and put it on the bench or desk?…She threw it. She threw it. And did you pick it up?…No, I didn’t I was getting an ear bashing. An ear bashing. And then did you say anything while the ear bashing was going on?…It was pretty hard to get a word in, but…You seem quite good at it, did you fail that day?…I said don’t be stupid, I said, I told Jack I’d be up in the morning to get the gear. I was dumbfounded. And you got out of bed, told her to get out. She was, it was hard to get a word in. You did get out of bed?…Eventually. Did you tell her to get out?…Did I? Yes. No the only time I told her to get out was when she was raving when I was walking down the path. And you were in your night attire at this stage?…Nightshirt. And you’re following Mrs. Van Der Lubbe down the path?…I was trying to explain I told Jack I was going to get up this morning. She’s heading to her car, which had been parked on the road?…Yea the car was along the road a little bit to the right, to the left. And as you walked past your ute, was the ute on the way, on the path where she was walking?…In the drive by the house. So did you have to walk past the ute?…Did I have to?…Yes. Yea I walked past the ute. Did she have to walk past the ute?…She had to walk past the ute.
And as she walked past it you picked up this steel bar from the back of the ute?…No. That sounds good, a steel bar, I told you before when she was barracking me I sort of looked around like this, you know I couldn’t shut her up and it was right beside where the ute and the corner of the house, there was a lady in there with a kid sleeping. This is what half past eight in the morning?…She can sleep as she likes I don’t question her sleeping. As I couldn’t stop her raving on, there is a bit of reinforcing that long, it could have been a feather, it could have been a newspaper. I just reached down and picked it up and said, piss off. So you waved it around but you didn’t mean anything by it and she wandered off to her car, got in and drove away?…I don’t know about wandered off she I don’t know. She carried on, got in the car and drove away. And that was when you picked up the rock and threw it at the car?…What rock? You deny doing that?…You asked me that once before. Somebody did. (McGillivray)There was no rock at all. Right fine. And was that when. There’s a concrete fireplace and a piece of lawn not any rocks though. Was that when you threatened to kill her and Jack and the family?…I’ve never done that in my life. Never done that in your life?…That’s right. So it didn’t happen on that occasion?…It never happened.
(Part of a statement made by Carole Smith.)



(Underlined. “Donald ended up by saying he would blow the whole family away. And that a threat had been made.”)
But you did know by that stage that you had been served with a trespass notice?…I went back to get changed and had a look at it. Well let’s come now to your arrival at the Makirikiri property. Yep. You arrive at the gate down off the Makirikiri Valley road and you can see the gates padlocked. Is that right?…Yea, which is unusual. You know by that stage that you’ve got a trespass notice ?…Yes I did. To me, to me we had a verbal agreement that I was supposed to go in the morning and get my stuff. Hadn’t Mrs. Van Der Lubbe told you at Willis St. to get one of your brothers to come up and get it?…No. You usually carry a firearm in your ute don’t you?…Oh sometimes yea. More often than not?…Oh I wouldn’t say that. Oh come Mr. Britton you usually carry in your ute don’t you?…Do you usually carry a saddle with you? I don’t usually carry a rifle in my ute, I’m living in town. Well on the day in question you drove to Mr. Knox’s place didn’t you?…Yea. And you left a firearm there?…That’s the one. Where did you get that firearm?…It was in my ute at the time but I don’t usually carry a firearm. But on that day it had been in your ute when you left the Willis St. property?…Yea it was that. And when you got to Mr. Knox’s you decided you would leave it there?…Correct. So clearly it had been in your ute at the time you got into it to leave the Willis St. property?…Yea it probably was yea. And you’re a keen hunting man its part of your life isn’t it, hunting and shooting and things?…What do you mean hunting and shooting and things. Deer hunting? You’ve got a number of firearms, you have had a number of firearms?…I’ve had one or two.
And you usually keep one in your ute don’t you?…I don’t usually keep one in my ute. You want to know why the rifle was in my ute? Because I got a spiker about a week before. Would you consider yourself a fairly volatile person?…What do you mean by that? Get angry and exited a bit?…Get exited. stand up for my rights more or less. So when you arrived at the property with the gate padlocked you decided that you would take, (a), no notice of the padlock, (b), no notice of the trespass notice served on you, and try and jemmy the gate off its hinges?…No that’s not exactly right, I expected Jack to be there and talk to Jack, and out of the blue came Sandra around with the errand. Well you did jemmy the gate off its hinges?…I levered it off. I had to get my gear it was fairly crucial. I was just moving out of the shed into a house in Ikitara Rd. Jack asked me could they use my table and chairs and they didn’t have any. And get some of my gear. So you did leaver the gate off its hinges?…Yea I levered it off its hinges. And you did drive up the driveway?…Yea that’s right. And just where a bouts was it again by reference to photograph 9 that your vehicle was when you first heard the bang?…About along to this corner where the piles are stacked. Where those piles are stacked. The white things shown on the left hand side are piles, right?…So that’s approximately where the vehicle was when the first shot was fired?…Yea, I was just about to navigate that corner. And the second shot, where was the vehicle when it stalled, shot and stalled?…It would have been um, as you can see from that corner facing the house. And is the house directly behind the photographer?..Is the house directly behind the photographer?…Yea more or less. So was the second shot was once you had rounded the corner and were facing directly up to about the position of the photographer?…I don’t know, it was directly in line with Jack, he was at the end of this fence, it runs to a big Macrocapa tree to the right. It must have been out to the right. Well you’d rounded the corner?…Yea. Had you said anything to him at that stage?…I actually hadn’t spoken. Well when you did stop, did you get out of the vehicle?…When it stopped I stuck my head out the vehicle and said, you idiot I’ve come up to get some of my gear. When was it that you said, I’ll shoot you in the head with my triple two?…Oh I didn’t say anything like that. What about I’ll put a bullet in your head from my triple two?…No there was nothing like that even said. Was Mr. Van Der Lubbe telling you to fuck off get off the property?…I, I, what happened was when I said that…When you said what?…When I said, you idiot I’ve only come up to get some gear as I climbed out the vehicle I said why don’t you shoot me in the head. I thought he was clowning around. And did you threaten him at all at that stage?…No way. But you’re saying he threatened you?…Threaten me; he shot at me.
Verbally did he threaten you as well?…He was yelling all sorts of guff when I got out of the vehicle but I turned my back on him. And did Mr. Knox get out of the vehicle?…Not straight away, I think he was too scared to. But did he?…Eventually? Up the top there before you went back down, did Mr. Knox get out of the vehicle?…I told you that before, he found the bullet hole. Did you do a bit of a dance around your vehicle saying, I’ve got you know, you’ve made a fatal mistake?…No, no, I said, you idiot you shot my ute, you shot my ute. You didn’t say I’ve got you now you’ve shot my ute?…No, you idiot you shot my ute. I might have said you idiot you’ve done it now shooting my ute. And then you backed down the drive?…Yep. Sort of freewheeling were you?…Yes the motor wouldn’t run. And out of the gate with the vehicle ending up as its shown on photograph one, is that right?…No, no I pushed it there. When you took the gate off its hinges, which way did you swing it on the chain in or out?…Say that again. When you took the gate off its hinges which way did you swing it, did you take it into the property?…Into the property I lifted it up and carried it in. Carried it in. Yes thank you Mr. Britton.”

(67 lies in that lot. How things have changed, the first time he was required to plead back in 1969 he said “guilty” because he thought that he would be committing perjury if he pled not guilty.)
A series of lies designed to mislead the jury into coming to the wrong verdict. Perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The police are only interested in perjury if it suits their current agenda.
Thomas Leonard Knox.
That is my full name. I currently reside in Wanganui. On the morning of Tuesday 19 May of this year Donald Britton came to my place and at the time he was driving a red Subaru ute. He asked me to help him get some of his property from his old farm. The current owners of his old farm are the Van Der Lubbes. Before we left our place Mr. Britton left some of his property behind. That was a rifle and a sleeping bag. On route to the farm property he said he had a trespass order given to him that morning. When we got to the property, Donald got out and lifted the gate off the hinges. Once Donald had taken the gate off the hinges we started moving up the drive and got to the second bend and a shot hit the side of the vehicle. Looking at photo 9 the bend, which has the white piles on the left hand side, is the bend we got to when the shot was fired. That shot hit the vehicle directly behind the left side of the passengers side where I was sitting and I said to Donald we had been shot at and he said it was only a warning shot (why) and I said like hell and we carried on moving and the second shot came through the front of the wagon. Looking at photo 3 just after the tray cover is the hole of the first bullet and looking at photo 2 shows where the second bullet struck. When the bullet struck the vehicle died and wouldn’t go and Donald got out to check it and told me to get out of the truck and see what had been done and I said no way and I was frightened I was going to be shot at again.
And when I got out I lifted the bonnet and the bullet had broken the throttle cable and the vehicle would not start. Mr. Van Der Lubbe fired the shots. When the shot was fired he was outside the house and the vehicle was 60 to 80 yards away. When Mr. Britton got out of the vehicle he said he wanted to pick up his table and longdrop and Mr. Van Der Lubbe kept on nutting off to get off the property and told Donald to get his scummy (I said criminal) mate off the property as well, he was referring to me and at that time I was still sitting in the wagon. There were no threats that I can remember made on Mr. Van Der Lubbe by Mr. Britton. After we found the vehicle wouldn’t start again I said to Donald to get back in the ute and we got back down to the road and went to a neighbouring address to ring the police. I have stayed on the property with Donald before he moved off.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Mr. Knox weren’t you there a few days earlier with Mr. Britton and another person?…(Fireman, John Massey) We were not on the property, we were on the road. Have you known Mr. Britton a long time?…About two and a half years. You’ve seen him get exited and angry when things don’t go his way ?…Its just like anybody, if nothing goes my way I’d get nasty too. I generally try to calm myself down. You have a history of violence?…Only once, which I will say I was sentenced for. Donald Britton can certainly get pretty angry and pretty exited can’t he?…Yes, sometimes. Sufficient to cause you some fear if it was directed towards you?…I’d just walk away. Britton didn’t tell you until you were nearly at the property that he had been served with a trespass notice that day?…We were half way up the River Road, going up towards Upok when he told me. When you looked up and saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe that was after the first shot was it?…Right. Wasn’t he by the railings out beside his house at that stage?…No, it was not until the second shot was fired that he moved to the railings. I will show you something, you made a statement to the police that day?…Yes. Have a look at the document now shown to you. Firstly have a look at this document, look at page 4, the signature on page 4….Yes. Is each page initialled by you?…Yes. Please have a look at the bottom of page 2 about four lines up from the bottom, I’ll read it, “I hadn’t seen Van Der Lubbe at that stage but then I heard a shot and heard it hit the vehicle. I looked up and saw Van Der Lubbe with a rifle by the railings outside his house.” Page 3 I said to Donald lets bugger off and get out of it. Donald said he won’t shoot us again and that’s when the second shot went off.
By now the car was facing towards Van Der Lubbe, see that?…Yes. Does that not show that when you first saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe after the first shot was fired he was standing by the railings outside his house?…He wasn’t quite by the railings, he was making his way to the railings. Wasn’t it after the first shot that you first saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe?..Yes. Didn’t your statement taken almost immediately afterwards say, “I looked up and saw Van Der Lubbe by the railings outside his house after the first shot, wasn’t that when you first saw him?…That’s the first time I saw him. That’s the first time I saw him, wasn’t he by the railings, is that when you first saw him?…When I looked up and saw him he was standing nearest the rail and when the second shot fired he got into a crouched position by the railing then. He was by the railing on both times but one time you saw him standing and the next time crouched down?…Yes. But he was standing by the railings?…Yes. After the second shot there was an exchange between Van Der Lubbe and Britton wasn’t there?…Yes. That was when you heard Van Der Lubbe say, fuck off the property or I’ll shoot the wagon up?…Yes. You heard the exchange between Mr. Van Der Lubbe and Britton?…Yes.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.

Brent Stuart Gray.
That is my full name. I am a Police Constable.
Were you monitoring the emergency calls on 19 May?…Correct. Is there a tape that runs or records all of those calls?…Correct. Is that done so there is a permanent record of calls on the 111 frequency?…Correct. To your knowledge was there a tape running on the day Mr. Van Der Lubbe rang you?…I assume there would have been. It would be fair to say you received a call from a person who identified himself as Mr. Van Der Lubbe who was extremely agitated and upset?…Yes. Very clearly seeking assistance from you for something worrying him?…Yes he was in a disturbed state. He was plainly ringing you for help?…Yes. At the time he rang you did hear him say that Donald Britton was breaking into his property?…Yes. He had rung you before Britton had actually got on the property when he was at the stage, according to the caller, breaking in?…Can I confer to my notes. Do you have any recollection independent of your notes?…The call came through and Mr. Van Der Lubbe was saying that Donald Britton is coming into my place. He has a gun, and he was virtually stuck on those words, he is coming to get me, he has a gun. He also said he is breaking in?…As the call got into more depth, he said, he did say, he is taking the gate off the hinges.
Did you dictate shortly after this incident to a typist your recollection of the call that you had?…Directly after. When you dictated that didn’t you say that the person was saying, Britton was coming into his property to break in?…I did say that. Isn’t it clear from that Constable that Mr. Van Der Lubbe was calling you and saying Britton was in the process or about to break into the property, that’s what your wording was?…That is what it says. Later on it says how he was breaking in by jemmying the gate off its hinges, right?…Yes. He told you that Britton had that morning threatened to kill his wife?…I don’t recall hearing that. Read your transcript….Yes. It was clear to you that the person on the phone to you felt desperately concerned his life was in danger didn’t he?…Yes That’s what he kept conveying to you wasn’t it?…Yes. Do you recall him saying, how can I defend myself, recall that?…He said I’m going to have to defend myself. To the best of my knowledge I can’t remember him saying, how can I defend myself. I recall him saying, I am going to have to defend myself, he said it a few times. He repeated it a few times and the phone just went dead. Do you accept the transcript is a paraphrasing of what occurred on the phone call which lasted from 9.07 and if you went straight after you hung up to do the log it must have finished at 10.09. Go to your own notes which will show the call coming in at 9.07?…Yes. You said as soon as you hung up you went to the typist and dictated the transcript and your notes say it is 10.09?…She was in the Control Room. You confirm you do recall him saying, I’m going to have to defend myself?..I do recall that. He told you before his threat to kill his wife had been made by Britton that morning?…Yes, reading this, yes. Then he came back after the silence and said that he had fired two shots?…Yes. (”Everything is OK now.”) And that Britton had threatened to kill him Van Der Lubbe with a 222?…Correct. So it was very obvious to you Constable that the caller was fearing for his life?…Yes. Was desperate as to what he could do to protect himself?…Yes. And was telling you as his lifeline as it was that he had to defend himself, that’s what he said to you?…Apparently so. And that it was clear Constable that although the person had rung the police for assistance, there was nothing the police could do in the timeframe that existed to help him was there?…Correct.

12 The Trial, Constable Lance Walker, Inspector J H Mansell. et al.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 20/08/2006



Legal status of self defense

In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force should only be used in situations of “extreme” danger. The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn’t yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one’s own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium” i.e. Latin for “and each man’s home is his safest refuge”). However, if one is “challenged” in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.
In some countries, the concept of “pre-emptive” self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful “pre-emptive” self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

The Queen v Jacobus Johannes Nicolaas Van Der Lubbe

(Discharging a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of others.)


Donald Peter Britton (sworn)
My full name is Donald Peter Britton. I am not doing demolition at the moment but I reside in Wanganui. Earlier this year I owned a property up the Makirikiri Valley. I sold that property to the accused in this trial Mr. Van Der Lubbe, after a fashion. Possession of that property changed hands earlier this year. After that property changed hands I left some equipment and personal property at the farm, it was already there. My arrangement with Mr. Van Der Lubbe concerning that property was we had a verbal agreement and Jack said if I signed the property over I could keep my gear there till I found somewhere to put it and I could have a table and chairs and things like that and 20 deer I had to keep there, plus horses and sheep. I had taken what I could take and stored it in a garage where I was having to sleep. I was intending when I found some place to buy to take the remaining property but up until then it was all right. At the time the property was sold my relationship with Mr. Van Der Lubbe was that he had bought the property such as I had to sign it or go to Court. He started talking to a tenant in my house in town to negotiate it. On the evening of May 18 when I visited the property, that’s the day before he shot my wagon, I went up to get a posthole rammer, a spade, some posts and wire strainers. I asked Jack if what he had said originally about a lease on some land, on part of the land was he going to sign it and if not then I would take my 20 remaining deer back. I had a herd of deer, I had bread over a period of time with some colourful deer which I kept a receipt for. When I said, are you going to sign this agreement or I’ll take the deer back, Jack said, no, no I’ve sold those and I said no you haven’t I just saw them. I said, “are you going to sign this piece of land with the pine trees on it and he said no I don’t think I will. So I said, well I might as well take the deer back since I have a receipt. He seemed pretty agitated and I said to him it didn’t really matter if you go back on your word about signing the lease because I’ve just acquired a piece of land down the road which I’ve got a receipt for here. (”I made sure I bought a place in the Valley.”) After that it was getting latish by then and I said, I’ll be up in the morning to get some of my gear. Mr. Van Der Lubbes reaction was I didn’t think anything of it; he didn’t really have a reaction. He seemed annoyed about me having a receipt for the deer and he seemed annoyed that I’d bought land down the road because I then had somewhere to put my gear. I then drove away. On the next day in the morning I was asleep in the garage, that is at Willis St. in Wanganui. I was asleep in the garage because I had nowhere to go. There is a house on the property, it is my house, but I rented it out. I sleep with the door open and Sandra Van Der Lubbe burst in. Sandra Van Der Lubbe is Jack Van Der Lubbes wife. She walked through the door and threw a piece of paper on the bench above my headboard or the head of the bed. She said this is a trespass notice.
She said you are not to come onto our property. I said, what do you think you are coming at, I told Jack I’d be up this morning to pick up some of my gear. She started to abuse me. In response to that, I was still laying in bed and I didn’t like to jump out of bed because I had my nightshirt up around my neck. She abused me and called me lazy and goodness knows what and I finally managed to get out of bed and tried explaining to her that I’d told Jack I was going to get the gear that day but I’m convinced she was trying to provoke me. There was ra ra ra from Mrs. Van Der Lubbe and it was like talking to a brick wall. I was getting nowhere and couldn’t get a word in so as she was going down the drive, she was walking down the drive, I was still trying to explain that I wanted to get my gear today as she knew and all I received was more insults so finally as I walked past the ute, there was sitting on the back of the ute a piece of reinforcing, bent on one end about this long that I used to run through to trap deer, a trip wire, and I picked it up and told her to piss off. She was probably about 8 or 10 feet away from me then. Nothing happened then. When I went out there I think she had the two boys sitting in the car and they were just sitting there watching. From there I yelled out to Carole, the lady I rent the house to. At this stage Mrs. Van Der Lubbe was walking to the car. I then went over towards the house and yelled out to Carole. I walked towards the house and went back around and got changed out of my nightshirt. I got dressed and went to get a friend to give me a hand to get some of my gear. (He needed a witness) This friend was Tom Knox. I wanted him to give me a hand because he wasn’t doing anything and he had stayed on my property with me before and had been up there with me a week before to get a spiker. A spiker is an 18-month-old male Fallow deer. I used my Subaru. Sandra Van Der Lubbe arrived at probably around 8 or 8.30 I didn’t take much notice of the time. I don’t know really. It could have been anytime really. When I went down to pick up Mr. Knox I took a sleeping bag out of the ute and my .22 rifle. I left the sleeping bag and rifle at Bignell St. where Tom was staying. I took my rifle out of the car because Tom would want to sit down, its only a two seater, plus after the way Sandra came into the shed I thought maybe there must be something up, you know, it wasn’t normal. (He kept the rifle on the sleeping bag on the floor behind the seat.)
By removing the rifle, I think Jack is likely to conjure up things. As a result of leaving my rifle at home, I didn’t think anything would happen. After I picked Mr. Knox up I told him I’m going to get some of my gear and I’ll need a lift. I just drove up to Upok. When I arrived there I looked up at the house and there appeared to be no one home so I walked towards the gate to see if it was open or locked in any way because it had a chain on it. The gate is about a hundred or so yards from the house. I walked up and looked at it and there was a padlock on and it was locked and I thought darn it. I looked up at the house and thought there can’t be anybody home so I looked around and there was a six by one board lying near the gate. I stuck the board under the dog side of the gate and tried to lever the gate off the hinges. The board broke and just at that time I was going to throw it over the top and I threw it over a tree and it broke, and a Yellow Mazda truck went past and I looked to see who it was because they’d probably wonder what I was doing. The guy in the truck was about fifty, I think. (Irrelevant detail to make it sound true.) So I then climbed the gate and picked up a piece of 8 by 2 and stuck it under the hinge. I lifted the gate off the hinges and I knew I would be able to get it off eventually because I hung the gate for Jack about 3 weeks before as a favour. I had told Jack that night, which was probably 12 hours previous that I would be up in the morning to get my gear, and I needed my gear because I had only just signed for that piece of land down the road that same day, the 18th plus I needed my table and chairs. We had a verbal agreement that I could keep my gear as long as I wished until I had found somewhere to put it. I then lifted the gate off the hinges. Mr. Knox was sitting in the ute at this stage. I then lifted the gate wide open and checked to see if any deer were handy to the gate. I hoped back in the ute and started to drive up the drive. I got halfway up the drive onto the corner that swings round to the left then I heard the sound of a gunshot and it sounded like it boomed on the roof. I knew it hadn’t hit the roof but it sounded like it had gone over the roof. I didn’t know where it came from because it took about ten minutes to get the gate off the hinges and up to this stage I had thought no one was home so I though it was Jack just being a clown. Tom said, fuck he’s shooting at us. I said, don’t worry about it; he’s probably just clowning. As I swung around the corner there was another shot and I felt a jar on my feet, like a vibration through my feet. I actually thought it hit the road just under the ute and the ute stopped. I thought I had stalled it. I stuck my head out the window and I said, why don’t you shoot me in the head. I only came to get some of my gear. While this was happening Mr. Van Der Lubbe appeared from nowhere. In relation to this, after the first shot, as I was driving up the drive on the corner, the house is up on a rise to the right and I took my eyes off the road for a second and Jack was about 12 feet away from the gatepost, from the post at the end of a rail fence and I looked back at the road again because I was trying to navigate the track. Mr. Van Der Lubbe was about halfway between here and the back of the room from the house about 20 or 30 feet maybe, 40 feet. The corner of the house is about that far from the edge of the bank. Mr. Van Der Lubbe was about 50 yards away from the vehicle, I think, round about that. When I first saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe he was just there with a gun. After the 2nd shot he moved towards the post to get a lean. That is to get a more accurate shot. (Had he got his rifle out he would have got the bullet.) I wound the car over a couple more times; I thought I had stalled it. As I got out of the ute, I was going to hop out of the ute and open the bonnet to see what stalled it and that’s when Jack was moving over the to the post to get a lean. He was aiming the gun at me and yelling, ranting and raving gibberish, moving towards the post to get a lean on the post. I heard him say I’ll kill you, or something like that because that was recognisable and the rest wasn’t worrying to me too much. I was wandering why the ute had stopped. In the flurry of words I heard him say something about Tom. I then turned my back on him. I was more concerned about why the ute had stopped. At this stage I didn’t know he had hit the wagon. Tom was sitting in the car. I lifted the bonnet of the ute and tried to find out why I’d stalled it. I was looking under the bonnet and by then Tom hopped out and came round the front of the car to see why I’d stopped too and Tom spotted a bullet hole through the bonnet into the motor. He picked it up first. He said, fuck he’s going to kill us. I felt pretty uneasy then with my back facing him because he had a gun pointing at me. At this stage he was ranting and raving. It happened fairly fast and I just sort of more had the feeling I got in the back of my back and head because I’d just told him to shoot me in the head. I thought it was probably better to turn around and face the guy and say you idiot, shooting my wagon. That is what I said to him. I think I said, you’ve done it now, shooting my ute. I might have said to him I want my table and chairs. (Nutter.) I got back in the ute. I let it coast back down to the bottom, it was uphill all the way up that road, so I let it coast back downhill and back through the gate. I put the gate back on the hinges. The accused disappeared again at that stage I think. I wasn’t watching him after that; I was trying to navigate the ute. I put the gate back on the hinges and started walking back up the road towards James’ well to Mike O’Keefe’s. I got about 30 feet from the gate, as I started to walk up the road I threw the big plank in the drain that runs into the creek because I grabbed some watercress. I then went on to ring up the police. I rang the police. I probably only got 100 yards up the road from the gate and Alan James picked me and Tom up. He drove us up to Mike O’Keefe’s place and Mike O’Keefe was down at the bottom at the cattle yards and he said, sure, go and use the phone. I didn’t look at the time, from the shooting it would probably take about 10 minutes maybe, a quarter of an hour. I don’t really know. I have been using firearms since I was twelve and I would use them all the time. I have been shooting with Mr. Van Der Lubbe. He used to come along with my stepbrother and myself. We were poaching deer. (1969/70 haven’t done it since.) I saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe shooting occasionally. He’s not too good a shot when he’s exited. Anyone that misses a Sambur at 50 yards side on isn’t the best. (The evil bastard is trying to assert that it was only because I’m a supposed bum shot that I missed him.) After I rang the police, they towed my vehicle away. I walked back down the road and I think I could see it from v day cars. (That’s how it’s written in the Court record.) I inspected it about a day later, I’m not sure. I found two holes in it but I knew the second hole was in it because Tom saw it when he got back into the ute. That was the first shot actually, and it was just behind Tom’s door.

Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Mr. Britton, after you had levered the locked gate off the hinges you drove up the drive towards the house?…Towards the house, yes. How far up the drive did you get before you heard the first noise?…Just prior to the corner, 50 yards. So by that time you had travelled the distance from the roadway up to that point in the vehicle?…Yes about 50 yards. (Witness shown booklet of photos exhibited by consent to be produced as exhibit 1.) Photo 1, is that a view from the road up to the house that you are talking about?…It is. In that photo, can you point to the position that the vehicle was in when you heard the first noise?…Yes it was heading towards the first corner (witness indicates on photo slightly to the right of the house in the picture up the drive where it disappears into the hill). You are pointing to a spot between the roof of the ute and the house where that looks to be shellrock on the bank of the drive?…Yes it is shown better on photo 9, just about opposite those piles when I heard the first noise. Are the piles you are referring to on the left of the apex of the corner?…That would be it. So by the time you had travelled the distance from the roadway up to that point in the vehicle?…Yes about 50 yards. Having spent some 10 minutes or so jemmying or levering the gate off at the bottom?…Yes I said I used two boards.
The second shot and where the vehicle stopped is that shown on photo 9?…The bonnet wouldn’t have been that far away from where the road disappears into the hill. The vehicle would have been continuing around that road and facing towards the photographer?…The railing goes another 20 or 30 feet. Jack was at the end of the railing, just past the railing to start with. We are trying to ascertain where the vehicle was at the time of the 2nd shot?…The front of it would have been just up under the bank a bit heading towards where Jack would had been just past the post. Would that mean you would have travelled another 10 to 20 meters?…Not that far, it happened fairly quick. Would you have travelled another 5 to 10 meters?…From here to the wall at most. And at that stage the vehicle stopped?..Yes. And you had seen Mr. Van Der Lubbe at the railing up by the house?…Forwards of the house. And he was yelling at you you say, telling you to piss off?…No, no, I don’t recall him saying piss off. Did you at any stage threaten to shoot him with a 222?…No. Do you own a 222?…I own a 222. But you made no threats to him?…No. You don’t recall him telling you to piss off and get off the property?…After the shooting and amongst me getting out of the car he was saying something to Tom but other than that I was concerned with what was happening with my vehicle and I wondered why it had stopped. I didn’t know he had hit the vehicle. And at that stage, after you were out of the vehicle, is that when you say he moved towards the post to get a lean?…As I was getting out of the vehicle he started moving to the post?…And you went round the front of the vehicle in clear view of him?…Yes I didn’t know he had hit the car. And then you got back into the car and freewheeled back down the drive to the road?…After I said to him, you idiot, you’ve done it now shooting my wagon. Were you dancing around at that stage saying, I’ve got you?…Don’t be silly. Is that no?…That is no. And you freewheeled back down the drive?…Yes. And got out at the bottom and put the gate back on its hinges?…Yes after I had pushed it off the road a bit after freewheeling down. That is the vehicle you are speaking about is it?…Yes. And you put the gate back on the hinges?…Yes. When you had taken the gate off its hinges, the gate shown in photo 1, isn’t it?…Yes. Did you carry the gate in towards the property or out towards the location?…Into the property. When you freewheeled down the drive in your vehicle, it wouldn’t have ended up where it is shown in that photo would it?…No it didn’t. You have pushed it into that position haven’t you?…The drive is on an angle and I came down like this and I shoved the vehicle off the road a bit. So you pushed and manoeuvred the vehicle into the position shown in that photo?…That is where I pushed it to. I wasn’t going to push it back to Wanganui. Mr. Britton I suggest that you manoeuvred the vehicle into the position shown in photo 1 so you could later tell the police that the vehicle had been shot at while you were still on the road and you hadn’t gone into Mr. Van Der Lubbe’s property at all?…You can suggest what you like. Is that true?…Not really I wanted to get it off the road actually. Wouldn’t it have been easier to have left the vehicle on the run in from the road to the gate if you wanted it off the road?…No that is no good. Because you wouldn’t be able to suggest the bullet holes had been occasioned from that position would you?…I think you have got it wrong, I told you what happened. Shortly after the police arrived you were interviewed by members of the police weren’t you?…Yes I was. At that time you told them the shots had been fired while you were stopped down at the gate on the road didn’t you?…I was going to for awhile. You did didn’t you?…I had been se set there all right. You were set up?…With a trespass notice when we had a verbal agreement. Mr. Britton, when you were interviewed by the police shortly after this incident you told them the shots were fired while you were still on the road and you hadn’t gone into the property didn’t you?…I probably did. Is there some doubt in your mind?…You read through the thing and see. You told them that you had seen Mr. Van Der Lubbe up at the house while you were on the road?…I lied.
(This is how his first statement read. “We got to the road gate. I got out of the Subaru. Tom was still in the truck. Jack came out from the house, wait on that was after he had fired the first two shots. So we got to the road gate. We had only been there for seconds. A gunshot hit the truck just behind Tom’s door. There was a second shot I felt it jar on my feet. The truck stopped running. I got out and yelled to him to open the fucken gate. “I want to get my gear.” I was shaking the gate. I turned round and noticed the bullet hole in the bonnet. To start with we didn’t know the bullets had hit the truck. Cause when we first came round Tom had said he fired at us. I thought he was too gutless to shoot at us. When I was shaking the gate I said, “you useless cunt why don’t you shoot at me”. I didn’t realise that at this stage he had been shooting at us. I thought he was firing warning shots. He was ranting and raving. He was saying fuck off, he would shoot me. At that stage he was aiming the rifle at me. I was wondering if he would pull the trigger or not. I went back to the truck and tried to start it, it wouldn’t go.)
And that is why you parked it the way you did?…I had to freewheel backwards, when the motor doesn’t run you have no brakes and I had to swing back around up the valley or I’d be the wrong way around to shift my vehicle off the road so I pushed it as best I could. But when you first spoke to the police you told them that you were standing shaking the gate yelling at Mr. Van Der Lubbe to open the fucking gate?…It never happened. You gave them a whole string of lies didn’t you?…Don’t go on pal, you are making a lot of guff up. It is quit simple, in the morning out of the blue I get a trespass notice thrown at me; this is when it dawned on me that maybe on paper I had trespassed. Up until that morning I had a verbal agreement to keep my gear there as long as I liked because I had nowhere to put it and that is why Jack agreed to that so I signed my property to him. And when you spoke to the police that morning you told them a whole string of lies?…No it wasn’t, I felt I had been unjustly let down over my gear and the trespass thing when we had a verbal agreement. That was a mistake I admit but because I was set up for trespass which I didn’t think was a real issue. So you were there to get your gear Mr. Britton?…That is dead right. The night before you had signed up for some property?…That is right, the day before. I had been negotiating prior to the signing up. And you signed up the day before on the 18th isn’t that what you told us this morning?…I think so. And you were going to take possession of the property you had signed up the day before straight away?…I was would you like a receipt?
And that property was up the road was it?…No, down the road. It had a house on it an old dwelling. A house?…An old house. That you were going to live in?…No I would shift a house there. I just wanted somewhere to store my gear at the start. The house was derelict and falling down?…What has that got to do with it? It was derelict?…If you say so. So all that changed in your living arrangements was that you had signed up for this property down the road with a derelict house on it, is that correct?…No it isn’t actually, so rephrase it or something. I understood your evidence to be that the reason you wanted all your gear was because you had signed up for the property down the road?…That is right but that’s not what the table and chair was for, because I had just bought a house in Ikitara road as well. So the table and chairs were for Ikitara road?…Correct. But all the other items you urgently wanted that morning were for the property down the road?…It was fencing gear, the place isn’t fenced. I have untold stuff you accumulate when you have land still sitting at Jacks which we had a verbal agreement on. And it was so urgent that you get this gear that you that you were prepared to ignore the trespass notice given to you?…To me I didn’t really believe that as such. You were prepared to?..Remember that evening I said to Jack I’d be up to get my gear for Christie’s place. And you decided to ignore the trespass notice you had been given?…I didn’t take it as a legitimate trespass notice for a start. (Why lie about going onto the property then?) And you were prepared to ignore the locked gate and jemmy it off its hinges?…We had a verbal agreement and the last I had spoken to Jack was I’ll be up tomorrow. And you were prepared to ignore the locked gate and jemmy it off its hinges?…The last time I spoke to Jack was to get my gear right, we had a verbal agreement and to me there was nobody home when I got there and Jack could have been in town with his wife for all I know. You had been upset, depressed and concerned over the sale of this farm for some time hadn’t you?…I felt a bit done in the eye but what are you getting at? You had signed up for the sale of the farm with Mrs. Van Der Lubbe in October last year?…I never saw Mrs. Van Der Lubbe, Jack and his father came up and brought the contract with him and a typewriter. The contract was with Mrs. Van Der Lubbe?…No the morning that happened Jack rung up and said, I’ll come up about buying this land and I said, leave it for a few days. Was the contract…You asked me a question, he said, no strike while the irons hot and brought down his father and a typewriter and the contract but not Mrs. Van Der Lubbe. The contract was between you and Mrs. Van Der Lubbe wasn’t it?…I didn’t realise that until they had gone. Anyway the contract was signed in about October?…Whenever it was signed, I didn’t take much notice. Due to be settled in December?…Probably. You refused?…I tried talking to Jack. You refused?..I tried talking to Jack about it. Did you refuse to settle when it was due for settlement?…I think I consulted a lawyer. Mr. Britton, did you refuse to settle the contract when it was due for settlement?…I probably refused. Proceeding was issued against you in the High Court?…Yes. You got angry about it?…No I didn’t get angry at all about it. Just before they were due for a hearing, after you had taken advise…. I’d taken advise for quit awhile. And you agreed to settle?…I was forced to settle. But you did?…I would have been sued $60,000 out of the blue for nothing. But you were angry over the whole situation weren’t you?…Disappointed, I had known Jack for 30 years. You were very depressed?…I was disappointed. And threatened suicide?…Talked about mood swings when sometimes you wanted to kill someone and sometimes talked about suicide?…Where do you get it from? I am asking, did you do that?…No. Anyway things settled down didn’t they, you passed over the land and you got paid?…I was forced to sign and I signed on the last date or go to Court. And you got paid and handed over the land eventually?…It isn’t all that simple; Jack took in part of the contract after he went. Did you settle and get paid?…Either that or go to Court. Did you?…I had no way out, all right. So did you?…Yes I was forced to do it. And after that things settled down for a while didn’t they between you and the Van Der Lubbes?…How do you mean? You were up there riding around the property?…Nothing had changed, we had a verbal agreement that if I signed the agreement he would give me a piece of land and I can stay on the piece of land and he knew that I liked the land and if I had nowhere to take my deer he would buy the deer off me, I wanted to keep 20 of them. It was verbal. I have known Jack for 20 years and this was verbal. The same as I verbally kept my gear there. He asked me verbally, could he use my table and chairs in the house. Did things settle down between you and the Van Der Lubbes and you used to ride your horse and have a meal?…Things had been pretty well the same. But there was a blow up between you and the Van Der Lubbes the night before?…There was no blow-up. There was a disagreement over the lease?…There was a disagreement in respect he decided not to sign it after I altered it twice. Were you happy about that?…Either I took back the 20 deer of my choice which I had a receipt for or he goes ahead and honours his verbal agreement. Did you say, either sign this lease or I’ll take drastic action?…Don’t be stupid. Did you tell him you had a mate who had served two terms in Vietnam?…I don’t have any mates who have served in Vietnam. Who have killed people and wouldn’t mind doing it again?…Surely he hasn’t been feeding you this? Note 5 lines down.



You told him before you left on the 18th that you had the barrel of your rifle fixed?…I don’t think so, I might have at some stage right my gun was shooting straight because I got a spiker but you can’t take that out of context. So you deny any sort of threats being made to him on the night of the 18th?…That is dead right. Well the trespass notice must have been a real surprise to you?..It was. I couldn’t understand it and that was why I was trying to argue with Mrs. Van Der Lubbe. I thought it was a crazy thing to do. And were you upset when she gave you that?…I couldn’t understand it or work it out.
Were you angry?…I didn’t know what to think; it was out of the blue. Were you angry when she gave you that?…After her barracking me, and I couldn’t get through to her, I said, look I’m coming to get my stuff today. I told Jack last night and she abused me more and then I felt angry and pissed off that she would insult me yelling and screaming outside the house where the lady was asleep. And you were angry by that stage?…I wasn’t really sure what to think, I was disappointed and didn’t believe what she had served on to me to being genuine. You were angry?…I was pissed off. And that is when you picked up the steel bar?..Yes, because she was harassing me and trying to provoke me. No one would normally come and serve you something and it wasn’t done in the normal manner. You picked up the steel bar at that stage?…A piece of reinforcing and told her to piss of. I was on my property. And you waved it at her?…Yes and said piss off. And threatened to kill her?…Don’t be stupid, I never said that. And as she got into the car to drive away you picked up a rock and threw it at the car?…No I didn’t. So you went and got changed at that stage is that right?…I tried to yell out to Carole in the house. But she was asleep?…That is right, why do you think I yelled? You went and got changed and went straight to Tom Knox’s place?…I think I grabbed the paper and had a quick look through it and handed it to Carole. And then drove to Tom Knox’s place?…Yes. Would that have been within 5 minutes of Mrs. Van Der Lubbe leaving the Willis Street property?…I don’t know how long it took me to get dressed, it probably could be. You did it straight away didn’t you, after you had been served with the notice?…I gave it to Carole. Within minutes, it wouldn’t have been an hour?…Of course it was within minutes. And when you got there you took a rifle that you usually carry in your vehicle out?…I don’t usually carry a rifle in my car, no. Do you frequently carry a rifle around with you?…No, just prior to this I had 20 remaining deer of my choice, hinds, 6 stags to do what I liked with such as for my freezer or to breed with and I shot one up at Jacks with Tom for some meat. The gun wasn’t exactly shooting precise because where I aimed at this young stag it didn’t hit so I went a few days later to a spot for a hunt and knocked over a spiker, that is when I told Jack I had the end of the barrel re-crowned and it was shooting okay. That is the reason I had the gun in my car at that stage. How long had that been before this day?…Probably a couple of days, it was just behind the two seats in the ute. Is that where you kept it?…It is not where I kept it; it is where I had it at the time. Behind the two seats?…When I went hunting. On that day is that is that where it had been, behind the two seats?…Buggered if I know, it probably was, I took it out anyway and the sleeping bag was on the seat. It would fit behind the two seats wouldn’t it?…Of course it does.
That is where you keep it isn’t it?…No, it’s not where I keep it. You certainly didn’t have to take it out so Mr. Knox could sit in the car?…I just emptied my ute out, all right. Did you have it with you in the ute the previous night?…Of course I did. That is the night you had been at Van Der Lubbes the night before?…So what are you getting at, I told you I wouldn’t take it out if it wasn’t there. I would like you to have a look at this piece of paper…What about it? Is that your writing?…I don’t think so; you can compare it with my writing here. There was a heap of these left in the house when I moved out. It’s not your writing?…Nothing like it. No reason for it to have been in your ute?…Give me another look at it, it has been ripped off pretty conveniently, (indicates prior knowledge) I don’t know what it’s trying to insinuate. (NEW SCOPE HIT JACK) I asked, had it been in your ute to your knowledge?…To my knowledge, no it hasn’t. (Compare Britton’s scribbles on the below document with that on the “piece of paper” attached at the bottom left


3 And this one.


I suggest Mr. Britton that you headed up to the Van Der Lubbes property that day in a very angry mood?…No that’s wrong. That you threatened Mr. Van Der Lubbe the night before?…No I had not threatened Jack in any way you tell me why is it. And you threatened his wife that morning?…No the only time I was pissed off was when she kept barracking me in the morning outside Carole’s window in Willis Street. You hadn’t arranged to go and pick Mr. Knox up on that morning had you?…Of course I hadn’t. Why did you instantly decide to do it then?…Because when that had happened I didn’t know and couldn’t work out an explanation for it and thought they must be trying to keep my gear because it coincided with me saying I had got the place down the road and I was going to get my gear. It was only when I could shift my gear (so he goes up there in his ute to get his truckloads of gear) that I got that the next morning before I got out of bed and it was the last thing I would have imagined would have happened. Are you a pretty volatile sort of person?…What do you mean? You get angry when things don’t go your way?…How do you mean? probably no more than you. You don’t consider yourself to be a violent person at all?…I have never struck anyone in violence, only in self-defence. And you didn’t threaten Mr. Van Der Lubbe when there was problems over this lease you wanted?…No, I told you that. But did you decide to lie to the police when they first interviewed you after the incident and pretend you hadn’t gone onto the property?…I thought, after I had walked down the road, shit this guys set me up for trespass. 74 lies this time.
Re-examination by Mr. Ross for the Crown.
Mr. Britton, carrying on at that point, can you just clarify why you lied to the police?…Because I realised Jack had set me up for trespass. I had in my life two other trespass notices.
Judge Linton Laing.
When your .222 is behind the seats of the ute, when it is there, is it visible to a person standing by the ute?…Standing by it? I don’t know, it could be, I haven’t had the .222 in the ute for a long time. If you had the door open you might see the butt, but my .222 was in the shed. With the stag you shot for Tom…No with Tom. With Tom, how long before May 19 would Mr. Van Der Lubbe have last seen your .222?…My .222, probably when he came and parked his bus at the house and I was still there moving a couple of things out from the bedroom and that but I didn’t shoot the spiker with the .222. (And how can you tell from a view of the butt only what calibre the rifle is? Judge Laing showing his pro police bias.) 3 more lies.
Thomas Leonard Knox. (Sworn.)
My full name is Thomas Leonard Knox. I reside in Wanganui. I reside in Wanganui. I am unemployed. I know Mr. Donald Peter Britton. I know Mr. Britton because I used to live on his property a year ago and we worked together on demolition jobs. I used to live on his property at Makirikiri. I know Mr. Van Der Lubbe but I’ve only met him a couple of times. I met Mr. Van Der Lubbe one weekend when I went up with Donald. That was a few months ago. I don’t remember the date. I would have met Mr. Van Der Lubbe about twice. On 19 May I recall Mr. Britton arriving at my place on that day. When he arrived he dropped some gear off at my flat. That was a sleeping bag and a rifle. We then started going up to Makirikiri and he asked me to give him a hand to shift some of his property. When we got to the property the gate had a lock on it and we had to lift the gate off the hinges to get onto the property. Donald did that. I sat in the ute. (He didn’t want to aid and abet Britton in his trespass.) After the gate was taken off the hinges Donald started driving up the drive until we got to the second bend and then there was two shots. The first shot landed just about two feet or a foot or so behind my shoulder in the back of the van. We could hear the shot. At the time we heard the shot I looked up and saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe up the top looking down on us with a rifle in his hand. Mr. Van Der Lubbe was about 60 or 70 or 80 away from where we were.
After that first shot was fired we turned the corner facing towards the shot and the second shot went through the front of the wagon and stalled the wagon. Mr. Van Der Lubbe at that stage was near the fence by his house. I heard some words spoken at that stage but I didn’t catch all of what they were saying to each other. Mr. Van Der Lubbe was telling us to get off the property. He said he would shoot up the wagon if we didn’t get off his property. Most of the time I was in the wagon until I was asked to look at the damage and I got out to check the damage. When I heard Mr. Van Der Lubbe say those words I was in the van still. I can’t recall what Mr. Britton said. A lot of words were said and I didn’t take it all in. After the shots were fired I got out to look at the damage done to the front of the vehicle. Mr. Van Der Lubbe was still looking down at us as far as I know but I had my back to him looking inside the bonnet of the car. Mr. Van Der Lubbe, when I got out of the vehicle was still standing by the post or fence outside his house. When I checked the vehicle I found the throttle cable had been split in half by the shot of the bullet. I said to Donald, lets get out of it, that I didn’t want no more of it. We got back in the wagon and drifted back down out past the gate and proceeded to put the gate back on the hinges and walked up the road to the nearest neighbours to ring the police. We left the car on the side of the road down by the gate. We just rolled it back and let it roll back forwards like it was sitting there. We couldn’t move it at all because there was no way of starting the motor. We walked up the road to the nearest neighbours and rang the police. Looking at the booklet of photos, photo 1 I recognise that photo. That photo shows the driveway to the Makirikiri property. In that photo the car was here when we heard the first shot (witness indicates area almost in front of the green bush before you turn the corner.) In relation to that photo, I saw Mr. Van Der Lubbe standing just around the corner of the photo (indicates bottom right hand corner.) The vehicle when I heard the second shot was here (witness indicates area just where the surface of the road disappears from view behind the tussock.) Mr. Van Der Lubbe at that stage was in the same position.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Mr. Knox, were you somewhat surprised when Mr. Britton came and asked you to come on this jaunt with him?…I was really, yes. He didn’t tell you when he came to your house that he had been served with a trespass notice did he?…Not at that stage, not until halfway up to Makirikiri he told me. And you were committed to going?…Yes You said that you had only met Mr. Van Der Lubbe a couple of times for a short space of time?..Yes that is true. When Mr. Britton decided to leave his firearm which was in the vehicle at your place you thought that was sensible didn’t you?…Yes, I didn’t know what was going on (he knew all right) or why he left it there. But you did think it was sensible and thought that was something you should tell the police when you spoke to them later?…Yes. You had known Donald Britton for quite a long time hadn’t you?…About two and a half years. And you have seen him get pretty angry and pretty exited when things don’t go his way?…Yes. And that is why you were pleased the rifle had been left behind?…Not exactly but it would have been a help to him without it being there. You felt more comfortable about him not having a rifle?…Yes.
(Britton knew that if he left his rifle in his ute his provocation would be far less likely to have the outcome he so desired.)
Re-examination by Mr. Ross.
What sort of mood was Mr. Britton in when he came round to see you?…He seemed to be fairly calm about things.
Lance Alan Walker. (sworn)
My full name is Lance Alan Walker. I am a Police Constable stationed at Wanganui. At approximately 9.07 am on 19 May of this year I was directed by Control to attend an incident at the Van Der Lubbe property at the Makirikiri Valley. At this stage I was accompanied by Sergeant Roe and Constable Mills. We attended to the Makirikiri Valley and I believe at that stage there was a firearm involved. We stopped short of the Makirikiri Valley property until the Armed Offenders Squad was mobilised. They arrived under the direction of Detective Kerrisk. We proceeded to the property and under the control of the Armed Offender Mr. Van Der Lubbe was taken into custody. A short time later I spoke to the defendant Mr. Van Der Lubbe whom I identify in Court (witness identifies accused seated in Court.) As a result of our conversation took notes and seek permission to refer to them.
Judge Laing.
Very well.
Dated 19.5, 10.00am Makirikiri Valley, spoke with Jacobus Johannes Nicolaas Van Der Lubbe. Mr. Van Der Lubbe told me that last night Donald Britton came around to our place and took some posts of his. Mr. Van Der Lubbe said he talked to Mr. Britton for a while down at the gate. I asked him who the guy was that was with him the other day. Mr. Van Der Lubbe asked Mr. Britton who the guy was with Mr. Britton the other day, and Mr. Van Der Lubbe said Mr. Britton replied that this guy had been to Vietnam, that he had killed lots of people and that he wouldn’t hesitate and would enjoy killing some more. He said that Mr. Britton told Mr. Van Der Lubbe that if he didn’t lease the 2 acres of land that he, meaning Mr. Britton would take drastic action. Mr. Van Der Lubbe told Mr. Britton that he was just threatening him and that Mr. Van Der Lubbe was not interested in threats. He said at that stage when Mr. Britton left he went up to the house and talked the situation over with his wife, Mrs. Van Der Lubbe and that they decided to serve a trespass notice on Mr. Britton. He said the following morning that his wife went into town with a trespass notice that he, Mr. Van Der Lubbe had typed up and said his wife was to serve it on him being Mr. Britton. (Sandra insisted on serving it on Britton. I wanted to leave it on the locked gate for him to find when he came up next.) Mr. Van Der Lubbe said that his wife was upset because Mr. Britton had threatened her and thrown stones at his wife’s car. He went on to say that while he was on the phone that same morning, the 19th, he saw Donald Britton arrive at his gateway with Tom Knox. He said Donald Britton tried to break into the gate, took a hunk of wood and lifted the end of the gate off its hinges. He said Mr. Britton drove up the driveway but before he did this he yelled out that he was going to shoot me, meaning Mr. Van Der Lubbe in the head with his 222. He said Mr. Britton then drove up the driveway and got to the 2nd bend and then said I, meaning Mr. Van Der Lubbe fired two shots into his vehicle, one in the front and one in the side back. At this stage I cautioned Mr. Van Der Lubbe and advised him of his rights to a solicitor and then I asked him some questions in question and answer form. I questioned him as to which firearm he used. I said, which firearm did you use? He said, 243. I said, and you fired how many shots? And he said, 2. I said, the reason you fired the shots? He said. I was fearful for my life, the man had threatened my life, four times, that’s why I fired.
I said, was Britton armed? He said, I don’t know, he always carries a firearm in his car; I didn’t see a rifle. I said, what happened after you fired the shots? He said, Britton got out of the car and said, hee, hee, got you now, you made a fatal mistake, got you now. He paced around the car going hee, hee and saying nighttime is my prerogative. I constantly told him to get off my property. He then backed down and him and his mate Tom Knox put the gate back on its hinges. Tom held the lock end and Britton put it on the hinges. They then drove the car on the road, got out and walked up the valley. The next time I saw them they were walking down towards my place. I said, so the reason this has happened is because you served a trespass notice on Britton. He said, oh yea, the wife served the notice. I said, do you have a firearms licence? He said, no, the wife has. I said, were you aiming to hit Britton? He said, No, definitely not, just to stop the vehicle. I said, Are you a very good shot?…He said, Yep, If I wanted to hurt him I could have done it easily. I said, who do the firearms belong to?…He said, Sandra my wife. I said, you realise you shouldn’t have fired the rifle?…He said, Yes, I was protecting my life and property. (I never said property.) He made it quite clear, meaning Britton, his intention, I was fearful of my life. At that stage we returned to the Wanganui Police Station where a telephone was available to Mr. Van Der Lubbe to ring his Council Mr. Brosnahan. He telephoned his office and spoke to Mr. Brosnahan’s secretary who said Mr. Brosnahan was unavailable. Regarding Mr. Van Der Lubbe, I, at 11.25 hours spoke to Mr. Van Der Lubbe and informed him that he would be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence. I asked him to read the notes (my statement not his notes) I had taken and if he had anything else to add and he said he did. I said, what else do you want to say? He said, there is one thing, before Donald walked up the Valley he threw the pieces of wood that he had used to lift the gate off its hinges into the creek, the one almost opposite the gate, the other 50 to 60 meters up the road into a creek/ditch. When he returned he went into the ditch again for about 1 minute. I believe he was trying to hide the wood under the weeds. I showed the police the position of the wood and the ground markings at the gate and the mud markings left on the gate bottom rail which I believe Donald Britton left there when he pushed the gate back on to its hinges. I believe Britton was trying to cover up the fact that he came up the drive after having forced open the gate. At this stage I asked Mr. Van Der Lubbe to sign his notes (statement) but he refused until he had spoken to a lawyer. I have got 0215 but it 1415, 2.15 in the afternoon, Mr. Van Der Lubbe visited by Jane Hunter, a solicitor, I believe was employed by Mr. Brosnahan and spoke to and read the notes (statement) and at the conclusion of that there was one further addition to the statement (he got it right at last) from page 3, lines 2 and 3 that he made. I said, you want to clarify part of your statement? He said, I believe when Britton said, nighttime is my prerogative (that’s when I do things) that he was going to come back at night to carry out his death threats. At that stage he signed his statement as being a true and correct (I didn’t notice the ‘property’ then) record and I witnessed and I witnessed it as having taken the notes and it concluded at 14.20 or 2.20 pm. I was referring to my notebook before, the accused signed each page of the statement individually with his initials and on the last page he signed it in full with his signature. That is part of a police notebook containing the statement by the accused. I produce that copy to the Court.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Constable, you were the officer in charge of this case weren’t you?…I was arresting officer. And O in C since?…Yes. And can you confirm from your file that on the morning of the 19th Mrs. Van Der Lubbe delivered a copy of the trespass notice to the Wanganui police?…She delivered it to Constable McGillivray at the Wanganui East Police Station after she had left Britton’s residence.
Ian John Kerrisk. (sworn)
My full name is Ian John Kerrisk. I am a Detective stationed at Wanganui and attached to the CIB. I am a member of the Wanganui Armed Offenders Squad and have been a member of the squad since 1984 and I am a senior squad member. About 9.15am on Tuesday May 19 the squad was mobilised to attend a shooting incident at the Van Der Lubbe property in Makirikiri Valley. I travelled to the scene in the lead AOS vehicle with Constables Maniapoto and Bridgland. Upon arrival at the Van Der Lubbe property AOS staff took up immediate cordon positions. The occupant of the house was then called out of the house, down his driveway to the roadway. This occurred without incident. I then directed Constable Walker of the Crime Control Unit to speak with this person. I recognise this person as Mr. Jack Van Der Lubbe and identify him. (Witness identifies defendant sitting behind council) Along with Constable Maniapoto I approached the house entering it through the open ranch slider door. I secured the premises ensuring no other persons were present. I located three firearms at the address. Apart from ensuring these firearms were unloaded I left them in situ. I then remained at the scene until I handed control to Sergeant Roe. By in situ I mean I left them where I had seen them.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Detective you said that there was the movement of the accused from the house to the roadway at your request without incident?…Yes. Is it fair to say Mr. Van Der Lubbe was entirely co-operative with the police throughout this incident?…In my view he was, yes.
Brent Stewart Gray. (sworn)
My full name is Brent Stewart Gray. I am a Police Constable stationed at Wanganui. On 19 May I was working an early shift at the Wanganui Police Station in Bell Street as the operator in the Control Room. At 9.07 I received a 111 call from the defendant Mr. Jack Van Der Lubbe (identification admitted by accused). I now seek permission of the Court to refer to notes made at the time.
Mr. Brosnahan. I have no objection.
At 9.07 hours I received a 111 call from a male person saying Donald Britton is coming into his property to break in. He (Britton) was in an unstable state. I was able to obtain the callers phone number being 3425721 a Mr. Jack Van Der Lubbe. I said he is in an unstable state and I meant he was very erratic, that is the caller. Jack Van Der Lubbe lives at Makirikiri Valley, Upokongaro. He told me Britton had sold his property to Mr. Van Der Lubbe but now he wanted it back. Mr. Van Der Lubbe’s wife Sandra phoned Jack and said Britton was on his way out. He had thrown stones and threatened to kill her. Mr. Van Der Lubbe then told me that Britton has a firearm; he’s taken the gate off its hinges. I asked him could he see the firearm?…He replied, no I can’t see it but he knows Britton carries one in his vehicle. He said Britton has a red Subaru ute with no canopy on it. It was parked outside the address on the roadside. Mr. Van Der Lubbe then advised me that Britton was coming up the drive and he had to go, he had to defend himself. He said that to me three times and that is when the phone went dead. At 9.17 am Mr. Van Der Lubbe was back on the phone. He told me he had fired 2 shots from his rifle at the vehicle and he told me his rifle was a .243. After he fired the shots he told Britton to go, to leave the property. He then told me that Britton has a .222 rifle and that he threatened to kill Van Der Lubbe. He also told me that Britton was accompanied by a Mr. Tom Knox. As Mr. Britton and Mr. Knox left they put the gate back on the hinges and went back out to their vehicle. Britton threw a hunk of 4×2 over the fence into a creek.
Mr. Van Der Lubbe said he used this wood to take the gate off the hinges. He then told me that Britton said to him he’ll be back tonight, that’s when he does things. Mr. Van Der Lubbe said that Britton got out of his car and stopped a metallic blue old model Holden and talked to the passengers. He was waving his arms around and pointing at Mr. Van Der Lubbe’s address. Knox and Britton got into the vehicle and the vehicle headed up the valley.
Cross-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
Constable, It’s normal practice isn’t it to have a tape recorder monitoring these emergency calls?…Yes. And the call you have given evidence about was an emergency 111 call wasn’t it?…Yes. You said that the caller was clearly agitated?…Yes. Frightened?…Yes. (And if the 111 tape recording hadn’t been “lost” then we’d all be able to see how much Constable Gray got wrong and left out of his notes.)
Judge Laing.
He didn’t say that.
Mr. Brosnahan again.
The best way of illustrating that would be to play the tape wouldn’t it Constable?…Yes. Are you able to do that?…No. Have we lost the tape?…(Gasps from the Jury.) We have lost the recording. (Wiped as opposed to saved and then physically lost and, heaven forbid, possibly found again.) Lost the recording?…Yes



It is fair to say Constable isn’t it that it is difficult to reconstruct a persons fear and panic as you feel it coming across an emergency 111 call such as this?…It is hard to explain. (No it isn’t, all you have to say is, he sounded like he was shitting himself.) But that is what you were faced with that day weren’t you Constable, a man beside himself with fear?…Yes.
(Then good old unbiased Judge Laing sticks his oar in again.)
Mr. Brosnahan, he is saying that’s how it appeared to be and that’s how the accused was. He can’t say the accused was beside himself because he may be a good actor. (After that little gem one of the prison officers flanking me during the trial leaned over to me and said “He doesn’t like you Jack.”) Always choose a Jury trial as opposed to Judge alone.
Mr. Brosnahan again.
That is how it appeared to you Constable?…Yes. When the call started it was at a stage from what you were being told of people breaking into the property?…Yes. And the caller Mr. Van Der Lubbe made it plain to you that the property had been locked and was being broken into?…Yes. By two people jemmying the gate off its hinges?…Yes. And as that activity, the getting the gate off the hinges got more developed, did it appear to you that the panic of the caller also heightened?…Yes. Do you recall him saying that earlier that morning Britton had threatened to kill his wife?…Mr. Van Der Lubbe said that yes. Said that to you?…Yes. And made it plain that although he couldn’t see a firearm he believed Britton had one because Britton carried one in the vehicle?…That is right. You have given evidence that Mr. Van Der Lubbe said on a number of occasions, “I’m going to have to go and defend myself?…Yes. And repeated that a number of times?…Yes. Do you recall him saying, what can I do to defend myself?…No. Your transcript of course was dictated some time later after the call was concluded wasn’t it?…Directly after the call was concluded. And it is at best a paraphrasing of the exchange between you and the caller Mr. Van Der Lubbe?…Yes. Do you accept that he could have said, what can I do to defend myself?…He could have said that. And could you have said, lock the house. I could have said that yes. Do you recall any comment from him to the intent that locking the house wont be enough they have just got through a locked gate?…He gave that impression. (He must have said, “lock the house” then.) When you first took the call and Mr. Van Der Lubbe told you that Donald Britton was coming into his place was he virtually stuck on the words he’s coming to get me and repeated those to you?…I can’t remember. Do you recall giving evidence at the lower hearing?…Would it help you memory to look at the notes of that evidence to refresh your memory?…Yes. Could the witness be shown page 15 of the deposition evidence at marker 25.
Judge Laing.
Go before and well after 25 and see just what it is you were answering.
Mr. Brosnahan continues.
Constable, my question to you was when the call came to you and Mr. Van Der Lubbe said that Britton’s coming into my place, he’s coming to get me, he has a gun, did it appear to you that he was virtually stuck on those words?…Yes. And that is the recollection of the call as it came to you with the aid of refreshing your memory?…Yes.
These answers show why a tape recording is imperative for the real truth to be known. If Gray had lied on the stand, as he was asked to do, (“I wasn’t going to lie for anyone.”) I would have been up shit creek.
In summary Constable, your impression of the call as it came to you was of a person fearful for his life?…Yes. He appeared desperate as to what he could do to protect himself and his life?…Yes. And telling you as his lifeline as it were that he had to go and defend himself?…Yes. Although this person, Constable, had rung the police on the emergency number because of the timeframe of people breaking in the gate and coming up the drive etc. there was nothing the police could actually do to help was there?…Not at that time.
Judge Laing again.
Constable, is it your evidence that in the telephone call you first received, the caller said to you he’s coming to get me, he has a gun?…No. My first noting was Donald Britton is trying to break into my place, he has a firearm.
Jacobus Johannes Nicolaas Van Der Lubbe. (sworn)
My full name is Jacobus Johannes Nicolaas Van Der Lubbe. I reside in Makirikiri Valley, Wanganui with my wife and two children. My wife entered into an agreement with Donald Britton for the purchase of that property in October last year and was due to settle in January I think. As settlement approached I became aware that Mr. Britton was refusing to settle and had changed his mind about selling. There were various exchanges between lawyers acting for the parties and eventually proceedings were issued in the High Court at Wanganui to seek orders for the sale to go ahead. In March, just before the Court was due to hear those matters Mr. Britton decided he would settle. I took possession and he was paid the money. On 18 May of this year, I was at my home on the property that day, and there was a visit from Mr. Britton and a discussion about a lease. We discussed it and I told him it wasn’t suitable as it was worded and it would have to be redrafted. His reaction to that was he said its cost me too much money already just cross out what you don’t like and I said, no we can’t do that it is a legal document and it has to be done properly.
After that conversation about the lease finished and Mr. Britton decided to leave and I followed him down to the gateway to lock it behind him and he went through it and he came out of his vehicle and I asked him, who was that chap you had with you on Sunday afternoon. That related to Sunday afternoon when he came up on his motorbike with some guy on the back and Tom Knox was on another motorbike and I was riding my horse on the Valley. (road) I said, who was that chap and Donald said, did you notice anything about him and I said yea, every time I looked at him he smiled at me. I think I said is he all right because I thought it was a bit strange that we hadn’t been introduced and he just kept smiling at me. After that not a great deal was said. It was discussed about the horse a little bit and they rode off on the motorbikes. In response to my question, who was the guy with them Donald said, that joker has been to Vietnam and done two tours of duty, that’s 400 days, that is twice as many or twice as long as the average soldier does. He says he has flashbacks. He’s killed lots of people and wouldn’t mind killing some more and would probably enjoy doing so. He then said that he had tested this fellow’s nerve. (By taking him through the Durie Hill tunnel at 60 miles an hour on the back of his motorbike and “he didn’t even blink.” How Britton could see the non-blink sitting on the front will forever remain a mystery.) He said to me, he walked up to the gate and he said to me, he poked his fingers through the wire like this, (and said,) if you don’t give me the lease within two weeks I’m going to take drastic action, you see what happens. I said, are you threatening me again? Then I asked him if he was all right. He said, why? (Because you appear to be flipping out, again.) I then went back up to the house after that conversation. After that conversation with Mr. Britton I was feeling physically ill. (The nut did have a rifle in his car.) When I got back up to the house I told Sandra about it. A decision was made and that related to a trespass notice. I typed one up. It was arranged that Sandra would deliver it to Britton when she took the boys to school the next day. I wanted to stop Britton coming up to my property at that stage because of what he said the previous night; I couldn’t take the stress of his visits. The next morning my wife went off with the trespass notice and at some stage I made a phone call to try and find out what was going on. I phoned my brother-in-law’s place because that’s where they were going to do the washing. I planed on speaking to Sandra. Daniel answered the phone and I asked him if Sandra served the trespass notice and he told me what had happened. He said, Donald threatened mum with an iron bar and threatened to kill her and as they drove away he threw a rock and hit the back of the car. As I was having this discussion with my son, Britton arrived in his vehicle at the road entrance to my property. I then said to Daniel, I’ve got to hang up Daniel, and ring the cops. I then dialed 111. I confirm that the situation was as Constable Gray outlined it in his evidence. Down at the front gate I could see Britton trying to lever the gate off its hinges. The gate was padlocked. Britton climbed over the gate and got some pieces of 4×2 and put one like that, and the other one like that he made a lever with them and he jumped on them and they broke and he came over again and got a long length of 8×2 and used it the same way and jumped on it again and the gate flew off. At that stage I was panicking from what Daniel had told me and Britton’s threats the previous night. I believed he had a firearm in the vehicle and he had threatened to kill me and I had doubts about his mental state at that time. Once he got the gate off its hinges I saw the car start to move up the hill and I was still speaking to the Constable. I was speaking to him constantly. I said to him, what can I do and the Constable said, lock the house up and I said, I can’t remember exactly what I said, but I couldn’t lock the house up because there is no floor in the entrance porch and so the house wasn’t lockable and then I was just sort of overcome. Something just gripped me. My heart started racing faster and I just went cold. I was concerned about the fact that he had broken in and he was coming. I thought my time had come. I went and got the rifle spoken of in evidence and I asked the policeman, can I defend myself, and he didn’t answer, and I said, I have to go and defend myself and I put the phone down. I didn’t hang it up I just put it aside. I went to the bedroom and grabbed the gun and went outside a fired the 2 shots spoken of in evidence. I have heard where Mr. Knox and Mr. Britton said the vehicle was at the time of the shots and I accept that is pretty accurate. When I fired the shots I wanted to keep them away and stop the vehicle and keep him at a distance. I didn’t want him to be able to use the rifle on me. I heard Mr. Knox saying I kept telling them to get off the property and that I did that and saying if they didn’t I’d shoot the vehicle up. Once the vehicle stopped after the second shot I didn’t fire anymore. When Britton got out of the vehicle and came round the front of it I had a full view of him. The occupants of the Subaru hopped out and examined the damage and then they freewheeled down the drive and I went back to the phone. The Constable has given evidence that I said to him that Britton had threatened to shoot me with a .222 and that is the case. I believed that if I hadn’t stopped Britton and his friend coming up to my house I would have been shot. I fired the shots to prevent that happening.
(Why Brosnahan didn’t ask me about Britton’s Ballance St. threats when I gave evidence I’ll never know, he even failed to produce the written statement that Carole Smith made that stated that Britton had admitted to her that he had threatened to “blow our whole family away at Ballance St.” He also failed to expose the perjury of Britton’s denial that he was facing a police charge of making a threat to kill during the period that he contracted to sell his farm.)
Cross-examination Mr. Ross.
Mr. Van Der Lubbe, how long have you known Mr. Britton?..Since I was 14. How old are you Mr. Van Der Lubbe?…41 no 42 now. So you have known Mr. Britton about 28 years?…Yes. And during that period you have spent quite a lot of time with Mr. Britton haven’t you?…In the first 5 years I saw him off and on. What about in the last few years?…No hardly ever. You have been hunting with him?…Yes. Is it fair to say that you and he enjoyed the same sort of lifestyle?…We both like hunting. Would you describe yourself as something of a volatile person?…No, not at all. (It doesn’t pay to be volatile when you’re built like a jockey’s whip.) You would describe Mr. Britton as being volatile though wouldn’t you?…Definitely yes. There was really quite some aggravation over the purchase of this property wasn’t there?…Aggravation? Mr. Britton attempted to get out of the deal. When you purchased the property and the deal was signed you put some pressure on Mr. Britton to speed it up didn’t you?…No. Did you go and visit him taking your father and a typewriter?…Yes. Had he not told you to leave it for a few days?…No So he invited you up?…Yes, I came down from Whangarei. Your arguments over the sale of this property went on for some months didn’t it?…There were letters exchanged between lawyers but no verbal arguments between myself and Britton until 7 January. Until 7 January this year?…Yes. And did he want you to forget the sale?…Yes. He didn’t threaten you at that stage though did he?…Yes he did. He did?…Yes. Did you go to the police about the threat?…7 days later I did. When did you next see him after that?…19 March. So nothing happened as a result of that threat?…No, the police didn’t do anything about it. Can you tell us what the nature of this threat was?…He said, If you take my land off me you’ll die on the place, you and your family will die on the place. And that was said in January of this year?…January 7th yes. And the next time you saw him was?…19 March. And is it fair to say at that stage relations between you were reasonably cordial?…They were business like. Can you tell us when settlement took place?…That day. He signed the transfer that day and the cheque was handed over that day. You entered into an arrangement with him then as regards some property and some gear he wanted to leave on the farm?…Yes. And you were quite happy for him to leave that gear on the property?…Happy isn’t the right word. I said he could to facilitate the easy transfer.
Did he occasionally come and remove some property?…At first he took property away and then it tapered off to nothing after a time. Turning to this person who you said Mr. Britton didn’t introduce you to, you are not talking about Mr. Knox are you?…No. Now on the evening of the 18th during that discussion with Mr. Britton did you discuss the removal of his further gear on the farm?…Yes. Did that include deer?…No. And did Mr. Britton say that he was going to come and get it the next day?…Yes. In that conversation he didn’t directly threaten you did he?…He said, If you don’t give me that lease within 2 weeks you see what happens. I took that to be a physical threat, his references to Vietnam veterans and the killing of lots of people didn’t lead me to believe it was some sort of legal action. But he’d threatened you previously even more directly than that hadn’t he?…Yes. Did you report that threat to the police that you felt…The earlier threat? No the one on the evening of the eighteenth….Yes I rang the police that evening. Who did you talk to?…I don’t know the Constable’s name. I asked for Constable McGillivray but he wasn’t on duty (easily checked) and I explained to the Constable who was on the phone. Did you advise the police what you intended to do?…No, no. Did you make an emergency call to the station that evening?…I don’t think it was no, the threat wasn’t immediate then I used the watch-house number I think. You said the threat wasn’t immediate then?…He said to do something drastic within 2 weeks. The next morning when you were having your conversation with Daniel. Daniel never said that Britton had threatened you did he?…He said he had threatened to kill mum, his mum. He didn’t say that Britton had threatened to do any harm to you did he?…No. And when you rang the police the first time you never said that Britton had threatened to kill you did you?…That morning? Yes. Yes, I said, he had threatened to shoot me. No, that was the second time?…I only made one call, I never hung it up, I just put the phone aside, it was all one call. In the first half of that call before you went outside and fired the shots you didn’t tell the police Constable that Britton had threatened to kill you did you?…No he hadn’t done it at that stage. So at that stage before you went outside he hadn’t threatened to kill you?…He had previously but on that morning, no. So the only time he directly threatened you was in January of this year is that what you are saying?…That was a direct threat and there was an implied threat the night before. So at the time you went outside you felt there was an implied threat to kill you?…I felt there was a direct threat. Is that a result of the conversation you had in January?…No it was the conversation I had with my son and the fact that Britton was breaking in and the fact that he said insane things the night before. (I didn’t fear Knox or the “mass killer” Massey, I feared Britton’s apparent insanity.)
So that was the conclusion you had reached from what your son had said and Britton had said?…Yes. But you would accept that neither your son or Britton on the 18th or 19th had indicated a direct intention to kill you?…I felt extremely threatened. I’m not asking you how you felt, I am asking you what Mr. Britton and your son had said to you?…Before I went outside Daniel told me that he had threatened to kill mum, he was really mad, he had threatened her with an iron bar, he had thrown a stone at the car, a rock at the car. Words were not required to indicate to me and make me believe that his intention was to harm me. So you believe he intended to harm you?…Yes, definitely yes. But you would accept that those words were not spoken or words to that effect that you were to be killed were not spoken by Mr. Britton?…Up until the time I went out of the kitchen Britton had not directly threatened me that morning apart from physical action, words were not used. In reaction to all this you decided to make a pre-emptive strike so to speak?…A defensive action. A defensive action?…Yes. Could you see who was in the vehicle when you fired the shots?…Yes, I could see that Donald was in it and I think I recall identifying Tom Knox. So you could see that Mr. Knox was in the vehicle?…If memory serves me correct yes. Did you know Mr. Knox?…No not really, I had only met him a couple of times. And how had you met him?…He came up to get stuff with Donald. He came up with Mr. Britton?…Yes. So you thought they were both coming up to kill you?…No I though Donald was. No I thought Donald was?…Donald had said the night before that Tom was his puppet and would do anything for him. You told Mr. Brosnahan what you have just told the Court?…That Tom was his puppet? Yes. I believe I have yes. Mr. Britton didn’t yell out anything before you fired the shots at the car did he?…Yes he leaned out the window and said, I’m going to put a bullet in your head from my .222. And how far away was he when he yelled that out?…About 30 meters up from the gate. And how far away from the house?…About 110 meters approximately. So you are saying you heard Mr. Britton yell out from 110 meters?…Yes. When he was driving a car up a gravel road?…Yes. And is that when you decided that you might take a shot at the car to try and stop him?…I can’t say for sure, I was in a panic, I had become overcome with fear and my brain slipped into overdrive, so I can’t say when that decision was made. You actually went outside with the gun didn’t you?…My intention was to stop the vehicle and prevent Britton using his rifle against me. So you took 2 live bullets out with you in the gun or was it already loaded?…No, it wasn’t loaded. No, Mr. Van Der Lubbe, when you saw Mr. Britton at your gate did you ever think of leaving the house out the back door and taking off?..I can’t really remember what I thought at the time, I was speaking to the policeman all the time describing what was happening. Events simply overtook me and that is the way it went. So are you saying you didn’t think of trying to get away?…I can’t remember what I thought, I was just gripped when I saw him breaking in and I didn’t think straight anymore. (The cop didn’t suggest I make a run for it either, quite the opposite in fact.) You had a number of firearms in the house didn’t you?…Yes. They didn’t belong to you?…They belonged to your wife is that correct?…Three of them belonged to my wife and one was my fathers. Can you recall which 3 belonged to your wife?…The .22, the slug gun, the air rifle and the .243. Your wife is keen on rifles?…You could say that, yes. They are a tool used on the farm for pest eradication and such like. You don’t have a gun licence do you?…No. (He so much wanted to bring up the crap contained in my files but hinting about my firearms licence status was all he could do.) Now you know Mr. Britton reasonably well don’t you?…Yes. And you know that Mr. Britton is prone to shoot off at the mouth don’t you?..Among other things yes. Do you know in your experience that he talks a lot?…He talks an extreme amount. He talks an extreme amount?…Yes. (And the cops had all the guns, even the slug gun, lined up in Court as though I had used them all.)
Daniel Troy Van Der Lubbe.
My full name is Daniel Troy Van Der Lubbe. (16) I live in Makirikiri Valley with my father Jack and my mother Sandra. On 19 May this year I was going to school with my mother and she went to a property in Willis Street where Mr. Britton lived and I remember that day. I know my mother went there to deliver a trespass notice to Donald Britton. I was in the car outside his place. My mother went into the property. I got out of the car for a while. I saw my mother returning towards the car. Donald was following her. I saw Donald pick up an iron bar off his ute. It was a fence standard with a curly bit at the end of it. He picked that up. When he picked that up mum was getting around by our car on the road. Donald started waving it around in the air. I could hear him say something. He said, I’ll get you and he threatened to kill mum. He said, I’ll get you and you should be scared of me. Mum was then starting to hop in our car. I was in the passengers seat in the front of the car. I had got back into the car. I had got back into the car before my mother and Mr. Britton became visible to me. The car then drove off. As we drove off he threw a rock at the car. I saw who threw the rock. It was Donald Britton. I know him; he is someone who has been to my place. Once I left the Willis Street address I went to my uncle’s place. I went to the Police Station actually. I went to the Police Station first I think and then to my uncles place. While I was at my uncle’s place I was aware of a phone call. I spoke on the phone to my father.
I said to my father that Donald had threatened to kill my mother and waved an iron bar at her and as we were leaving he threw a rock at the car and Donald was very angry. While I was having that conversation with my father my mother was in the lounge of Andrew’s place. Donald arrived at our place and that interrupted the phone call. My father told me that when I was on the phone. At that time my father told me he was at the gate and to get off the phone so he could ring the police. When he said that to me and told me Britton had arrived, my father sounded scared. (At this point the same one of the two Prison Officers who the Prosecution had for, he must be a bad bastard effect, placed on either side of me leaned over to me and said “we don’t want you with us” and “the wrong person is on trial.”)
Cross-examination by Mr. Ross.
So you heard Donald Britton say to your mother I’ll get you and you should be scarred of me?…Yes. And you took that as a threat to kill her?…Yes because he waved an iron bar as he said it. He didn’t say I’ll kill you to your mother?…No not in those words. Do you know him quite well?…Not very well. You knew you had moved back onto his property?…Yes we had moved to his place. Do you know why you went round to your uncle’s place?…To do some washing. To do some washing?…Yes. You weren’t intending to ring your father up?…No I didn’t think about that. You didn’t think about that?…No. So you were concerned about the threat?..Yes I was. When you went to the Police Station did you go in?…Yes. Did you think at your uncle’s place that you should ring your father?…We just got in the door and the phone went and dad was on the phone.
Re-examination by Mr. Brosnahan.
You made that statement to the police that morning?…In the afternoon, later in the afternoon. You went to the Police Station before you went to your uncles?…Yes. And your mother went in?…Yes. Did you go in then?…Yes. And did you speak to the police then?…Yes but we didn’t make a statement. You just spoke to them and told them what had happened then?…Yes. You went back in the afternoon to the Police Station again is that what you are saying?…Yes.


When Tom Knox got out of the ute and showed Britton the bullet hole in the bonnet Britton became ecstatic. He danced around, yahooed and then shouted to me “I’ve got you now, I’ve got you now, you’ve made a fatal mistake. I said to myself , “no you fucken haven’t.” And it was me who was proved right.


They missed one.


The last thing Britton shouted at me before he got back into the ute to free-wheel it back out of our gate was, “I’ll be back tonight, night-time is my prerogative, that’s when I do things.” So his parting words were another threat. Just shows what a suicidal nut he really is. After he and Knox had put the gate back on its hinges and carefully positioned the ute to fit in with his later “pack of lies” claims that I had shot the ute when it was still outside the gate, he didn’t give a toss about any trespass charge, small price to pay for landing me in it, Britton did a hand stand and walked that way for a few steps. He was a very happy chappy now that his cunning plan to get me in the cart had worked at last. He wasn’t so happy after the jury gave its verdict though. He bawled out Crown prosecutor Ross as being useless and when he reached his ute that was parked across the road from the Court he let out a roar of anger and punched the driver’s door so hard it left a dent.

About 20 minutes after they left the scene of their crime Britton and Knox walked back down the road and Britton went into the creek where he had thrown the 8 by 2 plank. He tried to hide the plank by forcing it down into the mud and weeds with his feet. I could see that as he had his hands on the creek bank and he was bouncing up to his knees in the water. But the plank had floated back up by the time I took the police to the spot. He was in there for about a minute and then he got out of the creek he did some more handstands and then he and Knox walked back up the road. As you saw, the reason he gave in Court for going back to and getting in the creek was, “I wanted to get some watercress.” Anybody that is mental enough to say something like that in public and expect it to be believed by a jury and who threatens to kill should not expect a red carpet when he breaks into the property of the very people he has threatened to kill.
There was any amount of cops watching that trial. They all heard what Britton had said. They all knew he was a liar and obviously mental but did that make them change their criminal attitude towards us? No the continued to support him in his campaign of intimidation.


On criminal justice Dr Brash’s musings yesterday were entirely within Act’s longstanding principles. I made self defence a high priority as
Act Justice Spokesman. Since then nothing has changed in the Police attitude, at least as far as they have officially acknowledged, though I thought there might have been some thaw in their determination to maintain their monopoly on permitted violence. The law does need some crucial changes. I drafted a number.
Self-defence – Why is Police Policy Protecting Criminals?
Self Defence
Dr Lech Beltowski
The recent claim by Northland Federated Farmers executive member Bill Guest that farmers in Northland’s isolated areas need to keep loaded weapon for security has drawn the usual negative response from local police inspector Paul Carpenter. Unfortunately his comments demonstrate once again that -at least in Northland- police no longer have any clear understanding of where their responsibilities finish and those of law-abiding citizens begin.
Even if the irony of having an article entitled “Police; loaded guns for safety silly idea” just above an article “Raiders hit migrant workers” was insufficient to raise doubts about the official police position, simply rewording the reported comment by Inspector Paul Carpenter to “Police claim unloaded guns offer better safety” should surely remove all doubt.
If one wished to further test the hypocrisy of the current police position, one only has to ask what the likely police (and Police Association) response would be to any call for police to be disarmed, forced to carry unloaded guns only or made to keep their guns unloaded and all ammunition in a seperate locked box until a clearly defined emergency arises. Yet those are precisely the rules under which they expect everybody else to operate. Small wonder then, that it’s the violent criminals who are winning.
As highly paid servants of the public, police do have an important role to play in maintaining law and order. However, there have always been practical limitations to what police can actually do for us. Such limitations have long been recognised in as much as police operate under a general collective obligation, a “duty of care” to society but without any strict legal obligation to guarantee the safety of individual citizens.
In effect, we have the absurd and totally improper situation of having the police -the very people who cannot be held legally accountable for failing to protect us- claiming the right to decide what we can and cannot do to protect ourselves and our families.
Northland Federated Farmers are certainly correct in their claim that drug- related violence and murder has become common in the area. They are also well within the law and within their rights in calling for farmers -especially those in isolated areas- to take whatever action is necessary to protect their families and property.
A local police force critical of such actions, seemingly happy to accept as inevitable the socially damaging actions of criminals but uncomfortable with the prudent responses of law-abiding taxpayers, must surely have reached rock bottom. When one then realises that farmers are only responding to a problem the police have been totally unable to deal with effectively for years, then it is abundantly clear that Northland police have no idea of their obligations or role. The throw-away comment by Inspector Carpenter that ” there was a lot police could do to protect residents of remote areas” demands only one question- why haven’t you been doing it?
Contrary to what police so often imply, self-defence is certainly legal. Section 48 of the NZ Crimes Act states that “Everyone is justified, in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use”.
This is exactly the same law used by police to justify them having the right to carry and use firearms for their own protection yet there is nothing in the Act which gives police special rights over and above those of the citizen. Clearly EVERYONE, no matter what their job, no matter who they are, has the same right to self defence under New Zealand law as the police have. What is missing of course is the level playing field, the ability to use equal means. This, however, is purely due to how police policy currently interprets the law to disadvantage the law-abiding citizen. What seems to have been forgotten is that internal police policies do not have any real legal status, so the use of policy to justify restricting a legal right is almost certainly illegal. Possibly the Council for Civil Liberties might like to take this matter up.
Be that as it may, it is high time police throughout New Zealand were reminded that they do not yet have any special right to better self-defence than the people they are sworn to serve and that, no matter what their personal feelings on the matter, our common law right of self-defence is precisely that – a legally enforceable right.
Those who have advised police in their current policy on self-defence appear to have conveniently forgotten the basics of both common and constitutional law. The famous British Constitutional historian Sir William Blackstone, in his famous book ” Commentaries on the laws of England” (first published in 1765) listed three primary rights -personal security, personal liberty and private property- which he regarded as natural rights. The specific right of individual self-defence he further regarded as a primary law of nature, a natural right that cannot be taken away from individuals by any of the laws of society. Clearly, Sir William had not reckoned with the present hierarchy of the New Zealand police nor with parliaments seemingly more interested in stripping away or restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens than in protecting them.
Since even the most junior police trainee understands that most crimes occur when police are not around, it hardly comes as a surprise to find that 99.9% of police work is reactive and begins well after the crime has been committed. Police are weekly unable to prevent hundreds of violent crimes and very rarely are they able to arrive in time to prevent a crime from being completed.
This fact must surely dash the hopes of those still naive enough to believe the often repeated claim that police can protect them, since it is somewhat unrealistic to expect help from someone who is not yet physically there. One problem may be that police now believe their own propaganda.
However, surely the most fundamental problem with the current police policy on self-defence is simply that it is the victim who always arrives at the crime scene first, well before the police. Yet, if the current police policy on self defence is any indication, police must believe that disarming victims and thereby making them more vulnerable to violent crime equates with crime control. It is high time senior police officers were made to explain how giving extra legal powers, pepper sprays, personal radios and self-defence firearms only to the people who always arrive last at the crime scene can save innocent lives or be a sensible and effective crime fighting strategy.
It was Sir Robert Peel, the founding father of modern policing who, over a century ago clearly defined the separate if overlapping roles of both the police and the law-abiding citizen when he said “the police are the people and the people are the police.”
He understood, even if his modern-day successors choose not to, that police by themselves cannot hope to deal effectively with crime and that the most effective way to minimise opportunity for criminals and thereby reduce crime is to ensure both the citizen and the police officer work together as equals, each having an equal right to react to criminal activity as soon as they see it occurring.
Sadly, in New Zealand two decades of a dangerously illogical and probably illegal police policy on self defence has ensured this is no longer the case. After suffering years of rising violent crime in silence, farmers in Northland have finally said “enough is enough”. For all our sakes we should support them.
Police say it is too early to charge anyone over yesterday’s shooting of a man in a Penrose gun shop.
The shop owner says his son shot a 29-year-old man who had entered the store armed with a machete. Detective Senior Sergeant Simon Scott says the wounded man is in a stable condition but under guard in Auckland Hospital.
Police are waiting for doctors to give them the go-ahead to speak to the man.
Mr Scott says they need to conduct a full investigation and evaluate all the evidence before they are in a position to determine what, if any, charges are laid.
Police are going through security surveillance footage of the incident and interviewing witnesses.
Self Defence?
Thirty-three-year-old Gregory Carvell, who is understood to have fired the gun, has been speaking with the police. His father and owner of the store, Ray Carvell, has told the media that his son acted in self defence.
The Civil Liberties Council is cautioning police not to rush into prosecuting Gregory Carvell. Spokesman Barry Wilson says in similar cases in the past, police have laid charges and the case has gone to court. He says police have a greater responsibility to examine the evidence before them.
Mr Wilson says if police think there is any reasonable evidence pointing towards the man acting in self defence, they should not prosecute.

Te Atatū van theft: Owner ‘acted in self defence’ in incident that killed Jason Murray

Police investigating the incident continue to look for a second man who left the scene on Sunday.
Police investigating the incident continue to look for a second man who left the scene on Sunday.

man who died after an alleged botched van theft in West Auckland has been named as Jason Murray.

Murray, 36, from Te Atatū died after an altercation with the person whose vehicle he was allegedly trying to steal on Sunday.

Waitemata CIB detective senior sergeant Kim Libby said police believed the van owner was acting in self defence.

A post mortem would take place on Wednesday and Murray’s death had been referred to the Coroner, Libby said.

Enquiries into the incident were ongoing, Libby said.

Police believe Murray and a second person were attempting to break into a van at a property on Te Atatū Rd before an altercation took place between himself and the owner of the van.

“The second individual fled the scene and we are still trying to locate them. We urge them to come forward and speak with us,” Libby said.

“As a result of our enquiries up to this point, we believe that Mr Murray has died as a result of injuries sustained during this altercation.”

Libby said the result was a “tragic outcome” and  support had been provided to Murray’s family.

“The van owner has been fully cooperative with police and we have spoken with him as part of our investigation, while we have also spoken with a number of witnesses.

“Enquiries to date lead Police to believe that his actions were in self-defence. He is understandably distraught and we are ensuring that he is provided with support and welfare at this time.”

Police asked anyone with information about the incident or the second person who fled the scene to contact Waitematā Crime Squad on 09 839 0697 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

I bet the van owner has never made a complaint against a cop.

13 The flag pole, Sergeant Paul Donnelly, Constable John Grace.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 06/06/2006



25/12/93  NOTE THE DATE!



Britton and Hayden Irvine (on left wearing arm caste) parading a bogus flagpole on James’ land. Britton wanted us to believe it was the one he had stolen from our front lawn. Britton is holding the pole. They stayed there for about an hour until they realised we weren’t going to react to their provocation and they sloped off back to town. Photo taken from our house. About 20 witnesses saw this.


Britton waited a whole year to parade his bogus pole.


Then two years later I drove past Britton’s house in Mosston Road and standing there was the final proof that Britton is a liar and Constable John Grace is an idiot.


echo flag

NOTE the “Echo chainsaw flag” part way up the pole.  Refer Offence Report form above.


grace flagpole

A gullible fool may have believed Britton’s claim that he found the flagpole in the creek and wasn’t sure if it was the flagpole or not, if the Echo chainsaw flag wasn’t attached part way up it.





Comments Off on 13 The flag pole, Sergeant Paul Donnelly, Constable John Grace.

14 The Stalker, Sergeant Gary Patterson.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 06/03/2006





Sergeant Gary Patterson refused to tell me what was in the blue plastic bag other than “It wasn’t a firearm”. I later found out that it was an axe. Why the secrecy? Britton came out of the gully without the axe. I’ve hidden a gun up there somewhere and I’ll be back some dark night? (Note how he’s carrying the axe.) He did a similar thing on 18/5/93 he walked up the same gully again and that time he was carrying a petrol can and the metal box he kept his explosives and detonators in. He was going to blow us up and then burn us down or maybe the other way round? That proved what his motives were. Photo taken from our house.



Harrassment Act 1997- FYI
Meaning of “harassment”
(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person harasses another person if he or she engages in a pattern of behaviour that is directed against that other person, being a pattern of behaviour that includes doing any specified act to the other person on at least 2 separate occasions within a period of 12 months.
(2)To avoid any doubt,—
(a)The specified acts required for the purposes of subsection (1) may be the same type of specified act on each separate occasion, or different types of specified acts:
(b)The specified acts need not be done to the same person on each separate occasion, as long as the pattern of behaviour is directed against the same person.

Shot ‘gunman’ was carrying wood
The incident has been referred to the Police Complaints Authority
A suspected gunman shot dead by police in London was carrying a piece of wood in a plastic bag, the Police Complaints Authority has said.
The BBC’s Tim Donovan reports: “The man was shot twice”
Armed officers were called to Hackney, east London, on Wednesday night after a man was reported carrying a gun in a blue bag.
Officers, believing they were under “immediate threat” from a man fitting the description, opened fire and killed him.
However no weapon was found following a search.
The PCA confirmed more than one officer had opened fire after police were called to Victoria Park Road at 1944 BST.
They had been told by a member of the public that the man had left the Alexandra pub in the road with what was thought to be a gun in his bag.
‘Wooden object’
PCA deputy chair Molly Meacher, who was at the scene on Wednesday night, said: “After the incident it became apparent that the man had not been carrying a firearm.
“The plastic bag contained a wooden object.
“The investigation will examine exactly what was reported to the police and why, what the officers saw the man carrying, what actions were taken by the man and whether his actions justified the officers opening fire.”
The man, who has been identified by the BBC as Henry Stanley, who lived locally, was fatally injured in the shooting and pronounced dead at the scene.
It was the first time officers from the Met have opened fire this year.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “A man seen fitting the description was challenged by officers searching the area.
“It appears the officers believed they were under immediate threat from the man, and a number of shots were fired by police.
“It is not known how many at this stage. The man, who is white, was pronounced dead at the scene.”
As a matter of routine, the “principal officers” involved in the shooting will be removed from the firearms unit.
They will remain off the unit, but continue as serving officers, pending the conclusion of an investigation by Surrey police on behalf of the PCA, who were called in by the Met.
Ms Meacher agreed to the appointment of Surrey’s Assistant Chief Constable Peter Fahy to be the senior investigating officer.
An investigation into the circumstances of the shooting is also being carried out by the Complaints Investigation Bureau of the Metropolitan Police.

18 Assault

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 25/05/2005

Perverting the course of justice. 7

bent cops
bent cops
bent cops

On 11/8/93 Sandra asked Sergeant Gary Patterson in his office at the Wanganui East Police Station, “What are you going to do about the assault on Jack last Monday?

Patterson replied, “Ah well it’s still being investigated but I don’t think it will go ahead. As far as we are concerned Jack has no credibility with us at all and without some independent corroborative evidence we won’t be taking any prosecution.”

Sandra asked, “Tell me why Jack is not credible?

Patterson, “Because he’s a convicted liar.”

Patterson said all that before any of the witnesses had been spoken to by the Police.

Roy Green was spoken to about the matter on 13/8/93 and a Mr. Aitchison, a passing motorist who could well have seen the assault, was not spoken to until 19/8/93.
bent cops
bent cops

I’d like to ram this letter down Patterson’s throat!

Between 13/8/93 and 10/9/93 Roy Green told Constable John Grace, who was also stationed at Wanganui East, that Britton had assaulted me on 2/8/93 and that he had lied to Constable Kirby about it because Britton had told him to. (Britton perverted the course of justice) He also told Grace that he would not lie for Britton in Court. That fits in with Grace saying to me on 10/9/93 “If you lay a charge on Britton (a private prosecution) Green might tell the truth in Court.” Grace knew the truth about the matter but he kept it to himself. So Grace was guilty of gross neglect of his duty. Grace should have charged Green with making a false statement to Kirby and then gone after Britton for perverting the course of justice and assault. Did Grace tell Patterson what Green had told him? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Patterson was in on the cover-up.

bent cops
bent cops

It didn’t matter that Britton was a self confessed liar, he was to be protected come what may.

17 Private Prosecution

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 25/05/2005

Constable Cullum McGillivray and his Sergeant Gary Patterson refused to prosecute Britton for his assault on Sandra at Willis St. saying that she and our two boys were not credible witnesses. The true reason for not proceeding was the police didn’t want to spoil their malicious prosecution of me by convicting Britton of a crime directly related to the shooting charges they had brought against me. (The “destroying” of the 111 tape recording proves that it was malicious)

When we made a private prosecution for his assault on Sandra and the boys at Willis St. against Britton, the presiding Judge,Tony Willy, had no concerns about the credibility of the Van Der Lubbe witnesses saying, “I think first I should deal with the evidence and make my findings of fact and credibility. There are three witnesses for the informant, that is, Mrs. Van Der Lubbe and her two sons Luke and Daniel. The evidence of the two boys corroborates in every material particular the evidence given by Mrs. Van Der lubbe. None of the witnesses were in Court when evidence was being given by another. There is no suggestion that the witnesses have in anyway connived to present an untrue account to this Court and I approach the matter in that way.”

That wasn’t good enough for the New Zealand Police though. They still maintained that we were a bunch of liars trying to use them for our own dastardly ends.

And after Britton had made another one of his insane, rambling, raves in defence of the indefensible the Judge convicted him of threatening language after ignoring the stone throwing evidence and watering down our assault charge. (Sympathy for the obvious nutter.) Britton responded to the verdict by threatening to “get” our lawyer Mr. Brosnahan . The judge heard the threat but did nothing.

That wasn’t the end of the matter though, Britton appealed the conviction, had another mad rave, but Judge Herron told him “there was ample evidence on which the Judge (Willy) could find Britton guilty of an offence” (so much for the corrupt cop’s position) and that the High Court had more important things to attend to and dismissed the appeal. Britton didn’t like that outcome either. First he flung his seat back in a fit of rage and he then stormed out of the Court shouting, “I want justice.” And what did the farcical PCA make of the matter? He said that the Police “enjoyed” a discretion in the laying of charges and that in this case they clearly exercised (enjoyed abusing) that discretion.

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

Constable McGillivray advised Britton to plead not guilty to the charge of trespass (19/5/1992) that he brought and to tell the judge that it was “urgent” that he get his table and chairs from our property. Here are a couple of gems from the usual mental rave that Britton said in his defence. “Early in the morning Sandra Van Der Lubbe came round to the shed I am living in. I was still in bed. She threw a piece of paper on the workshop bench next to the stereo and screeched this is a trespass notice, you are not coming onto my land and started to try and upset me by calling me names. My immediate thought was what the hell is going on, what is this stupid……..but I contained myself and said do not be fucking stupid. You know I told Jack I would be up there today. She kept her raving and insults until I finally jumped out of bed, covering my knackers. She said, you are not getting anything on my land along with further insults. I said, like fucking hell, I am going to get my stuff now. She said, no you are not and more insults and you do not scare me. Which I thought was very funny since I had not tried as yet. Another thing I thought was pretty strange was as she nutted off she kept looking at my prick area. It is not a normal thing to do. (What would that pervert know about “normal”?)

And when Judge Watson gave his verdict he said this. The Defendant in his sworn evidence has given his account of the dispute between the parties. It is clear from that account that certainly some of his “gear” relating to farm activities remained on this property. It may well have been that he had been given, as he says, a verbal agreement to go onto the property whenever he wished. That verbal agreement was revoked from the time he received the trespass notice. Any further entry on to the property had then to be negotiated by, or with the consent of the occupiers. I think the position is fairly and properly put by Mr. Britton when he says that he thought the notice was a lot of guff and he had determined that he would go onto the property at such time as was suitable to him or such purpose as was convenient to him principally to recover items which were still on the property. However they certainly did not fall within Section 4(5) (b) that it was necessary for him to go on to the property because of some emergency. None of those items were urgent; and it is clear to me from the evidence of Mrs Van Der Lubbe that it had been already covered with Mr. Britton had he cared to listen, that she was willing to have other people come onto the property provided it was not Mr. Britton. I think if Mr. Britton had been more concerned about what was being said to him rather than what his nightwear was covering, he might have understood quite clearly what was happening to him. This is a case where these circumstances it is clearly established that a valid trespass notice was properly served on Mr. Britton. He then trespassed on the property in defiance of that notice and I have no doubt that he was aware of the notice and its affect and I equally have no doubt that he had no intention of complying with that notice. Again with that scenario that there was a wilful trespass by Mr. Britton and he must accordingly be convicted.

His Honour then slapped him on the wrist with a $100 fine.

Britton never again used that “looking at my prick area” allegation in his later raves but he did say this in a later Brief of Evidence. ‘I then got a lift to a neighbours house and telephoned the Police. Mr. Van Der Lubbe was charged in connection with the shooting but was acquitted by a jury apparently because he said he believed I was going there to rape his daughter.’ Britton heard every word of my defence argument in Court and he knows I don’t have a daughter. He swore to and signed that Brief. Now, is he mental or not? Should he be treated as a potentially armed nutter with murder/suicide on his perverted mind?

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

The original Judge (WILLY) was wrong when he reduced the assault charge to threatening words and the real reason Britton appealed the conviction was because he thought he would get his firearms licence back if the conviction was overturned, demented fool that he is.



Sex case police in probe


The Police Complaints Authority is investigating after Motueka police refused to take a woman’s case of sexual abuse to court and it was later proven in a private prosecution.

The woman’s 68-year-old stepfather was convicted on eight charges of indecent assault after the Crown adopted her case.

After a jury trial last November, the stepfather was sentenced to three years in jail.

He had sexually assaulted her at least once a week for 10 years – between 1964 and 1974 – from the time she was five until she was 16.

The woman said she had spent tens of thousands of dollars to take her case to court.

She wants a formal apology from the police and an acknowledgment they discriminated against her.

The woman laid a complaint with the Motueka police in 1995.

In the five years that followed, police refused to take her case to court, saying there was a lack of corroborating evidence.

Detective Derek Milne, who has since left the police, wrote to the woman this year giving nine the reasons for the case not being taken up.

They included her employment as a prostitute between 1981 and 1983, the incidents of abuse described as lasting 90 minutes or longer being an “unusually long time”, and her apparent “over-interest in matters of sexual abuse accompanied by unrealistic expectations about the investigations that take place”.

Inspector John Winter, of Nelson police, also wrote to the woman in July this year, reiterating the reasons given by Mr Milne and saying the case had been sent to the police legal office in Christchurch.

Using the Solicitor-General’s guidelines to determine the question of prosecution, police had also decided there was not enough evidence for a prima facie case.

“Given the successful prosecution of your stepfather by the Crown, it is easy to say that the police made the wrong decisions, but even the Crown Solicitor was not confident of success, knowing the predisposition by Nelson juries not to convict without corroboration,” he said.

The woman said that the first time police turned down her case, she was “absolutely devastated”.

“The system needs to change so women who make a complaint are believed and the police do not act like judge and jury.”

After police refused for a third time to act, the woman took a private prosecution.

At a depositions hearing, Justices of the Peace found there was enough evidence to warrant the case going to trial.

The case was then taken up by the Crown.

The jury only took two hours to find the man guilty.

“It has been absolutely appalling. I have had to go through so much and am still fighting,” the woman said.

The Police Complaints Authority complaint was laid last week.


Police Complaints Credibility in Crisis Thursday, April 01, 2004

The credibility of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) is under serious threat. The simmering public discontent at the role and function of the authority that has been bubbling along for a number of years has reached a level that cannot be ignored.

That is why the Green Party opposed the reappointment of Justice Borrin as the head of the PCA last week. It was not an attack on his personal integrity. It was simply recognising the massive problem faced by the PCA and the urgent need for a fresh start.

The government has recognised this with the introduction of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Bill to parliament. That bill is an attempt to reassure the public about the independence of the authority, and to try to put some investigative grunt into it.

Those changes have now been put on hold while we await the outcome of the inquiry into the investigation of rape allegations against the police, and into the police culture current at the time of those allegations. The Greens hope that further changes needed to the PCA legislation will come out of those investigations.

I had the chance to question Judge Borrin at a Select Committee hearing last year. What worried me was that there was no acceptance by him that public unease is anything more than a problem of perception. He refused to accept that there is a substantive problem with the way the Authority conducts its investigations.

Those problems may not be of the Authorities making. The legislation governing the PCA and the significant resource constraints it has faced has meant that complaints against the police are conducted by police officers, often work colleagues and personal friends of the complainee.

It is no surprise that people have formed the conclusion that complaining about the police is a waste of time because it just means “police investigating their mates”. That is pretty much exactly what it means.

For Judge Borrin to believe that this is simply a problem of perception, rather than a significant and systemic bias is a bit of a worry.

Added to those problems is the massive backlog in investigating complaints with delays of such length that investigation seems pointless when it finally comes around. Green MP Keith Locke has been waiting for four and a half years for a judgement relating to police treatment of protests against a visiting Chinese leader in 1999.

Following the inquiry into the treatment of the rape allegations, the new legislation will finish its passage through parliament. With the reconfigured PCA, the new Independent Police Complaints Authority, it is important that a new culture develop within the authority. The authority must have the confidence of the public, and it must hold that confidence. That is why a new head is needed.

Generating public confidence will be hard enough in any event, as finding experienced investigators who are able to conduct inquiries but are neither serving police or ex-police, will be difficult. The only hope the new authority has of holding public confidence is by demonstrating a confident and courageous approach to investigations of complaints against the police.

We like to believe that the New Zealand police is largely free of systemic or institutionalised financial corruption, unlike some of our neighbours in the region. The police have, however, been accused of institutional racism, sexism, bullying, falsifying evidence and intimidatory tactics and those accusations have sometimes been proven.

Of equal concern is that there appears to be a strong cover-up culture in the police. If we want a police force that is largely free of corruption, the only way of achieving that is to vigorously investigate and deal with any examples of it.

We cannot rely on the police to do that. The natural response of the police, as with any professional body, is to give the benefit of the doubt to its own members. That is why a strong, independent, and vigorous Police Complaints Authority is essential. It’s a matter of trust.

16 The deer head

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 25/05/2005

bent cops

Donald (he may not have brains but he’s ugly) Britton on Speed’s track taunting me with a severed deer head. We later recovered the head from where he had hidden it in some gorse and found that the ear tag had been pulled out. ‘Look, I’ve been killing your deer.’ At “night-time” of course, that is “my prerogative” after all. That’s when I sneak around (like a coward) and “do things.” He also indicated to me by hand signals (beware the tape recorder) that he’d shot four deer on our farm. I knocked his arse in by telling him that he had shot four of his own deer that he “had a receipt for.”

15 Ku Klux Klown

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 25/05/2005

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it. Voltaire

Britton wearing a sheet while riding his horse past our place “pretending” to be a Ku Klux Klown.

bent cops

bent cops

bent cops

When he saw these images Sergeant Gary Patterson said to Constable Earl Fincham, “These show what a nut Britton actually is.” But he then wrote in a Police Report on the matter that he presumed that Britton (a self confessed horse fucker, and I don’t only mean that he galloped horses on Castlecliff beach till they dropped) wore the sheet “because it was colder weather”. (Non mental people wear a extra clothes when it’s chilly out.)