ACC: ‘Ducka an Diver’ Phil Kitchin talks to Media 3, more to come in the ongoing saga of state corruption?

Click image to watch the interview with Kitchin

When  transcribing taped evidence one should always listen very carefully to every word on the tape, every sentence, every paragraph, its context and meaning;  which is often reinforced with later comments, that may well give some further insight.

Needless to say Phil Kitchin has, arguably, given away more than he had intended too; listen very very carefully to, Fairfax’s, Phil Kitchin and what he has to say during the interview,  and contractural arrangements, re Bronwyn Pullar, that were set in place before he broke the story (obviously approved by FAIRFAX NZ’s solicitor Izard Westerns Rob Stewart):

“No we didn’t she was ….ahh…., she requested anonymity, which we agreed too and I made sure ‘in writing’ that she understood; that whilst we could give her anonymity; (that) if the rest of the media went after her or (that) if ACC decided to leak, WHICH IT DID, then we couldn’t keep her name out of the media”

Then this:

“But I also think that Andrew little and Trevor Mallard have got it wrong in that that information came from the Minister’s Office, my information is that it didn’t

We too believe that Little and Mallard got it wrong, we also believe that Judith Collins has done herself a grave disservice in attempting to sue both men for defamation.

After all the public’s perception is very much that the National Party and the ACC board have all along,  been complicite fuck buddies in a game of hide the sausage; when it comes to Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag.

We are also of the opinion that Kitchin, during the interview, appeared to be armed with a very well informed belief that it was in fact ACC who leaked Pullar’s name?  ACC’s  Hans Verberne and Phillip Murch clearly would have known who Kitchin’s whistle-blower was.

We’ll also be dealing with Kitchin’s comments with respect to the “behaviour” of those with head injuries, including Pullar, in later posts;  posts that will no doubt be of interest to our many readers at

Then we’ll also be dealing with Kitchin’s purported proclamation to Bronwyn Pullar:

“That is the catalyst we need”

Just who exactly was  Phil Kitchin referring to when he used the ‘we’ word; ‘FAIRFAX MEDIA NZ’ perhaps?

The truth is that the catalyst Kitchin and FAIRFAX needed, was ‘Lauda Finem’ and a number of articles we had posted over the past twelve months both prior to, and immediately following, Kitchin’s Pullar story breaking; beginning with this one:


From the evidence we have seen Mr Kitchin, we would be prepared to put money on the fact that the next defamation case will have nothing to do with Bronwyn Pullar; nevertheless everything to do with the New Zealand Government, the Accident Compensation Corporation and FAIRFAX; and it may not stop at a civil tort which may well prove to be yet another of Mr Kitchin’s catalysts!

Next up: Why haven’t the New Zealand Government or its Police force investigated and or charged those ACC employee’s responsible for the false allegations/statements against Pullar? Are the police just following their masters orders perhaps?

We here at Lauda Finem can think of at least six good reasons for a police investigation into ACC and the behaviour of at least two of it’s culpable employee’s; why is it exactly that the New Zealand police can’t be bothered doing their job?

Lauda Finem’s six good reasons:

110 False oaths

  • Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath or affirmation, thereupon makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.

111 False statements or declarations

  • Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised by law to take or receive it, or before any notary public to be certified by him as such notary, makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding.

112 Evidence of perjury, false oath, or false statement

  • No one shall be convicted of perjury, or of any offence against section 110 or section 111, on the evidence of 1 witness only, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.

113 Fabricating evidence

  • Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.

114 Use of purported affidavit or declaration

  • Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who—

    • (a)signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit sworn before him or a statutory declaration taken by him, when the writing was not so sworn or taken, or when he knows that he has no authority to administer that oath or take that declaration; or
    • (b)uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or made, as the case may be, by the deponent or before a person authorised to administer that oath or take that declaration.

    Compare: Criminal Code (1954) s 118 (Canada)

115 Conspiring to bring false accusation

  • Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—

    • (a)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:
    • (b)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.

    Section 115(a): amended, on 26 December 1989, by section 3(4) of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989 (1989 No 119).

116 Conspiring to defeat justice

  • Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.

    Section 116: amended, on 18 June 2002, by section 6(1) of the Crimes Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 20).

    Source: New Zealand Crimes Act 1961

Categorised in: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: