Appeal Against Conviction for Wilful Trespass of ACC – court documents


                                                                                                            CRI 2016-485-000015










  1. The lawyer allocated to me by Legal Aid withdrew so I am yet again forced to represent myself, which I find traumatising and a violation of my most basic rights under Magna Carta.  He withdrew because he refuses to use as my defence the Westminster Statute the First, the Magna Carta, Human Rights and NZ Bill of Rights.
  1. When my previous lawyer Michael Bott had me acquitted of charges of Wilful Trespass at ACC and Ministry of Health in 2015 he used a technicality which I did not agree with at the time.  I asked Mr Bott to defend me in other ways but he refused.  I believe my only criminal conviction of Wilful Trespass of the Law Society to be a gross miscarriage of justice.  I know my protests are legal and the police cannot randomly use Wilful Trespass law to cause me harm and pervert the course of justice.  The definition of justice is:


Noun – 1. just behaviour or treatment.

“a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people”

synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, non-partisanship; More

honour, uprightness, decency, integrity, probity, honesty, righteousness, ethics, morals, morality, virtue, principle, right-mindedness, propriety, scrupulousness, trustworthiness, incorruptibility

“ideas of social justice”

  1. It is significant Westminster Statute the 1st and Magna Carta come before property right laws (which Wilful Trespass laws are based upon), because they are superior law to all laws made after – this is especially relevant in 2016 after 30 years of neo-liberal political changes that have in all ways advanced rich citizens and persecuted/ disadvantaged poor citizens, particularly disabled people like myself.
  2. Westminster Statute the 1st – The King willeth and commandeth common right be done to all, so as rich as poor.  It is relevant in this case that I am poor and the people who have had me prosecuted are rich.  It is also relevant they are using their wealth to advance rich people and persecute me by refusing to provide health services I am entitled to under ACC, code of claimants rights, disability and human rights legislation.  Due to political corruption ACC are using financial reserves created since 2009 (when they illegally withdrew entitlements from 1000s of claimants like myself) to invest in rich people and businesses – for example the Hawkes Bay dam, when ACC legislation requires they invest in injured people – Refer Section 3 Purpose.
  3. Westminster Statute the 1st – with so few words to interpret it is simple for a poor person to understand this is the basis of all law because no poor person in 1275 would ever have agreed to be controlled under law if ALL people were not subject to it.  In 2016 I also do not believe I should be subject to following the law while rich people are not.  As ACC and others violate the law and are not censured or prosecuted for this, even when I have made repeated complaints of harm under Sections 150A 151 155 and 157 of the Crimes Act, then common right is not being done to me as I am poor, therefore I do not have to follow any laws made after this one.  I am a good honest and just person with ethics and morals and do not break the law.
  4. Rich people, I beg for health care and justice from, repeatedly send police to my home I should have every right to go to their homes and demand justice.  I do not do that as I understand the principle of being an employee and doing what you are instructed, however I have every right to go into the offices of the organisation that is violating my rights.
  5. My Magna Carta rights to not be destroyed (in this case through being refused professional health care I am entitled to under law, and have access to right and justice) are being violated.  A situation so serious my response to exercise my human rights for freedom of expression to go into their offices and protest for one hour in any non-violent way I deem necessary is completely justified.  It is my very existence I am fighting for and that of thousands of other disabled abused mentally injured men women and children in society.
  6. My justification for protesting within the buildings of these organisations I hold accountable for my life-threatening unjust situation is based on scientific evidence.  After studying the Milgram Experiment which proved the power of authority over an individual’s morality I deemed it necessary to confront those people harming me face to face as much as I possibly could.  In the experiment the subject thinks they are inflicting an electrical charge of increasing magnitude to the point the person is screaming and dies, they are coerced by an authority figure in the room to do this.  The person screaming is done by an actor and the subject cannot see the person, they are in another room – it is my contention that in 2016 we have a situation where staff in organisations like ACC are inflicting serious suffering (psychological torture and pain) on mentally injured abuse victims at the request of people in authority.  Neither those in authority nor staff actually see the person they are persecuting (in my case it is long term psychological torture and medical neglect) and I believe if they did they might reconsider what they are doing.
  7. It is also my contention that I have been unable to secure a lawyer to protect and represent me to have my ACC care reinstated and provided in a professional and culturally sensitive manner.  I have been denied the right to have a judge decide on the gross miscarriage of justice I am experiencing, denied the right to look my abuser and oppressor in the eye.  Going into their building to protest is me exercising my rights under Common Law to face these people in a non-violent way.  It should be noted changes made by Paula Rebstock and others since National came to power in 2008 have made contact with people in authority even more difficult – eg removing all direct phone contact with ACC senior staff and everything going through a call centre where they refuse to put you through to them.  I am currently only allowed to contact ACC through leaving messages on an answerphone, they have made it impossible for me to contact any other ACC number by manipulating the phone system.
  8. In planning my protests I consider the law carefully and have never violated any law at any time, unlike ACC, New Zealand Police and others.
  9. New Zealand police have the discretion to proceed with a prosecution or not.  Deciding not to proceed with the prosecution of ACC and others after my (poor person) serious complaints, while proceeding with minor prosecutions after complaints by ACC and others (rich people) is a violation of Westminster Statute the 1st as well as the NZ Bill of Rights.  When there is a decision to be made in applying the NZ Bill of Rights it must be made in favour of the Bill of Rights.  This does not abrogate Wilful Trespass laws, which are necessary and continue to be valid in the vast majority of situations.
  10. I also contend police swear an oath to the Queen who is head of a church that believes in a book that does not say protect the rich and powerful while they persecute the poor and powerless.  It is the duty of police in our democracy, under Commonwealth and Westminster Law to choose the just and right option when dealing with a poor person such as myself.  Police know I am a Civil Society Actor as defined by the United Nations, I have not yet met a police officer that does not agree with my complaints about appalling, unprofessional and abusive mental health services.  It is only those rich and powerful people in authority who have insisted on my prosecution.  If police were following the law they would stand beside me when I do these protests, inside the buildings of those who are persecuting and oppressing me and others over mental health care and justice.
  11. There is only one of me as other mentally injured abuse victims are too scared to do what I do, I am no physical threat to people and it is my intention to challenge these people’s morals, which they do not like – being in the building does this more effectively than the years I spent protesting outside.
  12. This form of protest is known as an ‘occupation’ I also contend that if the thousands of people with mental injuries like mine were standing beside me police would not trespass all of us, so why am I suffering continued criminal proceedings – that are causing me harm but keeping me alive at the same time – keeping hope alive – hope that one day I will receive the treatment care rehabilitation and justice I am entitled to so I can return to work and a decent life.
  13. Four years ago I formally trespassed police from my home and since then have written several letters pleading with them not to come to my home if someone called them concerned for my welfare.  For a short time I felt huge relief that I would not be humiliated and feel intimidated for phoning people responsible for my health and welfare, telling them how unwell I was and asking them to act to have professional health care provided/reinstated.  Most of these people/organisations did nothing and phoned police instead.  I had read about a case of a criminal in Wellington who legally trespassed police, he had a lawyer to support him of course and police were forced to adhere to the trespass notice.  Police chose not to enforce the trespass notice I took out against them so they obviously have discretion and should have used that discretion when charging me with wilful trespass of ACC.
  14. In a democratic, just and fair society my actions of protesting inside the buildings of people who are not upholding the law in a non-violent way are justified.
  15. The issue of rich vs poor also comes into play with regards to my complaints about ACC harming me and my legal protests with regard to who constables I deal with are allowed to charge and who they are not.  I have been told by several police officers they are not of a high enough pay grade to act on my complaints of harm by ACC and yet are allowed to have me charged with wilful trespass (and currently misuse of a telephone) which are minor charges in my case.  For the criminal charge I am appealing today I was given no punishment, except to be sentenced if called upon for some other charge in the next 12 months and a $50 offender levy.
  16. It is also relevant that although I have been told by Ministry of Justice staff that I am entitled to civil legal aid in order to stop police coming to my home (as several police officers do not like me and have been making this more difficult, to the point I was having nightmares police were coming to get me and am frightened when I hear a car outside my home, which aggravates my stress disorder) I have been unable to get a lawyer for this or for the Human Rights abuses I am currently being subjected to.  According to every lawyer I have called on the list I was given by Legal Services Agency they do not have the time and money to do it under legal aid.
  17. I advised police on the day of my arrest I was legally allowed to protest inside the building at ACC, I referred to the Westminster Statute the 1st, Magna Carta and NZ Bill of Rights.  I told them I would be there for an hour and would not cause any disruption, which I didn’t.  I sat out of the way in reception crying behind a large painting I have done about the situation I am in and a sign saying ACC are trying to kill me (ie drive me to suicide) with medical neglect.
  18. These protests are cries for help and I have little control over my actions when I have decided to do them.  I always co-operate with police once arrested and although I was forced to wear handcuffs this particular time, generally now I am not handcuffed.  I am often arrested for these legal protests, for example recently at Independent Police Conduct Authority, I was not charged however and given a pre-charge warning instead.
  19. I would provide a copy of my police file, but the one I was sent recently after waiting 8 weeks (way outside the required timeframe) was incomplete and did not register the majority of the times police had come to my home for welfare visits or many of the cases where I was not charged with wilful trespass.  I have asked that this information be supplied but I do not expect it to be available before 10 May 2016.  If it is helpful this document gives the presiding judge authority to access any information held by police about me.
  20. I do not accept this conviction is minor or the conviction of wilful trespass of the Law Society as I now have criminal convictions against me and am humiliated to have to tell people like insurance companies of them.  I cannot travel outside New Zealand without having to disclose these convictions and my freedom to travel is compromised.
  21. I do not accept this conviction is minor as it brings into contention the most basic laws of our democracy- justice, freedom, freedom from cruelty/torture/persecution, cultural belief, equality, human rights, Westminster system of law, rich versus poor, powerful versus powerless, oppressor versus oppressed, government versus citizen, etc.  In 2016 having the freedom to protest in any non-violent manner I see fit (as defined under International and National human civil and political rights laws) –particularly in the area of mental health care for mentally injured abuse victims, would have to be one of the most serious violence/social issues facing our society.
  22. My expertise and understanding the law as well as disability, human rights and health issues needs to be acknowledged in this.  I do not expect to read law that is not being followed such as ACC, health, disability, criminal, imperial, human rights and bill of rights laws and not being able to challenge this in a court room.  I do not expect to be treated with such cruelty when I reflect on the words of the NZ National Anthem (which I consider part of our constitution).  I do not expect to be taught one thing at university, about disability, rehabilitation and health, then experience something that does not follow this professional method of health care and violates my cultural beliefs.  I expect the rule and word of law to be followed as well as our commonwealth commitment to a monarch who is head of a Christian church – particularly in respect to the police.  I expect you to ‘reign in’ those people who have been corrupted by the love of money and power, who believe it is acceptable to persecute people like myself by refusing professional health care and use the police and justice system to intimidate, oppress and harm me for protesting at not receiving it.


    2 May 2016


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *