Malicious and Vexatious prosecution- concealed by ex police chief legal advisor"Judge Kelly."Refusing to recuse himself despite conflict of interest

Auckland District Court case: CIV-2021-092-001563

“Ms D” is the plaintiff in proceedings and one of the victims of abuse and malicious and vexatious prosecution by the New Zealand Police from 2018 to date.

The evidence submitted to the court substantiate Ms Ds’ case is clear and definitive ?inclusive of:

a)?????NIA police records confirming “there is an existing Interim Parenting Order allowing ms Dto contact Mr N regarding the children.”

b)????Confirmation the police were aware the IPO superseded the TPO as confirmed by the police NIA file dated 21/12/2018 -CWG611

c)?????Correspondence confirming Ms D was acting in good faith to protect her son from potentially fatal medical neglect after a 2m blow to the head without any medical treatment.

d)????Correspondence from the IPCA the NZ Police did not charge Ms D for taking her son to hospital on 1 June 2019 as they confirmed she was acting in good faith for genuine concern for her sons safety.

e)????Evidence Mr N attempted to have Ms D charged by Ormiston police station for seeking her son receive medical treatment on 29 May 2019.

f)??????Evidence, after being refused, Mr N then contacted Manukau Police station who acted on the report AFTER Ms D presented at the police station seeking a release of NIA to determine why 5 police officers assisted Mr N in breaching guardianship orders and medically neglecting her son, with a serious head injury.

The matter at hand for the courts to address is: Can malicious and vexatious prosecution be PROVEN in accordance with the test of reasonable grounds.

Ms D attempted to have the matter resolved expeditiously with a summary judgement which was delayed initially on 23 July 2021 by registrars alleging Ms D was uncontactable.

?Evidence of Ms D attempting to be connected has been provided to the court.

The summary Judgement before Judge Clarke was further obstructed by false and misleading submissions by Ella Watt on behalf of the New Zealand Police alleging “the confusion was quite clear” feigning ambiguity that the police were unaware the Interim Parenting Order superseded the Temporary Protection Order.

Judge Clark made directions on 3 May 2022 for counsel for the New Zealand Police to:

a)?????Assist with the preparation of the bundle

b)????Assist with summons for the 6 witnesses.

Counsel for the defence, Ella Watt disregarded this direction and on 19 December 2022 field a memorandum seeking the court exempt witnesses as according to Ella Watt “They had no information of importance to offer.”

?On 22 December 2022 Judge Clarke released a direction for the registry to issue summons for the witnesses [who had already been summons by Ms D.]

?On 16 January 2023 Ms D submitted to the court:

a)?????A comprehensive Bundle of documents of 416 pages for the proceedings

b)????An interlocutory application seeking interim damages, directions in addition to an urgent memorandum filed 30 November 2022 and admonishment for obstruction of justice by counsel for the New Zealand Police

c)?????An affidavit in support of interim damages and directions sought

d)????A notice to admit facts for the New Zealand Police to respond to.

?The court has failed to respond to this.

Counsel for the New Zealand Police has now varied and Ella Watt is no longer representing the New Zealand Police, she has been replaced with “Max Clarke Parker” from Meridith Connell.

On 20 January 2023 Max Clarke parker issued a response to the notice to admit facts: point 3 confirms: “Police admits that at the time of Ms Ds arrest on 24 June 2019, police records indicated a parenting order was in place, and also included the temporary protection order dated 11 May 2018 which did not contain any special conditions which varied the parenting order.”

This fact was previously denied by the New Zealand police with Ella Watt successfully preventing a summary judgement stating “the confusion was quite clear.”

The parenting Order confirmed Mr N had NO LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP of Ms Ds son, therefore any guardianship decisions Mr N made regarding Ms Ds son between 2 May 2018 and 27 September 2019 were in breach of court orders and a criminal offence.

Any person, inclusive of the New Zealand Police who assisted Mr N in breaching parenting orders or medically neglecting Ms Ds son was complicit in the contravention and an accessory to the offence.

?Ms D submits her dealings with the police have been, as confirmed by Judge Adams on 24 August 2020 “painful.”

Ms D states it was problematic for Mr NS solicitor, Emma Gibbs,?to be an ex Manukau Counties police officer- convicted of 27 counts of misconduct. https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10187805/Ex-officers-snooping-no-bar-to-law-court-rules

Ms D has been vexed and retraumatized having to compile comprehensive documents for the court to surpass thresholds where an impartial observer would have no reasonable basis to deny Ms Ds claims for malicious and vexatious prosecution she has suffered by the New Zealand police on multiple occasions.

Ms D has now prepared a supplementary bundle of documents filed 13 February 2023 for the court to outlay repeated obstructions of justice and miscarriages of justice by the New Zealand Police.

?Ms D has filed these proceedings in good faith, not just for her safety, but the safety of her children and other vulnerable members of the community who are targeted lawlessly by corrupt police who have caused significant damage to Ms D, her family and the reputation of the police force of New Zealand.

Ms D is an Australian who arrived with her two children [then aged 3 and 5] for a holiday- arrival cards stating “up to one year.”

3 days after arriving Mr N place d a non-removal order on the children who have been detained in New Zealand ever since.

Family Court proceedings were grossly misled by dishonest submissions by Lawyer for Child Christina Riddell and Mr Ns solicitor “Emma Gibbs.”

Ms Riddell had recommended Ms Gibbs as counsel for Ms D, but Ms Gibbs was not agreeable to legal aid for payment.

?Mr N weaponized court process and obtained a temporary protection order without notice alleging Ms D was mentally ill and the children were frightened of her.

This temporary protection order remained in force [unheard] until a final hearing on 18-21 August 2020 when it was dismissed by Judge Adams on 24 August 2020.

?Mr N unilateral breaching of parenting orders and unlawful variation of parenting orders- imposing supervision without court order from 11 May 2018 was left unaddressed by the court.

Ms D raised concerns to the police regarding Mr Ns physical, emotional and psychological abuse of the children which remained unaddressed.

On 14 December 2018 Ms D filed and urgent without notice temporary protection order which was concealed by the registry and to date has not been before a judge for determination.

On 16 December 2018 Ms D received an email from officer Michael Crabtree clearly stating: “Thanks T**** with this information. I was not aware of your contact with constable Woolf. Will forward him details of this complaint laid against you, but given what is currently recorded, No police action will be taken in regards to it.”

Ms D was subsequently charged and arrested at midnight on 28 December 2018 for several offences including: abduction, kidnapping, contravention of parenting orders, contravention of protection orders.

Ms D was held in solitary confinement for 6 days in New Plymouth remand centre. Having only just received the file on 11 February 2023 it appears according to the file a hearing took place with New Zealand Police [with officer Murray Evans [aka: "Muzz"] who was not a police prosecutor or a solicitor] and Ms s Duty Lawyer “Paul Keegan” on 29 December 2018 where Ms D agreed to remain in custody BY CONSENT.

Ms D has no record of ever meeting Paul Keegan and certainly did not agree to remaining in custody, least of all in inhumane and torturous conditions.

For reasons unknown the police refused to investigate or charge Mr N for any number of offences including: Child abuse, medical neglect, domestic violence, perjury, conspiring to defeat justice, conspiring to bring a false accusation against someone, court order contravention.

Ms D has been subject to unreasonable and relentless harassment and intimidation from the New Zealand police documented briefly by:

a)?????The arrest on 28 December 2018

b)????Solitary confinement for 6 days

c)?????Strict bail conditions securing Ms Ds passport- including reporting to Hawera police station at days and times it was unmanned.

d)????Harassment of bail address when Ms D notified Gavin Keane Ms D would be in Auckland meeting with her solicitor.

e)????Coercion by the police to only grant the release of Ms Ds passport [for her to return home to Australia] after she plead guilty without conviction.

f)??????False submissions by New Zealand police alleging Ms D had deliberately mislead ms N to secure the children, concealing facts of evidence from the court to secure an unlawful guilty verdict.

g)?????After the first criminal prosecution was dismissed without conviction by Judge Johns on 3 May 2019, further harassing emails from New Zealand police saying they would not hesitate to investigate and charge Ms D for anything Mr N reported.

h)????Ms D was told her TPO had been made final- and was then told “the system automatically updated to permanent Protection Orders after 3 months.”

i)??????The police assisted Mr N in the medical neglect of her son in May 2019.

j)??????Countless officers have assisted Mr N in criminal offending including: leaving the children unattended in a car on multiple occasions, physical abuse, emotional abuse, court order contravention.

k)?????On 1 June 2019 the police assisted Mr N removing a child he had no guardianship over from the emergency department of middle more hospital before a doctor could assess him for a serious head injury- allegedly falling 2 m onto his head with no first aid.

l)??????When Ms D attended Manukau police station for the OIA to get the police files to see how this offence occurred, she was then charged and arrested for contacting Mr N seeking her son receive medical treatment on 29 May 2019.

m)???The police refused to investigate Mr N abuse until they orchestrated an unlawful uplift, abducting the children from school on 5 November 2020 less than 3 months after final orders had been made.

n)????The children were coached by Mrs N for 4 days before they were permitted EVIS where each child made disclosures of abuse and threats by Mr N the child recalling 3-4 instances where he was hit so hard he went flying and “was always wondering how am I going to land.”

o)????This evidence was concealed from the family court and Ms D for over a year and a half with the police stating “no concerns NFA [no further action.].” Before returning the children to the unsupervised control of their known abuser, Mr N.

p)????The Domestic Violence proceedings before Judge Tan, in a decision released 17 September 2021 acknowledged Mr N for the purposes of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 had “physically and emotionally abused the children.” But this was deemed historic and the court had no concern “because the police and Oranga Tamariki have no safety concerns for the children in Mr Ns care.”

q)????The children remain in mr Ns full time care with strict supervision imposed with weekend ‘visits” to see Ms D.

Ms D deems the polices conduct since 2018 to amount to extreme harassment and cruel and inhumane treatment which has deeply harmed Ms D and her children.

The damage to Ms Ds’ character by the polices mistreatment of her has significant harmed her in court proceedings and humiliation socially with Mr N telling the childrens’ school and relatives Ms D has been arrested.

Ms Ds’ history with the police and dealings with them and the damage they have caused in family court and criminal court proceedings, as confirmed by Judge Adams on 24 August 2020 have been “unfair and unfairly prolonged.”

Ms Ds case is founded firmly on the legal principals of “what a reasonable person” would observe and the malicious intent and damage caused as a result.

Ms D submits that at any stage when the New Zealand police became aware of the facts of the matter and their involvement, as a co-abuser to assist Mr N in the abuse and harassment of Ms D they could have, and legally should have, dropped charges and rectified the situation.

Ms D is aware that while the police may have argued their conduct was “an innocent mistake” initially, the evidence before the court of the polices insight into the facts of matter and their legal standing, surpass what a reasonable person could consider plausible for law enforcement officers to allow.

?It is not compulsory to prove that malicious intent was present from the beginning of prosecution, it can be developed during the proceedings of the criminal prosecution.

Ms Ds’ case of malicious prosecution for ONE instance of malicious and vexatious arrest by the New Zealand police [on 24 June 2019] raises serious concerns for the judiciary to regulate inherent misconduct and fundamentally unlawful conduct of the New Zealand police, solicitors and registrars who appear to have colluded on multiple occasions to defeat justice and breach Ms Ds rights to safety and justice.

Ms D identifies the following 11 rights under New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990 which have been breached by the New Zealand Police in this one false arrest on 24 June 2019 and their conduct:

9 Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment

(1) Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.

14 Freedom of expression

(1) 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.

18 Freedom of movement

(1) Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.

?(3) Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.

19 Freedom from discrimination

(1)??Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the?Human Rights Act 1993.

21 Unreasonable search and seizure

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

22 Liberty of the person

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.

23 Rights of persons arrested or detained

(1) Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment—

(a) shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and

(b) shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of?habeas corpus?and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.

(2) Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.

(3) Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.

(4) Everyone who is—

(a) arrested; or

(b) detained under any enactment—

for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.

(5) Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.

24 Rights of persons charged

Everyone who is charged with an offence— (a) shall be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge; and

(b) shall be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention; and

(c) shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer; and

(d) shall have the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; and

(f) shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance; and

25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure

Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

(a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:

(b) the right to be tried without undue delay:

(c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:

(d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:

(e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:

(f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:

(i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child’s age.

26 Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy

(1) No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.

(2) No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

27 Right to justice

(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.

(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.

?Test of malicious prosecution 5 key components:

The plaintiff has to be prosecuted.

a)????Proven on two occasions, with Ms Ds arrests on: 28 December 2018 and 24 June 2019.

The defendant was the prosecutor who had prosecuted the plaintiff.

a)?????Proven as the New Zealand Police were the prosecutor in the criminal proceedings, now the defendant in the civil proceedings.

??In the matter of malicious prosecution, there is no such reasonable ground, the accuser dishonestly summons a person as guilty. The test for reasonable cause should satisfy these conditions:

a)?????The honest belief of the accuser. [Disproven by NIA police reports confirming “no offence”]

b)????Circumstances of the case show the accusation as true [Disproven by the IPO superseding the TPO with “no special conditions.”]

c)?????Existence of evidence in support of his accusation. [Disproven with judges notes “no evidence offered – dismissed.”]

The charges were, acquitted, withdrawn or quashed: plaintiff or victim is acquitted.

a)?????Confirmed in this instance on 14 January 2021 by Judge Fielding.

b)????Previously the first charges laid on 28 December 2018 were dismissed under s106 without conviction by Judge Johns on 3 May 2019, after the plaintiff was coerced into a guilty plea in order to have the passport released to return home to Australia.

The plaintiff has to prove that he has incurred such damage or injury due to the prosecution. The plaintiff faced humiliation due to handcuffing as a result of a false FIR filed by the defendant, therefore he was held liable. There should be direct connection between the malicious prosecution and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. Social non-acceptance or deprivation of fundamental rights can also be considered as damage to initiate a suit of malicious prosecution. So damages can be categorized as:

a)?????Damage to reputation – proven in multiple court proceedings of the family court and the reputation among school and relatives

b)????Damage to a person proven with clinical diagnosis of PTSD and sever stress disorder

The fundamental right of the victim under Article 21 is violated due to malicious prosecution. The innocent people are projected as criminals and their reputation his immensely affected. The right to privacy of the individual is also violated due to these wrongful implications.

Every person has the right to set the judicial machinery in motion by initiating prosecution in order to protect his rights or for the public interest. But such a right should not affect the rights of other people. Such rights should not be misused by instituting improper legal proceedings. It would harass the other person with unjustifiable litigation and the process of court is abused.

The victim can recover damages by proving that the prosecution was initiated by malice, absence of reasonable ground, and the prosecution was decided in the favor of the plaintiff. To protect the fundamental rights of the people and to prevent the law from being misused, a deterrent form of justice is the only way.

The Court must suitably admonish the New Zealand police and all culpable parties who have facilitated this miscarriage of justice causing further harm and suffering to Ms D, her children and their family.

Ms D seeks a declaration from the court that the New Zealand police have breached Ms Ds rights to safety, freedom and justice.

Ms D seeks the District court make a determination of this malicious and vexatious prosecution for her false arrest on 24 June 2019 and direct a further matter of the inherent misconduct of officers involved, Ms Gibbs, Ms Riddell and Mr N be referred to the High Court for resolution.

?Ms D seeks the court direct formal apologies from the New Zealand police commissioner, minister for the police, and new Zealand prime minister for the inhumane treatment Ms D, her children and her family have suffered in New Zealand.

Ms D seeks the court make directions that justice requires for criminal prosecution of all individuals connected to this criminal offending, in the interests of justice and public safety, including:

a)?????Emma Gibbs

b)????Christina Riddell

c)?????Gavin Keane

d)????Brittany Wallace-Sharpe

e)????Mr N

f)??????Kylie Newton

g)?????Kurt Sattler

h)????Allan Nixon

i)??????Ella Watt

RELEVANT CASE LAW AND DECISIONS:

1.?????kids-for-cash scandal, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan Conner wrote. "Ciavarella and Conahan abandoned their oath and breached the public trust," Judge 5 "Their cruel and despicable actions victimised a vulnerable population of young people, many of whom were suffering from emotional issues and mental health concerns." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out some 4,000 juvenile convictions involving more than 2,300 children after the scheme was uncovered. "They recounted his harsh and arbitrary nature, his disdain for due process, his extraordinary abruptness, and his cavalier and boorish behaviour in the courtroom," Judge Conner wrote. One unnamed child victim testified that Ciavarella had "ruined my life" and "just didn't let me get to my future," according to the ruling. "I feel I was just sold out for no reason. Like everybody just stood in line to be sold," a plaintiff said. Damages: kids-for-cash scandal, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan To calculate compensatory damages, the judge decided each plaintiff was entitled to a base rate of $1,000 for each day of wrongful detention, and adjusted that amount based on the circumstances of each case. Substantial punitive damages were warranted because the disgraced judges inflicted “unspeakable physical and emotional trauma” on children and adolescents, Conner wrote.

2.?????Camille Iriana Thompson (represented by counsel, Douglas A. Ewen) 2 July 2021 Subject matter: Compensation for wrongful arrest and detention Procedural issues: None Substantive issues: Arbitrary detention; effective remedy Articles of the Covenant:

?2 (3) read in conjunction with 9 (1); and 9 (1) and (5) 7.5 The Committee notes the detailed policy arguments set forth by the State party and its courts, to the effect that payment of compensation for judicial breaches of rights would undermine judicial independence. Notwithstanding, the Committee observes that the plain language of article 9 (5) of the Covenant does not allow for exceptions to the requirement of States parties to pay compensation for unlawful arrest or detention. The Committee therefore considers that even in the present case, where the author’s arrest and detention resulted from unintentional error by the State party’s authorities, which promptly released her upon discovering the error, the obligation to pay compensation under article 9 (5) of the Covenant still applies. 7.6 With respect to the State party’s arguments regarding the potential of an unrestricted compensation requirement to adversely affect the decision-making of judges, the Committee also observes that the obligation under article 9 (5) of the Covenant does not require the establishment of individual liability of judges or other government agents. The Committee further recalls that the financial compensation required by article 9 (5) of the Covenant relates specifically to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm resulting from the unlawful arrest or detention.

The Committee therefore considers that article 9 (5) of the Covenant is concerned with providing redress for harm suffered, rather than with ascribing culpability to government actors for having caused that harm. Accordingly, the Committee considers that in cases where error by the judicial branch of government results in unlawful or arbitrary arrest or detention, compensation to the victim should not undermine judicial independence but rather should strengthen accountability and trust in the judiciary by providing a remedy for a wrong. Justice Blackmun in Hudson v. McMillan: 628 and lower courts have agreed, that the unnecessary pain prohibited by the Eighth Amendment can include psychological as well as physical pain. Psychological pain can be every bit as debilitating as physical pain. What’s more, in a prison setting, where prison officials have such total control over inmates, the potential for the infliction of severe psychological harm is quite real. To fence out psychological pain from Eighth Amendment protection would be to open up opportunities to maltreat inmates without constitutional review. In New Zealand, inhumane, degrading or severe treatment, as well as punishment, is a breach of the NZBOR and the Covenant. In Hutto v. Finney632 the Court lightly touched on general prison conditions. (The case primarily involved attorney’s fees). Additionally there was an appeal from the lower courts’ decision that inmates could not be held in punitive segregation beyond a set time. The District Court ruled that conditions of confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. On appeal to the Supreme Court the defendants did not challenge that finding. The Court upheld both the attorney’s fee award and the limitation on the amount of time that could be spent in isolation. However, the discussion is brief, given the concession that the conditions in isolation violated the Constitution.

3.?????SC 6/2006 [2007] NZSC 70 BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER HAPIMANA BEN MARK TAUNOA AND ORS Appellants Hearing: 9, 10 August and 1, 2 November 2006 Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Henry JJ Judgment: 31 August 2007 The more serious allegations such as 10 days solitary for possession of a cigarette were simply not dealt with. The allegation of general denigration was rejected,131 because of entries in the scroll book the only book available as the others were “lost”. Why the absence of the other books is not used by the Judge to infer other examples were contained in the lost books, is strange, rather he defers to the administrators’ unfortunate “loss”.

4.?????Judgment paragraphs 166/7 – YOUNG “[142] Mr Taunoa alleges various confiscations of what might be called “legal documents” at least on 14, 16, 20, 23 and 31 July 2001 and 4 August 2003 and 14 August 2003. The legal documents alleged to have been taken included Corrections journals, judgments of Courts relating to prisoner’s rights and documents directly relating to this litigation. As I understand the situation, most if not all the documents were returned after complaint. I repeat what I have previously said, that while this behaviour was objectionable, I do not consider there was any systematic breach of the regulations here.”

[7] Indeed, the finding by the Judge that “this was collectively treatment that fell well below standards that befits a human being including one who is in prison and who has behaved badly in prison” should, in my view, have led him to a finding of breach of s 9. For reasons I enlarge upon below, I consider that the requirement of s 23(5) that prisoners be treated “with humanity” 7 imposes a positive duty of humane treatment. “Inhumane” treatment is a breach of s 23(5). Treatment properly characterised as “inhuman” is, however, in my view in breach of s 9. In any event, whether or not the Judge intended to conclude that the treatment was “inhuman”, I am of the view that inhumane treatment by design is properly characterised as inhuman. BMR was treatment, now accepted to have been inhumane, which was adopted as a policy of inmate management. Although I come to the conclusion that the cumulative conditions of BMR in themselves amounted to cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment, I would also have been prepared to reach that conclusion on the basis that it is inhuman (and in breach of s 9) to adopt a policy of coercing good behaviour through inhumane treatment.

5.?????[2015] NZHRRT 6 HAMMOND V BAYCREDIT [2015] Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms WV Gilchrist, Member Mr BK Neeson JP, Member

[189.1] A declaration is made under s 85(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993 that NZCU Baywide interfered with the privacy of Ms Hammond by disclosing personal information about her when NZCU Baywide did not believe, on reasonable grounds, that any of the exceptions listed in Principle 11 of the information privacy principles had application.

[189.2] Damages of $38,350 are awarded against NZCU Baywide under ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993 for lost income, being a pecuniary loss suffered as a result of the interference. [189.3] Damages of $15,543.10 are awarded against NZCU Baywide under ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993 for pecuniary loss in the form of legal expenses.

[189.4] Damages of $16,177.78 are awarded against NZCU Baywide under ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(b) of the Privacy Act 1993 for the loss of a benefit Ms Hammond might reasonably have expected to obtain but for the interference.

[189.5] Damages of $98,000 are awarded against NZCU Baywide under ss 85(1)(c) and 88(1)(c) of the Privacy Act 1993 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.

[189.6] An order is made under s 85(1)(b), (d) and (e) of the Privacy Act 1993 that NZCU Baywide be restrained from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference.

[189.9] An order is made under s 85(1)(d) and (e) of the Privacy Act 1993 that NZCU Baywide, in conjunction with the Privacy Commissioner and at its own expense, provide training to its management staff in relation to their and NZCU Baywide’s obligations under the Privacy Act 1993 in order to ensure they are aware of these obligations.