Dear Judith Collins, although you have passed this on to the Police Minister, after you received this Thu, Apr 11, 9:08 AM, it needs to be responded to no later than the 20 working days from that date please...

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST, LETTERS PATENT BREACH IN THE THOMAS ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY 1980

(emailed to.. j.collins, Andrew, m.mitchell, p.goldsmith, David, c.luxon, w.peters, Christopher.hipkins, chloe.swarbrick, CabinetOffice, judy.chu, Ginny, b.gustafson, don.brash, Rodney, Rawiri.Waititi, debbie.ngarewa-packer, Mike, Mike, maried, tamatha.paul, willie.jackson, jack.tame, TVNZ, carmel.sepuloni, c.costello, a.bayly, portwaikato.labour, Justice.Admin, ministerial.resourcing, Ministerial,)

We, (the undersigned) hereby request, via the Official Information Act the following information from you, the Hon Judith Collins KC, Attorney General.

We seek this Official information from you alone, as Chief Law Officer of the Crown and not from Crown Law. This Official information should NOT be transferred to NZ Crown Law as the holder of this information, without prejudice, can only be that of the Attorney General. Chief Law Officer of the Crown in relation to a Royal Commission of Inquiry and a very rare Pardon awarded by the late Queen; and because NZ Crown Law have a history of unconstitutionally negating the legal principles set out by the NZ High Court, going as far back as Paul Neazor, the Solicitor General, 1982 who undertook a role he was never constitutionally able to undertake.

Similarly, we do not expect you suggest that you cannot respond to this Official Information request because it relates to 'Police operational matters' (as you have suggested in the past), nor referred to any other Agency such as the Privacy Commission, to the Ombudsman's Office or other because within their own legislation, they must all BIND THE CROWN, and none of their legislation overrides the judgment of the NZ full court of the NZ High Court in relation to the very rare Pardon awarded Arthur Allan Thomas. (As Evidentiary below)

Quoted from Justice Taylor - Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry

We have been given some guidance by a FULL COURT OF THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND concerning the effect of this Pardon. Thomas is to be considered to have been wrongfully convicted. The language of section 407 is a reaffirmation of the basic effect of the prerogative pardon, and secondly, an attempt to minimise residual legal disabilities or attainders. (479 – Section 407 of the Crowns Act 1961 states effect of free PARDON where any person convicted of any offence is granted a Free Pardon by Her Royal Majesty, or by the Governor General in the exercise of any powers vested in him in that behalf that person shall be deemed NEVER TO HAVE COMMITTED THAT OFFENCE).

This commission is privileged to have been given the task of righting the wrongs done to Thomas by exposing the injustice done to him by manufacturing evidence. We cannot erase the wrong verdict or allow the dismissed appeals.

Keith Holyoake was Prime Minister for a short time in 1957 and from the end of 1960-until Feb 1972

He was Governor General from 1977-1980

The Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry 1980 was issued under the authority of the Letters Patent of the Late Majesty King George the fifth, dated 11/5/1917. Keith Holyoake, Governor General breached his Oaths and obligations to the Sovereign as well as the people of the Realm of New Zealand when he negated the Letters Patent to allow Solicitor General, Paul Neazor to negate the findings of Justice Taylor who recommended corrupt Police be prosecuted for planting evidence to incriminate Arthur Allan Thomas.

Keith Holyoake took this oath.
I, [name], swear that, as Governor-General and Commander in-Chief of the Realm of New Zealand, comprising New Zealand; the self-governing states of the Cook Islands and Niue; Tokelau; and the Ross Dependency, I will faithfully and impartially serve Her [or His] Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, as thus: Queen Elizabeth the Second], Queen of New Zealand [or King of New Zealand], Her [or His] heirs and successors, and the people of the Realm of New Zealand, in accordance with their respective laws and customs. So help me God.
Paul Neazor, Solicitor General's role in 1982

The role of the Solicitor General as laid out in the NZ Constitution Act, 1952 did not allow that Mr Paul Neazor, Solicitor General, 2nd law officer of the Crown, should undertake the role of the Attorney General, Chief Law Officer of the Crown to exercise the statutory functions conferred on the Attorney General. It was not until 1986, under section 9A of the Constitution Act, (1986), that the Solicitor General, as 2nd law officer of the Crown, could THEN exercise ALMOST all of the statutory functions conferred on the Attorney General.

Letter from the Arthur Allan Thomas Retrial Committee Inc to the Hon Mr J. McLay (Attorney General – CHIEF LAW OFFICER OF THE CROWN at that time), dated 17/8/82 –

“You handed the findings of the Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry, 1980 to the Solicitor General for investigation. He found no cause for any criminal proceedings. That finding is now seen to be a prejudgement and of NO CONSEQUENCE. Since the Court of Appeal has REJECTED APPEALS AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION, it is NOW INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO OVERRIDE THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REPORT and this committee requests you act accordingly. IF THE RULE OF LAW AND ORDER IS TO BE UPHELD AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD, then it is inconceivable that a man is not called to answer for what was revealed by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU DO NOT GRANT ANYBODY THE INDULGENCE OF BEING OUTSIDE THE LAW” Signed by the Chairman.

OIA request questions...
1/ Was Paul Neazor, Solicitor General, 2nd law officer of the Crown, able to legally and/or constitutionally undertake that role in 1982 when he chose to negate the findings of Justice Taylor, Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry?

Yes/No?

2/ Was it only after 1986, under section 9A of the Constitution Act, (1986), that the Solicitor General, as 2nd law officer of the Crown, could then exercise this statutory function on behalf of the NZ public and NZ taxpayers in relation to a Royal Commission of inquiry recommendations?

Yes/No?

(The NZ Constitution Act 1952 remained in force as part of NZ’s constitution until it was repealed by the Constitution Act 1986. Mr Neazor's report did not publicly appear until well after 1986)

3/ Did Keith Holyoake breach the Letters Patent in the Thomas RCOI (attached) when he allowed Paul Neazor to undertake this statutory role to negate the Thomas Royal Commissioners findings?

Yes/No?

Justice Taylor - Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry
492 - Such action is no more and no less than a shameful and cynical attack on the trust that ALL NEW ZEALANDERS 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 facie case was established in the annals of the NZ justice system, it is the findings of the Royal Commission. It beggars belief that prosecutions were never initiated.

Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry findings 479 - Section 407 of the Crimes Act 1961 states effect of free Pardon where any person convicted of any offence is granted a free Pardon by Her Majesty, or by the Governor General in the exercise of any powers vested in him in that behalf that person shall be deemed never to have committed that offence”

Keith Holyoake sought to keep NZ traditional links with Britain independent and had told the British bluntly that he saw NZ as a totally independent nation.

Keith Holyoake went from Motueka to Pahiatua electorate (had farms in both). he lived in Dannevirke.

He was called up for active service 1943 - but apparently had a 'heart abnormality'. He wrote a letter in 1943 saying if he was found medically fit, he was anxious not to serve as he had four children and claimed exemption for farm production reasons. He failed to mention that both his farms were being managed and he was campaigning full time in Pahiatua for the 1943 election.

Connection? - IAN HOLYOAKE - (NZ POLICE for 40 years) = relation (cousin? Nephew? of Keith - both originally from Motueka.

Ian Holyoake - Commenced as a Police Cadet in 1959. He was a member of the Police Executive with the rank of Assistant Commissioner and holding the position of Assistant Commissioner, Crime Operations & traffic. Effectively the OPERATIONAL head of Police for NZ. Worked mostly as a Detective (often in charge of high profile crime investigations and then finally in senior management in the Police and occasionally relieving as Police Commissioner. He retired February 1999 (now living at Bay View- Napier - 40 years with Police)

So during the Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry period, Ian Holyoake was in a very Senior role within the NZ Police force. His relation (Sir Keith Holyoake) was the Governor General who breached the Letters Patent to the Queen in relation to Justice Taylor's findings/recommendations by handing them to Paul Neazor, Solicitor General, 2nd law Officer of the Crown - who was not constitutionally entitled to undertake such a role in 1982.

(Following information sourced via Barry Gustafons book 'Kiwi Keith' Auckland University Press):-

Keith Holyoake was a MASON. He joined the Dannevirke Masonic Lodge. Was Hutton, NZ Police who the Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry sought to prosecute, a Mason also? Was Ian Holyoake, NZ Police a Mason?

Keith Holyoake's appointment by Robert Muldoon to the Governor General role was not widely approved -

'Holyoake as PM had found it difficult to accept the Governor General as his Constitutional senior. Holyoake especially disliked the two Governor Generals from England - Cobham & Ferguson. Sir Bernard Ferguson was a military man and the 4th member of his family to hold the post of GG of NZ. Ferguson irritated Holyoake in 1964 by his disapproval of the NZ Government granting full self Government in association with NZ status to the Cook Islands. Fergusson objected to the proposed Cooks Constitution including a provision that the Queen's representative in the Islands would be the future NZ High Commissioner. He told the NZ Government that it had infringed the ROYAL PREROGATIVE by not first consulting the Queen. Keith Holyoake then used his own political dominance to get the Constitution adopted. Ferguson said 'I don't give a damn what Keith Holyoake thinks of Bernard Fergusson but I care a hell of a lot what he thinks of the Queen's representative and he must treat that representative with the courtesy that is due to that Office just as he would the Queen'

'Keith Holyoake's antipathy to Fergusson was exacerbated by comments made by the Governor General at a farewell lunch given in his honour by the Government in October 1967. Fergusson referred to the 'Sovereigns right to advise and warn and to be kept informed'. A letter appeared subsequently in the Newspaper suggesting Ferguson's comments suggested a 'CONSTITUTIONAL ENCOUNTER OF SOME GRAVITY'. The Evening Post said the PM did not wish to comment on either the remarks or the letter and was refusing to reveal what warnings he had received. 'There the matter might have rested had it not again been raised in a book on the 1969 election which suggested that Holyoake had made private comments on one or two members of the Royal Family that suggested he finds the Royal charm only skin deep'

'The Labour Party was incensed by Holyoake's appointment. The Press was also unenthusiastic because of Holyoake's long time PARTISAN political leadership to the symbol of CONSTITUTIONAL IMPARTIALITY and National Unity'

'Holyoake had to be reminded that the Governor General represents the Queen and the Throne. A Party member owes loyalty to a Party'

'Statement prepared and published in June by the Public Issues Committee of the Auckland District Law Society. In commenting on Holyoake's 'quite unprecedented appointment, the Committee argued that a former Party Leader cannot bury his past and become a symbol of National unity and could therefore not carry out the ceremonial role of Governor General. And a third role that could be difficult would be that of the GG as Chairman of the Executive Council. One of the Government's major official advisors, Patrick Mullen, the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Executive Council disagreed with both the appointment and the way in which it had been made. In his opinion the Leader of the Opposition should have been consulted and in time for him to have made his objections privately and not as had occurred publicly at the last minute - causing concerns to the Queen. Without the PM's knowledge, Mullen prepared a secret paper on the issue and sent it to Buckingham Palace where the Queen herself considered it. Subsequently, when Muldoon visited London, the Queen's private Secretary gave him new procedures for the future appointment of a Governor General'

4/ Please advise whether you consider Keith Holyoake, discharged the duties of the Office of the Governor General with Constitutional Impartiality which the role demanded. (The Auckland District Law Society Committee argued that he could not and should not carry out the role of Governor General)

Yes/No?

5/ Please advise the specific family relationship between Keith Holyoake and Ian Holyoake.

CousIn? Yes/no
Brother? Yes/no
Nephew? Yes/no

6/ Please advise what role/s Ian Holyoake had within NZ Police between the commencement of the Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry 1980 until the end of 1986 (when Paul Neazor's report negating the findings/recommendations of the Royal Commissioner was first seen publicly)

7/ (Ian Holyoake states he worked mostly as a Detective often in charge of high profile crime investigations and then in senior management in the Police and occasionally relieving as Police Commissioner). Can you please advise if Ian Holyoake worked or was involved in the high profile crime investigation into the Crewe murders and/or any involvement in the Thomas Royal Commission of Inquiry, 1980 where Police were found to have planted evidence to have incriminated an innocent man who sat in jail for nearly 10 years until he was awarded a very rare Pardon by the late Queen?

Thank you,

Lynette Stevens and Sandra Heke
Sisters of Murray Christensen killed by Corrupt Police Crown witness Karl Lobb ('Mr X'), on behalf of our family...

and for and on behalf of all the Petitioners who seek an apology for Arthur Allan Thomas and a posthumous apology for his late ex wife Vivien Harrison and for the public expecting transparency in these serious matters relating to democracy.

(Attachments were included via email.)

Yours faithfully,

Lynette A Stevens