The Awaken Project Official Information Requests “Number 1 and 2”

Rotorua Police Boundaries
Rotorua Police Boundaries

When I heard on facebook the case of Leef and Tawha I asked to see the evidence so I could wrap my head around it. It’s not possible of course thankfully due to the privacy act and fair enough. But when I heard of Rotorua’s 87% average conviction rate I started to dig deeper into stats, as the concept of using numbers (conviction rate percentages) to audit complex systems and discover actionable fixes appeals to me: especially the area of victimless crime and the persecution of people sans-witness/complainant.

I thought about what could be done some more and fired of an OIA request. And this webpage will grow as I add more info to it. Such as this Rotorua Daily Post which explains how 31% are given leniency: “hows 60 of the 195 drug offences in Rotorua during 2015 resulted in no court action – including 36 cases in which an informal warning was issued.”

Officially these have OIA ID’s of 429890 and 57854 to help everybody involved keep track of things. Personally it’s all the same request: to see if a very fine grained analysis of the nature of the application of the discharge without conviction rules are carried out, plus while we are at it, dig into some police and prison data to potentially support or negate our correlations if any.

Time For Some Juicy Graphs

The following graphs are all screenshots from the quite interesting Rotorua Case Study 2005 report (PDF) titled Research on the effectiveness of Police practice in reducing residential burglary from the Rotorua Police.

Perhaps this “tough stance on property theft” is what contributed to the Leef & Tawha case?

outcome time discharges

The Initial OIA Request

It starts off as some enquiries to Rotorua district court about the case of Leef and Tawha. It evolves into a full on data request to surface a tonne of hidden data using cryptographic “secure salted hashes” of the private bits. Heck we can get by with hashes of the peoples initials and year of birth, and last three digits of the IRD.

23 May Request

To this I only got the auto-reply and no official response as yet – it would cite the Privacy Act in any case.
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 01:39:35 +1200
Message-ID: <CAK7fK0Jz7U388G+vPQ2Qwq2-UV0kA1yVYscVbg3xbE9H1ZhQRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Can you please send me the evidence used to convict David Pake Leef and Thomas Tawha?
From: WooleyJersey
To: rotorua.dc@justice.govt.nz
Cc: Info <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a1147086e5eb25205336e74df
--001a1147086e5eb25205336e74df
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147086e5eb24805336e74dd
--001a1147086e5eb24805336e74dd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear rotorua.dc@justice.govt.nz and Hello Ombudsman.

Can you please send me the evidence used to convict David Pake Leef and Thomas Tawha?

The pair, Leef and Thomas Tawha 43, and were convicted in November 2014 of poaching as many as 60 spawning trout from a highly valued spawning stream near Lake Rotoiti.
I think they mean the 1987 law?
legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0065/
I had a quick read of said law and am curious to know further about this case.
I would assume it wasn’t the first time they did it, however, I’m not sure of this, and at any rate, prison seems an overly harsh (and expensive – at $95k/year) compared to a fine which brings in $$ for the government? Especially for a victimless crime with no complainant other than DOC? Our access rights to the rivers via the Queens Chain is awesome and likely how they made it up the river legally. But prison? For just 60 fish? How much impact really is that causing? Would love to know!
How is this not Crown versus Maori please? I know trout is introduced but that doesn’t mean you prevent others from fishing in their rivers yeah? Queens chain and all?
Regards, WoolenJersey.

26ZH Maori fishing rights unaffected by this Part

(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect any Maori fishing rights.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to customary Māori fishing rights with respect to

freshwater fisheries within South Island fisheries waters, in respect of which

regulations have been made under section 48B, for so long as such regulations

remain in force.

Section 26ZH: inserted, on 10 April 1990, by section 17 of the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990

(1990 No 31).

Section 26ZH(2): added, on 1 October 1998, by section 305(1) of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement

Act 1998 (1998 No 97).

Sports fisheries

Heading: inserted, on 10 April 1990, by section 17 of the Conservation Law Reform Act 1990 (1990

No 31).

26ZI Taking sports fish without licence prohibited

(1) Subject to this Act, every person commits an offence and is liable to a fine not

exceeding $5,000 who—

(a) takes sports fish from any freshwater at any time, unless that person is

the holder of a licence issued under this Act authorising him or her to

take such fish from such waters at such time; or

(b) has in his or her possession any sports fish taken from any freshwater,

unless the fish have been taken lawfully.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to the taking of sports fish for the purposes

of scientific investigation or data collection, under a permit or authority

under this Act, and in accordance with any conditions imposed by such permit

or authority.

(3) Every person commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000

who establishes, manages, or operates any fish hatchery for sports fish except

pursuant to regulations made under this Act; but nothing in this subsection

shall apply in relation to any hatchery for sports fish that is established or is

being established at the commencement of this Part.

(4) No person shall establish, manage, or operate a fish farm for trout.

Tom Atkinson – Director
The Tomachi Corporation

30 June Request

From my mail client:

Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 03:27:11 +1200
From: Tom Atkinson
To: judicialoffice@courts.govt.nz
Message-ID: <CAK7fK0JgkKtdNt-e=bVB_D08irYYCycwfpfMraXB3T+Xo7Xi7A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
I would like to try to discover the following about criminal procedures act, "discharge without conviction" often called a section 106 or judge given discharge.
I am trying to discover patterns in the behaviour of:
- judges (whether they give discharge or not)
- prosecutors (to show which prosecutor present)
- the accused (plea entered, eg guilty, not guilty, no plea)
So I can answer "what fraction of discharges are for violent crime versus drug crime", and see the likelihood of discharge by judge, district court and by the race of the accused to check for discrimination.
I do not need the actual judges names - just a secure hash that I can use to link the same judge across cases.
Thanks.
Tom Atkinson - Director
The Tomachi Corporation
M: 021 257 6422 <+64212576422> | Web: tomachi.co

11 July Request

and now I really rip into it…

From: tom@awaken.guru On Behalf Of Tom Atkinson
Sent: Monday, 11 July 2016 2:33 AM
To: info@corrections.govt.nz; Info Mailin – Shared Mailbox <info@stats.govt.nz>;media@justice.govt.nz; rotorua.dc@justice.govt.nz; High Court, Auckland <AucklandHC@justice.govt.nz>; auckland.dc@justice.govt.nz
Cc: Lillian Grace
Subject: OIA case id 429890 re: study of the use of Section 106 discharge without conviction in Justice department, Courts, Sentencing in regards “cultural psychopathy / effective fundamentalist christian dictatorship” by police and judiciary

 

Dear Government, Ombudsman, Lilian!

hope you can help – hope I have the right people please also;

re: my OIA case id 429890 I’m trying to build a better picture of discrimination in criminal sentencing/discharges in NZ.

On 23 May I filed an official information act request (OIA case id 429890 re: study of the use of Section 106 discharge without conviction in Justice department, Courts, Sentencing in regards “cultural psychopathy / effective fundamentalist christian dictatorship” by police and judiciary). I’ve since heard back from the Ombudsmen – and now have a Case ID for the request.

If the filtering I’ve just asked for above is too difficult, I’m happy to perform the data cleansing myself – for example with a record of every judgement past 10 years:

  • Date of judgement
  • Type of judgement: eg sentence, discharge, dismissal etc (the resolution date)
  • CRI / CRN (securely scrambled* if needed)
  • Charge (eg “Cannabis supply” = dismissed, “Cannabis procure” = sentenced
  • Type of sentence: prison / home detention / community detention
  • Length of sentence in nights
  • Amount of fine etc

Discretion Turned Bad

When there is no witness, no victim and no complainant, the justice system (police, courts, corrections) uses it’s discretion unfairly based on culture, race, sex, religion and many other factors that are impossible to see or even control by the people involved themselves due to theuntracked subconscious psychological factors (in the minds of the judges and the way they interact with the court, and the minds and speeches the prosecutors, adn other unknown players present) because they are hidden in privacy by the Privacy Act 1993. By my calculations the NZ justice system consumes 3,248,500 prisoner nights per year! At a cost of $90,936 per prisoner per year and $900 million / year for corrections. And yet 16% are put there for the “crime” of altering their minds. Freedom of Thought? The Rastafari should be able to burn incense just like a catholic priest burns his incense. Anything less is a fundamental christian dictatorship using “smell” as evidence when you can’t take a photo of an aroma https://www.legalise.org.nz/synod/

Some data points I will need to be able to extract please are:

  • how many people are in jail each night (include home detention)
  • a way to group victimless crimes (conservation act 1987, benefit fraud, drugs, traffic etc)
  • ability to compare some points of data with how many people walk free also due to the use of discharge without conviction, judicial cancellation of the case (eg prosecution evidence too weak and case is dropped), use of plea bargain (reduction of charge from cannabis supply to cannabis procure for example, due to lack of evidence, due to lack of witness, victim or complainant).
  • try to discover any bias based on age, location, judge, jury, prosecutor, defence, religion, culture (drugs), race (fish and game), sex (employment, prostitution etc)
  • discover actionable insights to fix the problem

Collusion and Refutement // Conviction Rates and Probability

I would like to discover who the following 2 sets of pairs (two people on the day) of people are:

  1. a) the most colluded judge and prosecutorpair and; (highest percent discharge)
  2. b) the most refuted judge and prosecutor pair; (lowest percent discharge)
  3. c) without revealing their identity;

The data you provide will not allow me to personally identify anybody, but it will not preclude the possibility in the future should a Royal Commission of Enquiry or similar request leave from the privacy act to do so.

Privacy Act Compliance via Secure Hash

My OIA seeks to rectify this untenable situation by securely and privately extracting the data we need to fix the system using a secure hash of the:

* it is possible to securely scramble and make public private data by the use of a random “salt” added to the data + a mathematically irreversable secure hash function or “digest”, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function

Figures need to also show EM curfews like home detention and community detention as well as prison time.

Thanks so much in advance!

Looking forward to seeing the data and helping solve our systemic racism, and our cultural psychopathy toward the rastafari. It appears NZ has become a fundamentalist christian dictatorship: it is time we had freedom of thought (cannabis), as well as freedom of speech.

Some points to consider:

 

Tom Atkinson – Director

The Tomachi Corporation

M:+64212576422 | Web: tomachi.co

 

 

____________________________________

____________________________________

Subscribe to Auckland Music Update

Bands: tomachi.tv | triptonites.com

 

MOJ OIA 57854 Tom Atkinson – final signed response

Office of The Ombudsmen Response

23 May 2016

 

Dear Mr Atkinson

 

It appears that you have sent us a copy of your email for the Ombudsman’s information only, and accordingly we will not take any action at this stage.

 

If we have misunderstood the situation and you are seeking an Ombudsman’s intervention, then please provide full details of your complaint via our online form, or post (to PO Box 10152, Wellington 6043).

 

We will then assess the matter and let you know if an Ombudsman can assist.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata

 

Phone 04 473 9533  0800 802 602| Fax 04 471 2254

Email info@ombudsman.parliament.nz | www.ombudsman.parliament.nz

PO Box 10152, Level 7, SolNet House, 70 The Terrace, Wellington

 

Corrections

C79027

 

 

Stats NZ

Thank you for your email received 11 July 2016, requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), information about discrimination in criminal sentencing or discharges in New Zealand.

Statistics NZ does not collect, hold or have access to the requested information for convictions and discharges in New Zealand, and therefore are unable to answer your request. However, we understand that your request has been received by Ministry of Justice and they are preparing a reply to your request.