Dear Privacy Commissioner,

The Ministry of Justice has prepared guidelines (which I've forwarded to your office) to assist public and private sector organisations to develop and improve their fraud and corruption policy and procedures.

Please advise me of the policy you've adopted to ensure that fraudulent records are not promulgated by government departments in accordance with Justice Department guidelines.

Yours faithfully,

John Creser

Dear OIA,

Tara Reynolds, Acting Manager
Investigations & Dispute Resolution Team
Office of the Privacy Commissioner

24/08/2021

Hello Tara,

FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Thanks for your email confirming that the Privacy Commissioner believes the concealment and material alteration of a Court document is considered a judicial function of a registrar.

I will make a complaint to the Ombudsman, however I'm still awaiting an answer to the following question. Ms Warburton said "our office cannot provide guidance on which one of the two decisions/orders are correct" This is providing legal advice rather than guidance under the Privacy Act. You should seek independent legal advice on this matter. . I note the answer to this question is actually the key to determining the complaint you've been asked to consider. There can only be one correct decision of the Court, I have to accept that decision, as does the Justice Department as do you. Do you accept that the attached 8 October 2003 decision is correct or not?

I've provided your office with this precedent: "An exception to registrars acting under judicial function is considered, in Seatrans (Fiji) Ltd v Attorney-General [1986] 2 NZLR 240, Hillyer J held that the failure of a court registrar to give effect to a court order to pay money into an interest-bearing account could be the subject of proceedings. No judicial element or indeed execution, was involved. This is an application of the general principle that a patently unlawful order is no defense. The protective legislation contains an express limitation to the effect that if the official knew or ought to have known that the court issuing the order had no authority, the protection does not apply."

My information has been used in the commission of a crime and its somewhat disingenuous for you to suggest that the act of a registrar concealing a document and allowing a solicitor to act for both sides in a proceeding relates to the judicial function of the courts. In this case the registrar has signed a document which effectively overrules a decision of the Court of Appeal.

Section 258 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides that altering, concealing, or reproducing documents with the intent to deceive is an offence and this is precisely what has occurred here If you remain unable to decide which of the two decisions represents an exercise of a judicial function, please forward this email to the Privacy Commissioner for reply.

I do accept that your office has refused to investigate, however I'm still entitled to request a qualified answer to my correspondence and an accurate record of what it is you're refusing to do.

Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi .

John Creser