Media Release

(for immediate release)

Council watchdog calls for Crown Law and ECAN to release documents

(Wellington, 3 Feb 2010)
 

Council Watch officers have petitioned the Crown Solicitor and the CEO of Environment Canterbury for all documentation, notes, and advice pertaining to the recent investigation by the Office of the Auditor General into conflicts of interest by four Canterbury Councillors.
 
Days prior to Christmas last year the Auditor General Lyn Provost released a report damning the Councillors for acting illegally but refusing to prosecute.  Spokesman Jarrod Coburn today said if the “intent was to 'slip it under the media radar' then the Auditor General's office almost got away scot free.”

“This is a very important observation, and pertains to the ‘Public Interest Test’ – at the very heart of the decision not to prosecute.”

Council Watch picked up on the report and called for the immediate prosecution of the four Councillors. At this stage there is no indication from the Auditor General's office that they have recanted their decision. The reasons not to prosecute were unclear at the time and Jarrod Coburn says despite a review of the legal aspects they remain that way.

In her findings Lyn Provost declared it was in the best interest not to prosecute based on advice provided by Crown Solicitor David Collins QC. This advice hinged around the doubt that a court would prosecute the four Councillors because "previous court decisions have shown that courts are reluctant to impose a conviction in situations of this kind and will consider options such as discharging without conviction".

“There is no apparent legal precedent that indicates a court would fail to prosecute the four when a prima facie case has been established,” says Coburn, “Indeed, the fact that the four Councillors have been found to have breached an Act that was expressly written to remove people from office who knowingly committed a conflict of interest could serve to provide guidance and reason for a court to convict.”

The Auditor General fails to cite many of the Public Interest Considerations for Prosecution, the main ones being:

·        Where a conviction is likely to result in a significant penalty ... then there is a strong public interest for a prosecution (the penalty for this breach of the law is extremely serious - loss of their position as Councillors);

·        where the defendant was in a position of authority or trust and the offence is an abuse of that position;

·        where the offence was carried out by a group;

·        where there is any element of corruption.

Finally, it is in the public interest to allow these people to have their day in court, just like any citizen caught breaking the law. The public should be asking why Councillors should be allowed to escape prosecution.

In any event, this case cannot be allowed to die. There is, in the opinion of Coburn, sufficient justification for a court of law to be allowed to pass judgement on these four elected officials. To allow this to happen would send a powerful message to others in such privileged positions around the country.

“To sweep it under the table would be a seen by the public as a questionable decision and would hang over the heads of Lyn Provost and David Collins as to their ability to serve the New Zealand public in their current roles.”

Current research by Council Watch indicates a widespread and systemic lack of compliance with the law by councils, as evidenced in two research projects completed in 2009. Previous research and further details are available online at www.councilwatch.org.nz.

ENDS

© Scoop Media