Dear Crown Law Office,
I refer to your previous responses to myself and others with regards to crown solicitors representing the SPCA

The SPCA is a private charity but appears to be represented nationwide by lawyers from the crown solicitors office

A recent response Briar Charmley from your office stated " the Solicitor-General supports Crown Solicitors' involvement in SPCA prosecutions and does not require individual dispensations to be sought in the same way as for other private prosecutions"

Because of the representation by a crown solicitor and the frequent references to the “crown”, the courts and defence lawyers have been misled even resulting in the intituling of the court in CRI-2018-092-012517[2022] NZDC 13368 to read the Queen v see here https://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/all-j...

Another member of the same family has now been targeted by the SPCA and the legal aid lawyer has stated "This is NOT a private prosecution. " and constantly refers to the proceedings as a crown prosecution.

I have been provided with case law from the supreme court S (SC 58/2019) v VECTOR LIMITED [2020] NZSC 97 [21 September 2020] https://web.archive.org/web/202110060120...
which highlights the safety provisions of section 26 of the criminal procedure act , provisions which are seemingly ignored due to the involvement of the crown solicitor. Potentially leading t a miscarriage of justice as persons involved believed that the robust checks and balances of a crown prosecution had been deployed
.
Instead we have a private prosecution which seeks to evade every challenge to accountability and circumvented the very important section 26 Criminal procedure act provisions.which are addressed at length in the case law

We have previously asked for but have never received a copy of the dispensation or any memoranda which officially states that the SPCA can be represented by the crown. To this time it appears to be hearsay when the terms of office specifically state “ Unless granted dispensation by the Solicitor-General, for a specific case or class of cases, Crown Solicitors and lawyers in the Crown Solicitor firm may not: act for the prosecutor in any private prosecution;16.4 crown solicitor terms of office 2017

Please urgently provide those documents and also show that the supreme court case law was considered before or after giving a private entity the right to representation by a crown solicitor who repeatedly discloses their status as a crown solicitor and misleadingly refers to the crown in their documents

While we understand that representation of the SPCA by the crown may may be historic , this supreme court decision makes it clear that this changed with the passing of the criminal procedure act in 2011. Foot note 54 of the case law

In your previous responses you have only considered the crown solicitors terms of office but have not considered how the legislation and supreme court case law impact on your apparent unofficial view of consent existing .

Please provide by OIA the date on which dispensation was given , copies of the docuemnt or memoranda whcih records this confirms dispensation for the terms of office in relation to the RNZSPCA and that in doing so the 2011 criminal procedure act and and the views of the supreme court were considered.

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

Dear Julia Kelly,

Thank you for the copy of the letter Inote that it is dated february 2018

The judgement SC 58/2019[2020] NZSC 97 is dated 10 march 2020

By way of OiA could you please advise if the dispensation was reviewed after the supreme court decison was deleiverd .

if not why not and now that you are aware of it will there be a review

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden