The Secret Life of Information - How Auckland City Council Silences Critics:

The strange case of the Auckland real estate agent arrested without a warrant and charged with "Misuse of Telephone Device", for which he will probably not be entitled to apply for legal aid, and the absolutely over the top bail conditions imposed.

It is a basic right to contact our elected representatives, we pay their wages! And a basic right to share and impart information, according to the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind, in any form.”

Transparency in NZ has been told that this local businessman was arrested without a warrant, at night, taken to the local police station and held there for hours and subject to six rather extraordinary bail conditions (above).  We understand the defendant has received no disclosure, no details of any complaint, no list of prosecution witnesses, no summary of facts, no witness statements, in fact nothing except these three documents. Incredible that a citizen can be arrested without a warrant and charged with an offence like this and have such bail conditions as this imposed in a supposedly civilised country! I mean, it might be fair enough if he were charged under say, the Harassment Act, or something like that, but there seems to be a lack of even an allegation (of any substance). Here's the legislation:

Section 112 - Misuse of telephone device:

• (1) Every person commits an offence who, in using a telephone device, uses profane, indecent, or obscene language, or makes a suggestion of a profane, indecent, or obscene nature, with the intention of offending the recipient.
  (2) Every person commits an offence who—

  • (a) uses, or causes or permits to be used, any telephone device for the purpose of disturbing, annoying, or irritating any person, whether by calling up without speech or by wantonly or maliciously transmitting communications or sounds, with the intention of offending the recipient; or

  • (b) in using a telecommunications device, knowingly gives any fictitious order, instruction, or message.
  (3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
  
  So much for the legislation, now for the summons. Which has got the name of the informant "Rowley Prosser Clegg" crossed out, and some barely detectable scribble seems to be there, good luck deciphering it though, then it seems to refer to an offence allegedly committed on the 1st of December 2010, which extremely unlikely to be correct, and the spelling is just appalling, this is what passes for justice in this country:

"Annoying" or "Irritating" indeed! I complained to police about Rachel Betteridge of Masterton and her husband, sending me messages saying "You need a bullet" and "Watch your back" - police refuse to charge them, in spite of Betteridge committing perjury when giving evidence at another hearing in relation to the matter, so why should they get away with this outrageous bullying?

Of even more concern is that is smacks of politically motivated bullying by the police, similar to the politically motivated bullying that saw the demise of MP Georgina Beyer, and as documented by lawyer Michael Appleby. That matter also involved corruption and incompetence at the Carterton District Council, as also documented by the Auditor General (highlights from his report are contained in the complaint to the IPCA from Michael Appleby). The main part of the complaint from Michael Appleby has not been acknowledged let alone investigated, local police have steadfastly refused to investigate the allegations regarding the former Carterton Community Centre in spite of letters from a number of lawyers, etc. Georgina Beyer was forced to resign from parliament in disgrace because of the evidence though, and good riddance, we are still paying the price of corrupt and incompetent governance. Transparency NZ is an independent organisation to monitor and address complaints of incompetence and corruption involving the police, the IPCA, and other organisations by going through the proper channels, publishing the evidence of how futile that usually is, and publishing the evidence of the incompetence and corruption and the extent of the cover ups.  Publishing indisputable evidence of corruption involving government organisations works much better than just writing letters to more government departments complaining about the inefficiency of the government.  It forces resignations and makes people's positions untenable.  Unfortunately they're forever enlisting the help of their journalist mates to stage little comebacks when they think everyone's forgiven or forgotten.

I advised Mr Malcolm to ask the Duty Solicitor to obtain disclosure without delay, as I was forced to do after police refused to provide any disclosure regarding a charge of allegedly breaching a protection order taken out about 15 years ago, without notice, for no reason.  Police withdrew the charge to try and avoid disclosing the fact that the prosecution was malicious, vexatious and an attempt by the police and the complainant to pervert the course of justice.  Judge Wainwright ordered them to provide the disclosure regardless of the fact that the charge was withdrawn, whereupon it was revealed that there was no evidence to support the charge in the first place, and that it was part of a pattern of corrupt action by the police and others involved in the legal processes.