• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Predator teacher ‘flagged’ in 1999 but gets OK from New Zealand Teachers’ Council

August 24, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

A Northland deputy principal who has admitted sexually abusing pupils was flagged as a potential predator in 1999 as a student teacher but signed off as suitable anyway.

Despite a further warning in 2009 – that time by police – he was allowed to continue as a teacher for 11 years until his arrest last month.

Concerns about James Parker were first lodged with the Teachers’ Council when he was a provisional teacher, having newly started in the profession.

Parker pleaded guilty in Kaitaia District Court this week to 49 charges of indecent assault, performing an indecent act and of unlawful sexual connection.

The attacks, on boys aged under 16, occurred over nearly eight years at Pamapuria School.

Teachers’ Council director Peter Lind said concerns surrounding Parker’s ability to work around children began when he was teaching on a provisional licence at another school.

Concerns were lodged with the Teachers Registration Board, now known as the Teachers’ Council.

“We had contact in 1999 from the school and there were concerns raised about his professional boundaries,” he said.

“But the school did not want those concerns taken any further and his application to move from a provisional registration to a full registration was made by that school some months later.”

A decade later police received a complaint from a child via a parent and investigated Parker.

They could not gather enough evidence at the time to prosecute Parker and instead wrote to the school to alert the board of trustees about concerns.

However, the board did not act on the letter, did not advise the Education Review Office and did not advise the Teachers’ Council.

Mr Lind said because of the original 1999 contact, if concerns were raised again an alert status would have been activated on Parker.

“But the council itself received no further concerns about professional performance about this particular teacher.”

Pamapuria School principal Stephen Hovell has been stood down during the investigation and could not be contacted.

The Pamapuria board of trustees has resigned and a commissioner has been put in to run the school.

Detective Inspector Karyn Malthus said yesterday that children were interviewed in 2009 and the matter could not be substantiated.

“Police reject any suggestion that we were responsible for any inaction. We took all steps possible within the law to make the appropriate notifications,” she said.

Ad Feedback

“Police did interview Parker and notified the school of their remaining concerns.

“We could not sustain any allegations and were therefore limited in what we could do.”

Ms Malthus said charges were laid when further evidence came to light recently.

That investigation continues despite Parker’s guilty plea on Wednesday.

Police were continuing to work with Child, Youth and Family and the Education Ministry in supporting the victims and their families, Ms Malthus said.

Parker’s fall from grace has come in the same week former ombudsman Mel Smith released a report into how sex offender Te Rito Henry Miki managed to evade detection and work as a teacher at six schools.

Mr Smith said what happened with Parker matched what he uncovered with Miki – there were several organisations and individuals that should have acted but who dropped the ball.

Mr Smith said the Government had accepted or partially accepted 36 of his 39 recommendations but had yet to put them into practice.

Even with his recommendations implemented, offences could still occur, he said. But the process would be sufficiently “tight” to ensure it was more likely that offending teachers would be detected early.

“You’ve got to remember that there are more than 70,000 registered teachers . . . and then there are all the other people involved in school, from caretakers through to contractors.”

Source: The Dominion Post, Friday, August 24, 2012, p. A4.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7538086/Predator-teacher-flagged-in-1999

Fairfax NZ News story.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Crime, Sexual Dysfunction Tagged With: Peter Lind, provisional licence, provisional teacher, Teachers Registration Board, Teachers' Council

Prime Minister John Key’s claims that euthanasia already happens in hospitals sparks anger from doctors

August 24, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

We Never practice euthanasia says palliative care official.

Angry doctors are appalled at Prime Minister John Key’s claims that euthanasia already happens in hospitals.

“We never practise euthanasia; euthanasia is the deliberate ending of life, and is illegal and unethical,” Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine chairwoman Sinead Donnelly said.

Mr Key’s comments could seriously damage the trust people had in hospital care of the seriously ill, the Wellington doctor said.

Mr Key signalled his broad support for euthanasia – medical assistance to die – during a stint on Newstalk ZB this week.

“If I had terminal cancer, I had a few weeks to live, I was in tremendous amount of pain – if they just effectively wanted to turn off the switch and legalise that by legalising euthanasia, I’d want that.”

Hospice New Zealand clinical adviser Sandy Macleod said “euthanasia does not occur in our hospitals, full stop”.

Dr Macleod, a palliative care specialist at Christchurch Hospital, said Mr Key’s comments were misguided and incorrect.

“As sickness progresses towards death, the focus of care is on minimising suffering. To minimise suffering, it is not necessary to kill the sufferer.

“Often morphine is blamed for people dying, or sedation is blamed for people dying, but the reality is they die of their disease and neither of those medical treatments hastens their death.”

Capital & Coast District Health Board head of palliative care Jonathan Adler said there was a lack of understanding about end-of-life choices.

Switching off a life support machine and allowing someone to die of natural causes was not euthanasia, Dr Adler said.

“There’s real confusion about what we can and can’t do in New Zealand.

“You can have a lot more control at end of life than people believe at the moment.”

People could refuse medical treatments, such as being resuscitated or given antibiotics.

“They’re not taking something to make their life shorter, they’re just saying, ‘For whatever reason, for me, and how I see life at the moment, I want to be comfortable, I don’t want to have my life prolonged, enough’s enough, just keep me comfortable’.”

An advanced directive states what medical treatment a person wants in a particular situation, and an advanced-care plan details what they want at the end of life, such as dying at home. Both are created in conjunction with family and medical professionals.

Dr Adler called for better discussion about death and dying between doctors and patients, rather than a giant leap to legalising euthanasia.

Ad Feedback

When Mr Key was asked last night about his earlier comments, he said: “I don’t think anyone is breaking the law, but in a practical sense I think that [euthanasia] already happens here in New Zealand today.

“Switches get turned off from time to time, don’t they?”

Asked if his comments made hospitals seem untrustworthy, he said: “No, I don’t think so. Their comments in the paper align exactly with what I meant.”

Source: Story by Bronwyn Torrie (HEALTH) – The Dominion Post, Friday, August 24, 2012, p. A5.

Fairfax NZ News

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7538178/PMs-euthanasia-claim-sparks-anger

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Pro-life Tagged With: euthanasia, palliative care official

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review – Family First NZ Media Release

August 24, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

FAMILY FIRST NZ, a register charity lobby group, issued the following media release on 24 August:

Parents Demand Apology For Inaccurate Smacking Review

A Timaru couple whose experience of the anti-smacking law was used in the Prime Minister’s report on Section 59 by psychologist Nigel Latta, and whose integrity and honesty was called in to question along with a number of other parents, now have the government paperwork to prove that the report is based on false information, and are demanding an apology.

The parents’ experience has been featured both in NZ on the documentary “My Mummy’s A Criminal”, and on 60 Minutes in Australia.

Parents Erik and Lisa Peterson whose children were removed from their home for 72 hours because of a botched CYF investigation over a smack have fought for over three years for the truth to be told. In their letter to Nigel Latta, they say:

“Your summary was based on our case file, and we took a great deal of issue with it. We also took great issue with you calling our integrity and honesty into question, albeit indirectly, on national television. You will by now have received a letter from the Ministry of Social Development containing a number of corrections to the error ridden file that you based that summary on. (Review panelist and MSD Head) Peter Hughes says your summary was accurate because you read our case file – the same case file which required a staggering two and a half pages of corrections! ….

“Mr. Latta, the section 59 Review states that you found “the agencies responded appropriately and proportionately” in each of the cases. I cannot speak for anyone else, but our family was not treated appropriately or proportionately. CYF were responsible for at least three breaches of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 in the investigation of our family. Until very recently, they were also in breach of the Privacy Act. Hardly appropriate behaviour. We lost our children for 72 hours because the local workers couldn’t be bothered to meet on a Friday afternoon. Hardly an appropriate or proportional response.

“It is my view that you owe our family an apology. I would suggest our experience is not unique among those families reviewed. It is most probable that you owe several families an apology.

“With hope of closure after a three and a half year battle. Erik and Lisa Petersen”

Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ adds: “The Latta review contained glaring errors including misrepresentation of basic facts, contained alleged actions of parents which were found to have no basis in court but which still presents the parent as being abusive, and failed to take into account the response of the court including discharges without conviction for what were previously claimed as serious assaults. The terms of reference of the Review failed to allow the voices of families who had been victims of the new law to be heard. It also failed to examine the outcomes of the investigations and whether the law was being applied as Parliament intended. It clearly is not.”

A group of parents, whose experiences were included in the report, released a statement immediately after the Prime Minister and Nigel Latta presented the report in 2009, saying

“This is a one-sided report and fails to objectively hear the evidence from both sides. We reject the notion that we have misrepresented the facts to Family First, and that Family First has lied in their advocacy work in this area. Family First has been one of the few organizations willing to hear our side of the story and advocate for our concerns. We are not child abusers, yet this report continues to make that accusation, and does so without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or a full assessment of the facts. The effect of the experience of being investigated and in some cases prosecuted has had a huge effect on our families including our children, yet this has been minimized or ignored.”

“The Peterson’s have sought to set the record straight. We will be encouraging other parents misrepresented in the report to do likewise,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Official Information Act documentation requested by Family First seems to indicate that the review involved only two meetings of the full panel, ‘rides in a cop car’, sitting at the Police Communications Centre for a couple of hours, and misinterpreting and misrepresenting cases put forward by us,” says Mr McCoskrie. “New cases are being brought to our attention on a regular basis – many of which have been featured in the media.”

The full evidence of the Petersen case and four others can be viewed here www.protectgoodparents.org.nz

ENDS

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Anti-smacking Bill Tagged With: CYF investigation, Nigel Latta, section 59

Paedophile easily got jobs at six New Zealand schools

August 22, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

People “looked the other way” and allowed a convicted paedophile to work among children at six different schools over six years, a ministerial inquiry has found.

The report into the case of Te Rito Henry Miki, led by former ombudsman Mel Smith, was released yesterday.

It found “several factors” besides Miki’s “personal duplicity” had allowed his “relatively easy entry to teaching positions” despite dozens of criminal convictions, including for an indecent assault on a 14-year-old boy.

Education Minister Hekia Parata insisted “system failures rather than people failures” were to blame.

But Mr Smith last night said there were “both system failings and human failings” in the case.

“I identified the systems failings, the human failings and then provided opportunities to rectify those,” he said.

“There were people who knew his background and looked the other way.”

Mr Smith said he had “some concerns” that “some people knew his background but still employed him” but had been unable to confirm those.

His report said there had been a “failure of knowledgeable individuals to advise relevant authorities of Miki’s probable identity and criminal history” and a “willingness of individuals to pretend ignorance as to his real and stolen identities”.

“It just didn’t happen within the police,” he said.

“I found it difficult to understand how he could pull the wool over experienced probation officers’ eyes but, nevertheless, that’s what happened.”

A new 24-hour satellite surveillance programme for high-risk offenders would have prevented Miki’s offending, he said.

While under an extended supervision order for his offending, Miki used a fake CV and birth certificate to gain employment during the six years to January 2012 in six North Island schools.

In 2009, he was arrested on the grounds of a Tauranga school where he had been working, only to go on to work at another school in Auckland.

After accumulating 53 fake identities, Miki was finally arrested in February this year and pleaded guilty in April to seven charges of fraud and four counts of breaching parole conditions.

The report pinpointed Miki’s arrest at Tauranga as one of several missed opportunities to eliminate him from teaching.

The Tauranga school’s principal had “erroneously assumed” his arrest would get to the Teachers Council via the police.

One “diligent” Tauranga constable, a former teacher, had also “located all the information needed to expose Miki, but was deterred” by a lack of the necessary paperwork.

“It was clear that potentially useful information about Miki was lost because at least one concerned person was put off by overly dogmatic bureaucracy,” the report found.

Teachers Council director Peter Lind said the council had been let down.

“Not only had the principal not reported to us, the courts hadn’t reported to us nor had New Zealand Police reported to us,” he said.

Ad Feedback

However, the people involved should get “the benefit of the doubt” and the fault lay with the systems.

“Yes, they should have done that. But then we also need to say what is it that we need to do to ensure that we don’t get another Miki slipping through the cracks,” Dr Lind said.

Ms Parata said the case provided a “very serious wake-up call” for the whole state sector.

The Government had accepted or partially accepted 36 of the 39 actions recommended by the inquiry. Three were still being considered, including for biometric photographic evidence to be required for all teachers.

Source: Paedophile easily got jobs at six schools. By John Hartevelt and Andrea Vance

The Dominion Post, Wednesday, August 22, 2012, p. A3

Fairfax NZ News

– © Fairfax NZ News

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Other Tagged With: convicted paedophile, Dr Peter Lind, Education Minister Hekia Parata, Hekia Parata, ministerial inquiry, Peter Lind, Te Rito Henry Miki, Teachers Council director

AWINZ – a registered charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years

August 21, 2012 by SPCS 2 Comments

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), an unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly “established” by Deed of Trust on 1 March 2000, was registered as a charity (Reg. No. 11235) with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007. This charity (henceforth referred to as “AWINZ”), spent a total of $126,850 [ref. 1] in legal fees over four years (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010) in bringing defamation proceedings against a ‘whistleblower’ – Private Investigator, Mrs Grace Haden of Auckland, who has been raising serious complaints since March 2006 with the Charities Commission and other enforcement agencies over the alleged corrupt practices of Auckland barrister Neil Edward Wells [to right], Settlor of the AWINZ Trust Deed, and AWINZ the “Approved Organisation” (as defined under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – henceforth referred to as “AWINZ – AO“).

It is critical to grasp the distinction between “AWINZ-AO”, which was never constituted as a trust, and AWINZ the unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly established on 1 March 2000 by means of an executed Deed of Trust (after an amendment to the AWINZ deed and the appointment of other trustees in 2006 it was later granted charity status in 2007 – Reg. No. CC 11235).

AWINZ -AO, a private law enforcement authority which operated in Waitakere City using the council’s staff, infrastructure and resources, was run by Neil Edward Wells – at that time manager of dog and stock control. Its expenses were paid through rates but its profits were private.

Neil Edward Wells has sought to convince the Courts and those he has sought funds from, that the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ and AWINZ-AO are one and the same entity and that AWINZ arose from AWINZ-AO via a seamless transition involving Ministerial approval. He put it this way when soliciting for funds on behalf of AWINZ in 2004 and 2005 from “Beauty With Compassion” (BWC), an organisation (dissolved by 2006) which campaigned against the use of animals for testing of cosmetic products:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand has been functioning since its inception in 1998 as the channel for animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere and North Shore Cities. AWINZ is one of only two “approved organisations” recognised by the Minister of Agriculture and Gazetted as such. The other is the SPCA…. [Emphasis added]

“AWINZ would be happy to take on any residual funds from BWC and The New Zealand Fund for Humane Research [of which Wells was a founding Trustee – see later discussion].”

In a plea for money sent to all Waitakere City Council dog owners in June 2006 under the Council logo and AWINZ logo, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of AWINZ, Winifred (Wyn) Hoadley QSO  [appointed 10 May 2006] wrote:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand established in 1999, is partnering with Waitakere City Council to provide the very best of services for our animals …….. HELP THE WAITAKERE ANIMAL WELFARE FUND ….. [Coupon details] … here’s my donation ….. Tick box $10 …. $250 or other etc. Please return to PO Box 60 208 Titirangi, Auckland… AWINZ is an “approved organisation” under section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.”

A similar pitch for donations was made by AWINZ to dog owners in 2007.

AWINZ-AO was first notified of its “approved organisation” [AO] status, under section 121(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, in a letter dated 19 December 2000 from the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jim Sutton, based on an application made by Neil Wells only, dated 22 November 1999, which was after the Act was passed in October 1999, and before the Act came into effect on 1 January 2000. More importantly, the official application was lodged before the unincorporated charitable trust “AWINZ” was allegedly “established on 1 March 2000“.

The Minister’s decision concerning AWINZ-AO was first gazetted on 18 January 2001, nine months after the AWINZ Deed of Trust had been allegedly duly executed on 1 March 2000, and 14 months after the formal  application was made. Therefore  the Minister’s decision did NOT relate to AWINZ at all. Minister Sutton made it clear is his letter of 19 December 1999, that his granting of “approved organisation” status was to the applicant AWINZ-AO, (“AWINZ” being at that time only the trading name of an an animal enforcement agency), which made its first and only application for “approved organisation” status in a letter dated 21 November 1999, addressed to Minister of Agriculture the Hon. John Luxton. The application was written and signed and submitted by Mr Neil Edward Wells and no one else.

Whistle-blower Mrs Grace Haden has pointed out publicly that a clear case of identity fraud was involved in this application to the Minister because Neil Edward Wells signed himself as “Trustee – AWINZ”, when in fact no such trust had been established at that time. Therefore the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ – allegedly established on 1 March 2000 was NOT the applicant for “approved organisation” status, and could not have been the “approved organisation”.

Sutton made it clear in his letter that this granting of “approved organisation” status was conditional upon AWINZ -AO, the animal enforcement agency operated by Neil Wells, fulfilling certain requirements and it had until 30 March 2001 to fulfil these.

In 2006 when questions of the independent legal existence of AWINZ-AO arose,  Mr Neil Wells made an attempt to use the court to prove that which normal business practices could not prove, alleging that the “Approved Organisation” (AWINZ-AO), a law enforcement agency with  coercive statutory powers, was in reality the charitable trust. He did so despite the fact that  no other person  apart from himself had ever had dealings with the application, administration  or functions of the  “Approved Organisation”. His letter of application and accompanying documents sent to Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, dated 22 November 1999, on behalf of “AWINZ-AO” contained the signatures of no other persons and no consent was given  jointly or severally by the  alleged trustees of the not yet established  trust.

Through  measures  normally reserved for  identity fraud, it was alleged in Court by the plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, in defamation proceedings he began against Grace Haden and her company Verisure Ltd, on 18 July 2006, that AWINZ-AO the “approved organisation” was in reality a  charitable trust (“AWINZ”) established by deed  three months after it  purportedly made  the application to Minster of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, on 22 November 1999, for “approved status” (under the Animal Welfare Act 1999).

However, no charitable trust with the name AWINZ had ever been established prior to 1 March 2000 and the applicant for “approved organisation” status could not have been made by the unincorporated AWINZ charitable trust, which later went on to gain approval as a registered charity with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007.

The total income of AWINZ over the four period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010 was $106,639 and it was able over these four years to fund the $126,850 legal case mounted by the Settlor of the Trust’s Deed, Mr Neil Edward Wells, and two of his fellow trustees, as well as make payments totalling $31,249 to a part-the employee of the unincorporated “charitable trust” – Christine Raewyn Wells, wife of Neil Edward Wells, for her “film monitoring wages (including PAYE)”.

At the AWINZ Board meeting on 10 May 2006, Neil Well’s wife, Christine Wells, who was not a trustee, was appointed treasurer of AWINZ and she was authorised as a signatory to sign cheques on behalf of AWINZ. Two signatures were required for all outgoing payments. Three trustees were authorised to sign cheques plus Christine.

AWINZ failed to provide its original signed Deed of Trust (supposedly dated 1 March 2000 – if it ever existed) to the Charities Commission and yet it was granted charity status on 28 September 2007. Its stated “charitable purpose” is “to promote the welfare of animals exclusively in New Zealand”. However, there is no evidence, according to ‘whistle-blower’ Grace Haden, that it is has achieved anything of “public benefit”, and/or engaged in any activities that serve some “charitable purpose””, since it became a registered charity. Its small income comes from the “monitoring of animals in movies” to prevent ill-treatment: a business venture that provides an income for Christine Wells, wife of the Settlor of the Trust – Neil Wells.

The AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2005, the only AWINZ Deed of Trust document available on the Charities website, states in section 4 that “in furtherance of this [charitable] purpose” AWINZ is “To “apply all funds and assets of the Trust within New Zealand towards furthering the exclusively charitable objects, aims and purposes…. (b) To prevent ill treatment to and assist in the relief of suffering of animals. {c) To provide animal welfare services…” etc.

Funding personal defamation proceedings using funds from a  registered charity which is unincorporated and which has as its sole stated purpose – the “promotion of animal welfare”, is a flagrant misuse of charity funds, especially when: (1) the legal action was directed by the Settlor of the Trust, Auckland barrister and plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, AND the named charity (AWINZ), which is not a legal entity, (2) the defendant was Grace Haden who had raised numerous complaints with the Charities Commission since 2006 concerning the alleged corruption involving AWINZ (Haden later pointed out to the Commission that  the trust is being used in a manner akin to money laundering  – that is converting charitable funds to  the private income of one person), and (3) charity money was used to secure a ‘win’ for the plaintiff and none of the award costs, which have been paid out, have been returned to the charity, as evidenced by AWINZ financial statements.

The Trustees have chosen to categorise the “Grace Haden legal costs” incurred by “AWINZ” over the four years (2006-10), as “Service Provision Costs” in their official explanation to the Charities Commission. Such recorded costs involve no other items other than the costs incurred by Mr Neil Edward Wells and his fellow trustees in pursuing a defamation claim against Grace Haden. In recent weeks the litigation has involved Trustee Neil Edward Wells seeking to force Haden’s company Verisure Ltd into liquidation.

In law, defamation proceedings can only be taken by real legal “Persons” – that is named individual[s] and or legal entities, and NOT by unincorporated bodies such as unincorporated trusts. Despite this legal prohibition, Mr Neil Edward Wells took defamation proceedings in his own name, and claims of passing off and breach of fair trade in the names alleged fellow trustees, and yet all the tax invoices issued by Brookfields Lawyers of Auckland for this defamation case were sent to their client (the plaintiff) identified only as “AWINZ” located at the private P.O. Box of Neil Edward Wells, Titirangi.

All of the $126,538 of legal costs for which we have  invoices for , were issued to AWINZ C/- Neil Wells,  by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the  2006 trust deed that is registered with the Charities Commission. And yet “Legal costs – Haden” appear as expenditure items in the AWINZ Financial Statements in each of the years (2007-2010)

Former Charities Commission employee Mr Chris McIntyre, Senior Analyst – Monitoring and Investigatons – dealt with a number of the complaints raised by Mrs Haden against AWINZ over the period 2007 to 2012. But no action was ever taken against AWINZ by this employee of the tax-payer funded Crown entity – The Charities Commission –  throughout the prolonged legal proceedings funded by AWINZ “charity money”. McIntyre, who no longer works for Charities, received full documentation from Mrs Haden relating to her serious allegations against AWINZ of corruption and money-laundering and no action was taken.

The oldest set of AWINZ Financial Statements registered with the Charities Commission are those for 2007, and these record total assets of $110,226 as at 30 June 2007. The bulk of these funds ($98,208) constitute the so-called “Lord Dowding  Fund” [“LDF”] which, according to Haden, Mr Wells solicited from a now defunct incorporated society called Beauty With Compassion which gave in excess of $100,000 to Mr Wells in 2005. As at the 30 June 2008 total AWINZ net assets were $105,148 and this included $90,000 in the LDF. By 30 June 2009 the LDF had been reduced to $44,000.

The Lord Dowding Fund is mentioned in s. 4. (“Purpose”),s. 5. (“Powers”) and s. 18 (“Interpretation”) of the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2012. S. 18 defines it as having been:

“… established by the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research on 14th August 1981 for the purpose of sponsoring or otherwise supporting research directed to the discovery of viable alternative techniques to replace living animals in scientific investigations.”

These funds can only be used for the charitable purposes and these do not include funding the personal defamation proceedings entered into by the Settlor of AWINZ, Neil Edward Wells/ against Mrs Grace Haden.

Neil Edwards Wells was a founding Trustee of the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research which was incorporated as a charitable trust on 14 August 1981 under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (Reg. No. 212230). Wells remains trustee of this allegedly defunct trust which has not yet been deregistered and Haden points out that in the meantime, as the sole remaining trustee, Neil Edward Wells, persists in operating it as those it is very much ‘alive’.

The channeling of charity money from the Lord Dowding Fund into AWINZ occurred prior the AWINZ being registered as a charity with the Charities Commission or in the period after it was registered when it was not required to submit financial statements. The allegations of corruption that Mrs Haden has made include the unlawful use of this money to fund a defamation case, taken by an unincorporated trust, AWINZ, which is not a legal entity in its own right.

All of the $126,850 of legal costs for invoices that have been cited, were issued to AWINZ  by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the  2006 trust deed. There is also the serious allegation that none of the costs awarded against the defendent (Mrs Haden), and paid out by her to AWINZ Trustees Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley, have been disclosed in the Financial accounts of AWINZ. Mrs Haden contends that Mr Neil Edward Wells benefited financially from the tens of thousands of dollars paid out in costs, exemplary costs and damages, in a legal case that was funded entirely by charity money.

References

1. Legal Fees Haden: $32,312 (2007), $12,904 (2008), $60,150 (2009), $21,484 (20010). Total: $126,850

Source: Financial Accounts www.charities.govt.nz (2007 to 2010)

2. In  the  donation solicitations  by Wells he claims to  be administrating the Lord Dowding fund for the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research,  but this trust  has ceased to exist despite it still  being shown on the Register of incorporated charitable trusts.  It was Mr Heather’s wife Lucille who ran Beauty With Compassion.  Her society was  wound up.  She gave the money, some $100,000 used for litigation, through to Wells on 15 March 2005.  The three  previous trustees  of the NZ Fund for Humane Research are  all very elderly or dead.  Wells is the only one  who is continuing to pretend this trust continues.

3. Letter from Neil Wells (AWINZ) to Lucille, Secretary of Beauty With Compassion, headed “BWC and The Lord Dowding Fund”. dated 14th March 2005.

4. http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AWINZ-MEETING-MINUTES-doc-10-05-06-original.pdf

5. http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/V-lord-dowding.pdf

6. http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/R-communications-with-Maf.pdf

7. New developments in animal welfare. New Zealand Government Media 19 January 2001

http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/news/new-developments-in-animal-welfare

Notes.

Constitution of AWINZ charitable trust board. Quoted from AWINZ Board Meeting Minutes 10 May 2006.

Clause 7.2 (a) of Deed [dated 01/03/00]

“The [AWINZ] Board shall consist of not less than 4 nor more than 8 members, provided that where a vacancy occurs the remaining trustees may act until a replacement Trustee is appointed. The initial members of the Board shall be the four signatories who signed this Deed as Trustees.”

Clause 7.2 (b)

“The Trustees may appoint up to 4 additional Trustees. Before appointing additional Trustees under thisclause the Board wil consult with its strategic partners and have regard to the needs of the Trust…”

Composition of Board 2000 to 2006.


1 March 2000 AWINZ Deed of Trust supplied by AWINZ to MAF

Trustees recorded
Neil Edward Wells (“the Settlor”) – of Auckland, barrister. Founding Trustee.
Nuala Mary Grove – 
of Auckland, retired. Founding Trustee
Sarah Catherine Giltrap –
of Auckland, company executive. Founding Trustee
Graeme John Coutts
– of Auckland, recruitment consultant. Founding Trustee

(collectively referred to as the “Trust Board”)

Minutes 10 May 2006 AWINZ Board Meeting

In attendance

Neil Edward Wells – Trustee from 01/03/ 2000 (Settlor)
Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed as NEW Trustee on 10/05/06 – intended appointment notified to MAF as required in Memorandum of Understanding with MAF. Appointment agreed to by MAF. Appointed as per clause 7.2(b) of the Deed of Trust as “an additional Trustee”. Wyn Hoadley appointed Chairperson.
Nuala Mary Grove Trustee from 01/03/2000 – appointed secretary
Graeme John Coutts – Trustee from 01/03/2000
Christine Raewyn Wells – appointed treasurer on 10/05/06
Priya Sundar

Apologies: Sarah Catherine Giltrap Trustee from 01/03/2000

Minutes 14 August 2006 AWINZ Board Meeting

Nuala Mary Grove and Sara Giltrap – both founding trustees, resigned. Giltrap resigned in writing 22/05/06. Grove resigned in writing 4/07/06.
Thomas (Tom) Stanley Didovich appointed as Trustee. No record that appointment approved by MAF.
Neil Edward Wells -Founding Trustee appointed as secretary
Tom Didovich appointed as signatory to cheque book
Neil Edward Wells and Christin Raewyn Wells prohibited from signing cheques together.

AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2006 supplied to Charities Commission

Trustees listed

Neil Edward Wells – appointed 01/03/2000
Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed 10/05/06
Thomas Stanley Didovich – appointed 14/08/06
Graeme John Coutts – appointed 01/03/2000

AWINZ Officers – Registered Charity CC11235 – registered 28/09/07

Application for charity status under the Charities Act 2005 was made on 19/05/07

Neil Edward Wells – effective 27/06/07
Wyn Norien Hoadley – effective 27/06/07
Thomas Stanley Didovich – effective 27/06/07
Graeme John Coutts – effective 27/06/07

AWINZ [Charity] street address and postal address

1308 State Highway 3, RD5 Te Kuiti 3985

AWINZ National Bank Account Number: 06-0968-0067477-00

Further Reference

Click to access lord-dowding.pdf

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Enforcement Tagged With: AWINZ, AWINZ Bank Account, AWINZ National Bank Account, Charities Commission, defamation, registered charity, The Animal Welfare Institute

« Previous Page
Next Page »
SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.