Dear Andrew Little,

I request the following information under the Official Information Act
on behalf of the New Zealand public.

Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock received the insignia of an Officer of the Order of Merit (ONZM) in the 2015 Queen’s Birthday honours for services to the New Zealand Police and the community. At that time you held the position of Minister of Justice.

1/ Please provide a copy of the (nomination) document/email from the person/s who proposed the nomination of Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock for consideration as a recipient of this above award, including any and all reasons why he should be considered as a candidate.

2/ Please provide a copy of the document/email which relates to the acceptance for Detective Superintendent Andrew to be considered as a nominee for this award.

3/ Please provide the full names of the complete Select Committee group who were involved in this Queens Birthday honours system in 2015 whereby Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock was nominated and subsequently received this award.

4/ Please provide copies of all documents/information related to this Queens honour award which were received by and sent from any person/s to/from your office from the time of nomination up to the date when Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock received this Queen’s Birthday award.

5/ Please advise if any time you , or if you were aware of any of those on the Select Committee involved in this Queens Birthday award system or those nominating him for this prestigious Queen’s Birthday honour, having given consideration to the fact that there may be a conflict of interest given that Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock refuted the findings of the Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry 1980 which was chaired by the late Australian, Judge Robert Taylor.

Findings by the honourable late Judge Robert Taylor

482 - The pardon alone makes it clear that Mr Thomas should never have been convicted of the crimes, since there was a real doubt as to his guilt. He should accordingly have been found not guilty by the juries. Our own findings go further. They make it clear that he should never even have been charged by the Police. He was charged and convicted because the Police manufactured evidence against him, and withheld evidence of value to his defence.

492 - Such action is no more and no less than a shameful and cynical attack on the trust that all New Zealander’s have and are entitled to have in their Police force and system of administration of justice. Mr Thomas suffered that outrage; he was the victim of that attack. His courage and that of a few very dedicated men and women who believed in the cause of justice has exposed the wrongs which were done.

“In my opinion, if ever a prima facie case was established in the annuls of the New Zealand justice, it is the findings of this Royal commission. It beggars belief in my view that prosecutions were never initiated," he said”

New Zealanders who believe in the cause of justice want to know why instead of supporting the findings of a Royal Commissioner, Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock who led the Police Review into the 1970 double (unsolved) homicide of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, instead supports an opposing legal ‘opinion’ (not findings), voiced and documented in 1981 by then Solicitor General Paul Neazor. Indeed, Rochelle (née) Crewe, is on record herself as being critical of the decision of that Solicitor General, Paul Neazor, QC, not to lay charges against Hutton and Johnston in 1981 as recommended by a Royal Commissioner in his findings.

Refer Police Review of the Crewe murders Chapter 14 - 2351 which supports opposing legal ‘opinion’ to that of findings of a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The legal opinion of Solicitor General Paul Neazor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to implicate any individual for fabricating the provenance of the cartridge case (Police exhibit 350) found in the Crewe

6/ Please advise the New Zealand public, which of the above legal findings or opinions you supported during your time as Justice Minister - that of the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry or the latter legal opinion’ of Paul Neazor as supported by Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock who led the Police Review into the Crewe murders completed in 2014.

New Zealand taxpayers paid for that Police Review of the Crewe murders and it is for ‘services to the New Zealand community’ for which the Police Commissioner, Mike Bush, said Lovelock received his Queen’s Birthday honours award. The time period you spent as Justice Minister, means our OIA Request is specifically for you because it was during this time Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock both received his award and it was during your time as Justice Minister (overlapping slightly with Judith Collins); that the NZ Police completed their Report into the Crewe murders (unsolved) which omitted vital new information relating to guns and jewellery and that Review was led by none other than Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock.

7/ If you do not consider it is a conflict of interest for Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock to have received a Queen’s Birthday award and/or prejudicial by Police to nominate him for such an award for his services to the community, after refuting a Royal Commissioners findings, please advise the NZ public why?

- It is now public knowledge that Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock has omitted vital information from that Police Crewe review which he led, relating to information about new guns and jewellery. The new podcast “the District” covers some of these facts which failed to be documented in the Police Crewe Review, (released 2014), of the unsolved brutal murder of the Crewes in 1970. Before the Review commenced in 2010, then Deputy Commissioner, Rob Pope said the following - “Andy Lovelock, the top investigator in the Auckland region, has been appointed to lead a detailed analysis of all info available and acquaint himself with all the details”.

When Detective Superintendent Lovelock went up north to retrieve a gun from a gun collector which could have potentially been a gun involved in the Crewe murders, he did not obviously consider this should have been documented into the Police Review. He did not consider he was commissioned to document ALL information such as this in the report but instead appears to have taken Mr Pope literally, and only ‘acquainted himself to such facts’.

There are currently other OIA requests with both the Police Commissioner and the Ombudsman which relate specifically to those guns not mentioned in the Police Crewe Review which Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock led, regarding the failure of Police to provide any ballistics reports, regarding the Chain of custody of the gun retrieved by Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock to its current location and other information which failed to be documented in that Police Review.

And history speaks for itself -

Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock has a history of incriminating innocent men and persecuting these innocent victims at all costs. He held Susan Burdett’s murder investigation file for many years and he informed a Stuff investigation team in a phone conversation on 3/6/16 that “the police position is that Teina Pora is a co-offender with Malcolm Rewa. That hasn’t changed”. That was after Police would have had a copy of the Report from Justice Hansen QC, the High Court Judge, for the Minister of Justice, which declared Teina Pora innocent.

Mike Bush is quoted as saying that the Queen’s Birthday award recognised part of the service to the community by Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock was of high public interest with him leading the Police Review of the Crewe murders. We therefore would reasonably consider we should not have to take this Official Information Request for a further Review to the Ombudsman because of any reason he provides in his response for failing to provide such information. We, the NZ public, cannot think of any lawful reason why our rights to expect the service and commitment from the Police when they take an oath to the Queen, could ever be undermined for any reason when it comes to the justice we expect in our democratic country, and has so terribly been denied the likes of Arthur Allen Thomas, Rochelle née Crewe, Teina Pora and too many other victims. Much of that injustice happened under your watch Ms Adams.

I, ..........., swear that I will faithfully and diligently serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God”. Detective Superintendent Andrew Lovelock took this oath.

Yours faithfully,

Sandra Heke
For and on behalf of the NZ public in support of the petition for Arthur Alan Thomas to receive a formal apology from the Commissioner of Police