Screen Shot 2014-06-03 at 1.56.52 pm

New Zealand Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, The Dixon Case & The School Trustees Association – Was the “Fix” In?

Caption: "Students today reflect on those that have gone before them" There only one problem with this photograph and the caption. These boys all posing for a photograph that would later be used to reminisce the past, will never have the opportunity to think about the boys that went before them, at least not those whose live have been ruined by the actions of the school and its teaching staff.

Caption: “Students today reflect on those that have gone before them”. There’s just one problem with this photograph and its caption. These boys, all posing for a photograph that is being used to reminisce the past, will never have the opportunity to think about the boys that went before them, at least not those whose lives have been ruined by the actions of the school and its teaching staff more than 30 years ago, sick self-serving attitudes that appear to be held and acted on to this day.

Thursday, the 8th May 2014, LF published a piece that was critical of the New Zealand Herald for its failure to appeal the name suppression of a school and its board of trustee’s, in particular the boards chairman, one of the schools “old boy’s”.

New Zealand Herald Sexual Abuse Story Simply Unacceptable In Every Way Imaginable

The story was, as sometimes only LF does, specifically designed to serve a number of very different purposes other than informing our readers. Some were completely obvious to the accustomed reader, others again not at all. The NZ Herald article followed the guilty plea and conviction of pedophile Keith William Dixon in February 2014 (not reported until 6th May 2014) and its behind the scenes happenings in a piece the following day, penned by APNZ’s New Zealand Herald journo Sam Boyer.

One glaringly obvious omission in Sam Boyer’s article however was his editors reluctance to publish the identity of either the school involved or the names of those on the schools board of trustees. In our earlier piece we noted our extreme disquite at the New Zealand Heralds failure to do so, even asking the question: why had the New Zealand Herald been afraid, were the New Zealand Herald or its owner, APNZ, unable to afford legal action to over turn the suppression order?

After all, it was certainly in the public interest to out those responsible for an outrageous letter (extracts from which were published in the Herald) which clearly attempted to distance and exculpate the school from any liability or responsibility for the crimes their tutor, Dixon, had committed against a nine year old victim, a student at the school in 1973. Remember this was not the only time Dixon had committed this type of sexual offence, was it the last?

As an aside, LF also noted in our last article that members of the LF team have been involved in working in the area of institutionalised child sexual abuse in Australia, particularly noting our members attendance during the thousands of hours of testimony before the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse.

It had appeared to us that the NZ Herald had treated this story very differently, perhaps even preferentially, to other cases of historic institutional child abuse, even in case’s where the sexual or other abuse had not been proven in a court of law; the paper had never before seemed at all concerned with publishing the names of absolutely everyone involved. The New Zealand Herald’s behaviour in this case mirrored some of the experiences with the press’s treatment of such case’s, recollections of which were heard during the Australian Royal Commission

That then naturally enough raised an obvious question; what was it that had caused the Herald to tread with some trepidation on this particular occasion, what was so inherently different, perhaps even dangerous, about this particular case?

LF first decided to establish if those behind the case were monitoring the fallout and the potential for growing interest in the identity of the school. If so it would be indicative of a very unhealthy preoccupation with attempting to “manage” or manipulate the fallout, which in turn is always the proverbial smoke indicative of a fire.

Team LF knew that if it were to be the situation in this particular case, those doing the monitoring would soon surface, at least if we gave them just a little cause for concern… we did.

Sure enough, little more than a few hours after our story was published, we received a comment from someone calling themselves “Sally F“.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Of course Auckland Grammar, or “AG” as Sally F preferred to call it, was mentioned in our article but the school was only ever used as an example of the dangers of not naming the school actually responsible for harbouring paedophiles or concealing details; that inevitably innocent schools would get caught up in public finger-pointing.

In fact LF used Auckland Grammar for the simple reason that it could NOT possibly have been involved, given the age of the victim at the time of the abuse. In 1973 the boy was purportedly nine years old. Therefore it followed that the school responsible was more likely than not a preparatory or primary school, NOT a secondary school such as Auckland Grammar.

LF also made certain that it was noted that Auckland Grammar and its trustee’s board chairman were only being used as an example of the damage that could be caused to other schools, who would undoubtedly be swept up in the public speculation, and likely to be tarred with the same brush:

LF is certainly not accusing Mr Blackburn. We are simply using the fact that he fits the “limited” profile supplied by the New Zealand Herald as an example. It’s certainly a profile that many New Zealanders will have undoubtedly already researched using the available online material, a fact that should bring home the reality that in not naming those who were responsible, others can unjustly attract suspicion because they may tick all the boxes, like Jeff Blackburn has, based on the information supplied by the New Zealand Herald’s journo Sam Boyer.


So just how was it that “Sally F” got it so wrong? Why did “Sally F” refer to Auckland Grammar using the acronym “AG”? Was the “F” in “Sally F” another acronym, an abbreviation of “Fucktard” perhaps?  We suspected that we had the answer to all of those questions, but we wanted first, in the interest of natural justice, to give “Sally F” the opportunity to explain herself:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

We waited for a few hours but just as we had suspected Sally F probably twigged that she’d been outed; the fact that she was a faker with another of those very badly concealed agenda’s. So we gave her another opportunity, this time to come clean and explain her behaviour before we did:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Again we waited, but as suspected no response was forthcoming. The moniker “Sally F” had been employed by someone who supplied the email address, the ip address of the sender

Now LF have made a point of warning readers in the past. If comments are genuine, use a genuine IP and email address then the identity of the poster will be treated with the utmost respect and confidentiality (even if you do disagree with LF).

If however, the comment is from a faker or parties who think that fishing expeditions are the way to go, then they can expect to kiss goodbye to the anonymity that is under normal circumstance respected by LF.

Now of course there is alway the inherent risk that the comment was posted, for whatever reason, by someone masquerading as Evana Belich, this form of masquerade has been used in the past by someone known to LF who posed as Timaru serial fraudster Jo-anne Cole (a criminal offence). This was another case where we played along with the game until such time as the team had obtained the information we required. Of course they’re probably still none the wiser.

In this case however that scenario is highly unlikely. Kiwi, Evana Belich, is an ex communist, political agitator and union organiser who now, in her middle age, having jumped ship, is gainfully employed by the establishment, the New Zealand School Trustees Association.

Evana Belich, NZSTA

Evana Belich, NZSTA

So why would Evana decide, in her wisdom, that it was a good idea to attempt to comment on the story in the way that she did? Evana’s brief comment conceals a very simple agenda. Whilst Evana’s strategy was stupid she obviously is not. Evana clearly only wanted to establish, on behalf of the NZSTA and it’s members, no doubt one in particular, whether or not LF knew the identity of the school responsible.

Now of course in this case she would have been better off just emailing us and asking the question directly. Evana, however, decided against the direct approach, probably because the person (a Kiwi journalist) that telephoned her and advised her of LF’s article also likely advised her to be cautious.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Not a particularly smart thing to do. Team LF much prefers honesty to duplicity…….we like to get to the truth of an issue.  Anyway Evana tried and like so many before her failed. The reason LF suspects that Evana Belich was contacted and told of the LF story is simple enough. The likelihood that Evana stumbled across our piece within an hour or so of it being published is extremely remote, a one in twenty million chance perhaps? So she had to have been contacted. Then there’s the question of who was it that contacted her?

In order to answer that question one needs to answer two more questions, the first being, who would have known of the New Zealand School Trustee’s Association (NZSTA)? The second, given that the NZSTA had an interest who knew that and that Evana was the right person to contact? Once you answer these questions you’re left with two probabilities; (A) Teacher  or (B) Journalist.

The most likely is of course a journalist, especially given the fact that Lauda Finem has its own little fan club of Kiwi journo’s who follow the blog religiously and who just love to hate us. Teachers, as a group, are simply non existent as followers of LF. In fact team LF was counting on the journalism sector, as always, to be doing its best to fuck us up. Now if it was a journalist who impersonated Evana Belich, well of course they wouldn’t; it would have been a criminal offence to have done so.

The schools that Evana Belich represents through the New Zealand School Trustees Association are private schools, often elite institutions, that are attended by a very privileged few.

Screen Shot 2014-05-11 at 7.06.52 am

They include both preparatory (primary) and secondary schools (or colleges). Some are single sex, some co-educational. Most schools also have an old boys or Girls association. The existance of these so-called old boys associations is to some extent what sets these elite schools apart from their government-funded state school counterparts in New Zealand. Although having said that, it’s also recently become fashionable among state schools, who have now established similar old boy’s associations or alumni.

Amongst the élite private sector, the schools tend to use their old boy’s associations as vehicle’s for fundraising and bragging rights, a way of pushing their particular school into the realms of educational mythology.

If you can afford to part with an exorbitant amount of your hard-earned cash every year for your little boy’s education then we’ll either turn him into an abused nervous wreck or a sociopath and bully, such is the standard of our unequaled education opportunity he may even get to be a High Court Judge one day

So exactly which schools are candidates? Who among these schools fit the criteria reading between the lines of the New Zealand Heralds article? More importantly who are the Chairmen of these schools boards of trustees? And very importantly which one of them put pen to paper and wrote;

“We are informed that a number of late complaints are motivated by the intention to seek accident compensation.”

The schools that fit the criteria are easy enough to identify, Kings School, Dilworth, St Kentigen, all private boys preparatory schools in the central Auckland area. So who are the chairs of these schools respective boards, also being “Old-boys”.

Lets start with Kings School and the Chairman to its Board of Trustees, Mr Simon Moore LLB

Mr Simon Moore, at the time the complaint was first being dealt with Mr Moore was one of the New Zealand governments senior crown law Barrister.

Mr Simon Moore – At the time this historic child sexual abuse complaint was first being dealt with Mr Moore was one of the New Zealand governments senior Crown Lawyers, a criminal barrister and prosecutor.

Simon Moore is of particular interest. Moore is a lawyer, he began his career in law in 1980, the same generation of Government favoured lawyers the likes of the corrupt Kristy McDonald and Brent Stanaway. Soon after he graduated from Auckland University with his newly minted bachelor of laws degree, Moore started his career as a law clerk at Auckland firm Meredith Connell. Two years later, 1982, he was promoted to staff solicitor with the firm. Just three years after that he became a partner at the firm. Then in finally in 2003 Moore reached the top, he attained the position of chairman of partners, a position he held until February this year.

Moore’s rise to power gets even more interesting, the reason for Moore’s departure from Meredith Connell earlier this year is because the National Party government handed him a cushy little number, the sort of job that most crown prosecutors dream of, and in all honesty most really shouldn’t be given.

On February 25th it was announced that Simon Moore QC had been appointed a High Court Judge, sitting on the bench in Auckland. So the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Kings School is none other than Justice Simon Moore QC. Moore also just happens to be one of the schools old boy’s along with Paul Davison QC who also serves on the schools board of trustees and its so-called “Court of Members”

Simon Moore, Paul Davidson

Left to right: Anglican Bishop of Auckland, Ross Bay, High Court Justice Simon Moore, Barrister Paul Davidson QC.



Next up is Dilworth school, with yet another old boy at the helm of its board of Trustees. Mr Derek S Firth LLB, another barrister and solicitor.


Mr Derek Firth

Mission Statement – “To implement the vision of James and Isabella Dilworth to support, educate, and train as many boys as possible, from families in straitened circumstances, to reach and maintain their full potential and become good and useful members of society.”


Mr Derek firth, also a product of Auckland University’s faculty of law, having graduated LLB in 1964 and admitted to the bar a year later in 1965. Firth has lectured in comercial law and served on various committees of the Auckland District Law Society. Mr Firths legal practice is currently in the area of legal arbitration, being a member of related institutes and associations both in New Zealand and Internationally and having lectured on the subject at the Auckland Univesity. As with Simon Moore, Derek Firth was the Chairman of his old schools board of trustees at the time the complaint in question was first made. More about Derek’s career path can be found on the website of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand

That then brings us to St Kentigern’s and the chairman of that schools board of trustees, Dr Bruce Goodfellow. Dr Bruce Goodfellow

Dr Bruce Goodfellow

Mission Statement – “The Mission of the Saint Kentigern Trust Board is to provide education which inspires students to strive for excellence in all areas of life for the glory of God and the service of others”


Dr Goodfellow, as with the aforementioned Chairs, is an old boy of the school whose board of trustees he chairs. Unlike the other two chairmen, Dr Goodfellow’s background is not in law, rather he holds a Masters in engineering and a Doctorate in chemical engineering from Auckland University.

Now that we’ve introduced three candidates who are all represented by Evana Belich of the New Zealand School Trustees Association, there are a few more facts and coincidences that we’d like to bring to the attention of our readers.

In every article the New Zealand Herald has published they referred to the presiding District Court Judge, one Edward Paul DCJ.

Now to the uninitiated this name would mean very little, except perhaps if the reader was the inquiring type and wanted to know a little more about the good old judge; perhaps trying to get a feel for how he might have arrived at his decision to grant the school name suppression. Unfortunately for that reader, in Googling, lets say “judge Edward Paul NZ” or “District Court Judge Edward Paul NZ” they would be stiff out of luck, not one single hit would be found, the blokes invisible; the reason, however, will soon enough become apparent.

Sure its not unusual in sexual abuse cases to find name suppression orders being granted, but in most of those cases it normally involves the victims still being vulnerable children.

Take the 2013 case where another of those Kiwi Auckland “private” schools sought a name suppression order:

Alleged paedophile’s school still secret


Last updated 10:04 29/05/2013

The name of an Auckland school where a teacher is accused of indecently assaulting children has been further suppressed after an application by the school’s board of trustees.

The teacher, aged in his late 60s, pleaded not guilty in the High Court today to 11 charges.

Police alleged he indecently assaulted five eight-year-old girls between February and November 2012.

An eight-day trial was set down for March 2014.

Lawyer Ellie Harrison, acting for the school’s board of trustees, applied for suppression of the name of the school and the accused saying identifying either could identify the children and the alleged offending could become the subject of “playground chit-chat”.

She said the school was not concerned with protecting its reputation and was only worried about the effect of publication on the children.

At least one of the children was unaware there were other complainants, she said

Justice Timothy Brewer questioned how secret the charges must be considering the school had written to all parents alerting them to the court action.

He later relented and granted name suppression until trial saying there was “a real risk of the complainants being identified or, at least, adversely affected”.

The accused was remanded on bail.


In the above case the victims were still children, attending the same school and yet Justice Brewer, in LF’s opinion an exceptionally competent Jurist, at least by New Zealand standards, was obviously reluctant to grant the application, taking quite some convincing that there was “a real risk of the complainants being identified or, at least, adversely affected”.

In the case of the convicted man named in the New Zealand Heralds stories of May 6th and 7th 2014, Keith William Dixon, there was no defended hearing, no witnesses to protect. Mr Dixon had already pled guilty to the offending back in Febuary 2014.

This is where we find our first “coincidence”, Dixon pled guilty and was remanded the same month that the Government announced the appointment of Simon Moore to the High Court bench.

All that remained was for Dixon to be sentenced. There was no need to protect the victim in this case, he was an adult and by all accounts very much wanted his story told; most especially the part that involved the behaviour of the school, its board of trustees, and in particular the letter he received from its chairman.

In fact, given that Dixon had admitted and pled Guilty to the charges in February this year, why then was it that the sentencing hearing was delayed for four months?

Why was it, given the straight forward circumstances, that the sentencing judge granted permanent suppression orders over the case in question?

The fact that there were strange delays and other legal shenanigans surrounding this case comes as no surprise to LF when you factor in one more aspect, that being the name of the presiding judge.

Judge Edward Paul?……Who that fuck is he, we thought to ourselves. Was he a recent appointment to the District Court bench in Auckland? In short we here at LF did not recognise the name.

The penny soon dropped, when LF found no mention of Judge “Edward”. The District court listing only one judge; E.P. Paul DCJ.

The next question was, why the hell was the New Zealand Herald using the name “Edward”? This particular judge has, since his appointment in 2008, always been known as District Court Judge “Eddie Paul” or in some circles simply as “Judge Pimp”

Eddie Paul DCJ, aka  "Judge Pimp"

Eddie Paul DCJ, aka “Judge Pimp” Source:

The pieces to this case all then started to fall into place. District Court Judge Eddie Paul is no stranger to really dodgy name suppression orders, especially when it comes to servicing his legal mates requirements, or anyone else for that matter, who just happens to be well known and or cash rich. Judge Eddie Paul has made a real name for himself when it comes to handing out name suppression orders, especially in and around sexual abuse cases.

In 20011 Eddie Paul DCJ was caught red-handed dishing out a name suppression order to one of his industry mates, a piss-head with an LLB, commercial barrister Sandra Anne Grant. The circumstances of which were extraordinary; Eddie Paul did so during a “private” one on one meeting with the defendant in his chambers…..Tsk, tsk

A lawyer convicted of a drink-driving charge can be named for the first time.

By Edward Gay

5:30 AM Friday Apr 29, 2011

Commercial barrister Sandra Anne Grant, 47, was convicted in the Auckland District Court yesterday on a drink-driving charge.

Grant, who has offices in Shortland Chambers in inner-city Auckland, had been trying to keep her record clean by applying for a discharge without conviction.

She had also been granted interim name suppression but that lapsed yesterday.

Her lawyer, John Haigh, QC, said no further applications for name suppression would be made and he withdrew the application for a discharge without conviction.

Her case was heard by Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson, who gave her credit for an early guilty plea and her previously clean record. He fined her $500 and disqualified her from driving for six months.

Grant must also pay court costs of $132.89, an analyst’s fee of $93 and medical costs of $80. Her total payment will be $805.89

Grant stood in the dock with her head bowed and hands clasped in front of her as Mr Haigh made submissions on her behalf.

Grant was pulled over by police during a routine breath alcohol stop in Auckland. A blood test showed she had 128mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in her system – more than one and a half times the legal limit of 80mg.

Judge Johnson said that amount roughly equated to 640 micrograms per litre of breath. The legal limit is 400.

Mr Haigh said his client “had the honest but wrongful belief that at the time, she had not exceeded the blood alcohol limit”.

“The defendant is an exemplary citizen and is highly regarded in her profession.”

He said Grant had pleaded guilty at an early stage and the multiple court appearances had been no fault of her own.

“She is devastated by appearing in court and the publicity, which Your Honour can appreciate, has been intense.”

Mr Haigh also asked Judge Johnson to prohibit the media from reporting details contained in Grant’s court file.

He said some of the details were embarrassing and some people referred to on the file were not aware that their names had been included in court documents.

“There is no subterfuge, sir,” Mr Haigh said.

Judge Johnson said the information on the file was no longer relevant or in the public interest, as Grant had dropped her application for a discharge without conviction.

“A perusal [of the files] demonstrates that they contain personal content about the defendant and her aspirations which are irrelevant in terms of the proceeding.”

Judge Johnson described Grant’s charge as “ordinary”.

“The defendant was appearing on her first prosecution on a charge that is summary in nature and of a kind that is heard in court every day without public attention.

“She has been sentenced in an ordinary way, as any other citizen would be sentenced.”

At Grant’s last appearance, at Waitakere District Court, Judge Lisa Tremewan said the case had been before the courts 10 times.

Grant was previously represented by lawyers Harry Waalkens, QC, and Steve Cullen. She was granted name suppression at a private meeting with Judge Eddie Paul last month.


* 11 court appearances.

* Application for a discharge without conviction.

* Granted interim name suppression.

* Private meeting with Judge Eddie Paul.

* Sentenced by the chief district court judge.

* Represented by two Queen’s Counsel at different times.

* Court file to be permanently suppressed.

– NZ Herald


Then there was the case where Judge Eddie Paul granted a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression to a well known Kiwi entertainer. Is it any bloody wonder the NZ Herald agreed to a justice department request for a convenient name modification for this particular judge:

Judge Discharges Entertainer, Deeming A Conviction Too Severe

Auckland, Friday, 6 November, 2009 – 15:28

A prominent entertainer who admitted performing an indecent act towards a teenage girl was today discharged without conviction.

He was also given permanent name suppression.

The man had pleaded guilty to one count of performing an indecent act with intent to insult during an early morning incident in Wellington in March.

Judge Eddie Paul, passing sentence in Auckland District Court, said the charge was not a trivial one and carried a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

However, he said the detrimental consequences of a conviction in this case would result in an extreme situation out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, which he rated as moderate to low.

A conviction would damage the man’s career and harm his international prospects by restricting his ability to travel overseas, especially at short notice.

Judge Paul also said allowing the man’s identity to be made public would defeat the discharge he had granted.

He made an order for the entertainer to pay the victim $5000 in emotional harm reparations.

The court had previously been told the man had made an offer of that amount to her and she had accepted.

Dressed in an open-necked black shirt and black trousers, the man showed little emotion during his 30-minute appearance, although he visibly relaxed when the judge’s intentions became clear.

He left the court house to a waiting car without making any comment.

Judge Paul, in summing up the facts, said the defendant, who had been drinking, was in Courtenay Place about 3.30am on March 5 when two females recognised him.

They approached him and asked to kiss him on the cheek.

He let them do that and then told them to “kiss my balls”, the judge said.

The two females ignored the comment, but they walked hand in hand with the man to an alleyway, where he undid his trousers, pulled out his penis and repeated the request.

The two females, who were embarrassed, said nothing.

At this point, the complainant, who was an associate of the two females, entered the alley way from behind the man, unaware that he had exposed himself.

He grabbed her by the head, which he pulled to his crotch and she felt his penis touch her left check.

She objected, pulled away and heard the man laughing as she left.

In deciding on the sentence, Judge Paul said he took into account the man’s early guilty plea, the remorse was shown in letters he wrote to the victim and his lack of previous convictions.

The judge said the offence had appeared to be spontaneous rather than premeditated, and occurred after the defendant had been approached by the victim’s friends.

The behaviour had also seemed to be out of character for the man.

The passing of sentence this afternoon came after the judge had heard submissions last week, when defence counsel Ron Mansfield sought a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.

Police opposed a discharge without conviction, while various media organisations argued against permanent name suppression.



Then this piece by the Sunday Star Times;

Teen victim slams musician’s name suppression

November 23, 2009 at 10:32 am


THE TEENAGE girl attacked by a prominent entertainer has broken her silence, describing the musician as a “disgusting, self-righteous pig”.

And Brittany Cancian’s mother has also spoken out, saying the musician’s permanent name suppression was “totally disgusting”.

Brittany, 17, was in central Wellington on March 5 when two of her friends were led away with the drunk man around 3.30am. Brittany’s mother Racheal, of Lower Hutt, said her daughter was attacked by the man while she was checking on her friends.

“I think he’s an animal, when I heard what he had done I thought it was animalistic. He wasn’t at all gentle about it,” Racheal said.

“What happened has absolutely been downplayed. She never followed him down the alleyway. She went to see that her friends, who had followed him, were OK. She has quite a caring heart and she wanted to check on her mates. When she went around the corner he grabbed her.”

Earlier this month the Auckland District Court heard how the famous entertainer asked Brittany and her friends to “kiss my balls” before he grabbed the teenager’s head and pulled it towards his crotch. His genitals brushed Brittany’s face.

The man admitted a charge of inducing an indecent act but was discharged without conviction and given permanent name suppression on the grounds that naming him would affect his record and concert ticket sales. The charge carried a maximum jail term of two years.

The musician was ordered to pay $5000 reparation to Brittany, who is yet to receive the money.

Racheal said police never asked her or Brittany if they wanted the man’s name suppression application opposed. Court documents reveal police maintained a “neutral” position on the matter.

“As a mother I am disgusted that he could get name suppression and I’m disgusted that he could do this to my daughter.”

Brittany said in a statement that the entertainer should have been named so other females could be “wary” of him.

Brittany and her mother’s comments come just days after the Law Commission released a report recommending an overhaul of New Zealand’s name suppression system to make it harder for offenders to keep their names secret.

Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer said if recommendations in the report had been adopted by the government prior to the musician’s court appearance, he “certainly would not” have received suppression.

“He would have to show extreme hardship and that is very difficult to do … that is hardship out of the ordinary, not ordinary hardship, and that is a much higher threshold than the law currently provides.”

“We all have to have equality before the law. The person who is a grave-digger has to be treated the same as a person who is an All Black.”
[Note: Frigging grave-diggers are bottom of the pile on this *&!^% Commission president’s list!]

Asked whether families’ views on suppression should be taken into account, Justice Minister Simon Power said: “The issue of name suppression needs a very broad overhaul and I’m not closed to any suggestions.”

Racheal was reluctant to discuss why her daughter, aged 16 at the time, was out in central Wellington during the early morning.

“I don’t really want to go into that part but, yeah, she was quite naughty.”

The entertainer last week said he was “too busy” to be interviewed and had “no wish to discuss” the incident.
© 2009 Fairfax New Zealand Limited.

Original Source: (the fairfax SST url no longer works)

Blog Source: 

It is worth noting that the above two mainstream media news items, although very recent, have completely disappeared from Google’s search results and any remaining urls to the original MSM articles from other sources have been deliberately broken. When LF looked the stories had also been removed from New Zealands MSM websites.

Not that this is at all suprising, it is quite a common practice, often engaged in by New Zealands MSM when they receive a request from the Ministry of Justice or the country’s police force.

The fact is that its one of the core reasons that Team LF researchers maintain an extremely large database of historic material of this nature, so as to search for supporting references using “verbatim” transcripts of the original source material. It is a prerequisite for anyone dealing with New Zealands thoroughly bent legal system.

LF researchers have looked at as many schools in the Auckland area that fit the facts, as they were presented in two New Zealand Herald articles.

Man jailed for historic sex offences at Auckland school (Tuesday May 6th 2014)

School letter made abuse victim feel ‘worthless’ (Wednesday, May 7th, 2014)

The victim at the time of the offending was a nine year old boy, thus it had to have been a primary or preparatory school. The offending occurred in 1973, the victim is now 52 years old. The chairman of the board of trustees in question is an old boy of the school. Reading between the lines the Chairman in question also appeared to be legally trained, deduced simply from the excerpts from the offending letter that the NZ Herald quoted;

The board chairman, an old boy of the school, wrote back saying he would meet the victim “but I intend that to be nothing more than as a courtesy”.
He outlined his concerns about the validity of the victim’s complaints.

“You will appreciate that one has to be very careful about historical complaints,” he said. “Many cannot be authenticated because of the passage of time … . We are informed that a relatively high proportion tend to be made late as an excuse for difficulties which have arisen in the person’s life – this is not to say that the abuse did not occur.”

He also said: “We are informed that a number of late complaints are motivated by the intention to seek accident compensation.”
He finished the letter saying the board would be deeply sorry if abuse had happened – but the school “will not make any financial contribution” or “any payment of any kind” to the victim or his legal and travel costs, as it would be “quite inappropriate to do so“.

Then there is the judges behaviour, behaviour that was thoroughly inconsistent with normal judicial practice, and or as provided for by statute (Update: see LF reader, Harry Stottle’s comment below), in that there was no immediate threat to young children related to the case (in fact a threat, if any, was posed by the out-of-step attitudes of the schools board of trustees, in particular in this case its Chairman).

The perpetrator was named, the victim wanted the matter publicly aired and his story to be believed, that much is clear in the fact that he later contacted the Herald, supplying both the chairman’s letter and his victim impact statement to the journalist who wrote the piece “School letter made abuse victim feel ‘worthless'”.

Then there are the issues surround the timing of guilty plea, february 2014, and when the matter first being reported on by the mainstream media (MSM). Not one peep from any of the MSM until May 2014…..why?

Had a gag order been put in place in February 2014? Had good old Judge Eddie Paul been at it again? Pulling another of his ill-conceived judicial hat-tricks, ordering the file sealed and a total media ban until sentencing?

If so what then was to be gained from all of this judicial skullduggery?

Theres certainly no mistaking the fact that almost everything about this particular case of name suppression for a school under the circumstances stinks. After all, as aforesaid, the perpetrator and the victim had both had their day in court. The perpetrator had admitted his guilt and was named, the victim, having been thoroughly humiliated by the school clearly wanted his side of the story told.

The public, especially the parents of boys currently being educated at the school, deserved to know that these events, whilst occurring four decades ago, had further unfolded, very recently, in the manner in which they had.

The publics reaction to these events, especially to the school, its board of governors and the chairman’s behaviour, and his letter to the victim has, even without identifying details being released, been one of absolute disgust.

The way in which this name suppression was granted, the circumstances surrounding it, the lack of transparency, especially in Febuary 2014, and the choice of judge, Eddie Paul (aka EDWARD PAUL), all point to someone other than the school being protected. LF is of the opinion that in suppressing the name of the school the act was almost certainly just a convenient way of achieving a predetermined result; that being to hide the name of the Chairman who sent a highly offensive letter to the victim of historic child abuse.

LF further suspects that the name suppression in this case was all about protecting the reputation of a newly appointed High Court justice, Kings School Old boy, Justice Simon Moore QC.

After all Moore was appointed in February, the same month that the offender, Dixon, pled guilty. Once this is accepted as a likely scenario, the reasons for the delay in sentencing and the lack of MSM reporting are then quite easily explained.

It would have been very convenient to keep up a blanket ban on publishing the details of this case until Moore had been installed as a High Court judge and having a little water flowing under the bridge. The media, even if they had wanted to appeal the order, would not have had a reasonable chance of success, even if it hadn’t been a High Court judge involved, until such time as sentencing had taken place.  It’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the courts would have played with the fixtures list in any event.

What’s even stranger about this case is that anyone interested, at least with half a brain, will have done their research and likely formed the view that Simon Moore QC was probably responsible for sending the offensive letter to the victim. It seems that the good old boys at Crown Law, Auckland’s Meredith Connell, have been at it again, protecting their own!

The juxtaposition or counter argument works equally well.  If it had, by chance, been anyone other than Justice Simon Moore QC, then the star-struck uncle-tom Judge Eddie Paul, aka EDWARD Paul, would have found it in everyones interest, having absolutely no qualms, to name the school responsible; perhaps even citing the fact that other “innocent” schools could quite wrongly have been caught up in unjustified suspicion, thus removing any doubt that it may have been Kings School and its board of trustees chairman Justice Simon Moore QC.

Enough is enough, if we’ve somehow got it all wrong then the only people, somewhat ironically, to blame for that are the Justice Department, Crown Law, the thoroughly bent Eddie Paul DCJ (aka EDWARD Paul) and every other school that was not inculpated in the day-light robbery of the rights of the victim. A man, who as a child was seriously harmed by a sexual offender and who now as an adult well and truly deserves to have his story told.

The fact is that the circumstantial evidence all points to it having been Justice Simon Moore QC. Surely the idiots at Crown Law and New Zealand’s Department of Justice recognised that fact before they embarked on yet another conspiracy to conceal the truth from New Zealander’s? Whats more there is in fact something more than the purely circumstantial available, nothing less than a 60 minutes show that aired between 7.30–8.30pm on Sunday 26 June 1994, which the schools then headmaster, John Taylor, appears to have taken acception to – it may be unrelated, but it still stands as evidence of Kings College’s propensity for concealing historic child sexual abuse:

Broadcasting Standards Authority – Kings College and Taylor and Television New Zealand Ltd – 1995-019, 1995-020


* Mr Dodd indecently assaulted a 10 year-old boy at Whitgift School in England;

*Kings headmaster, John Taylor, knew when he appointed him that Mr Dodd had indecently assaulted a boy in England;

* A former friend and teaching colleague, Mr Ian Mucklejohn, was disclosing the story because of what he had learned about Mr Dodd’s past and he said that the assault consisted of grabbing the pupil’s genitals;

* Mr Dodd had initially told Mr Mucklejohn that he had left England because he had been dismissed for hitting a child – for the second time – having lost his temper;

* According to a young man who was interviewed on the programme, Mr Dodd, his teacher, had sexually propositioned him when he was a 16 year-old school boy;

* Because of his assault on the 10 year-old at Whitgift, Mr Dodd was placed on the list (known as List 99) by the UK Department of Education and Science as unsuitable for teaching children;

* John Taylor of Kings apparently swore Mr Dodd to secrecy when he hired him and told only a handful of senior staff about Mr Dodd’s past;

* John Taylor had declined to be interviewed but had issued a statement noting:

* Several parents and students said they had been pressured by Kings old boys and staff not to have contact with 60 Minutes;

* Mr Dodd’s banning on List 99 had been partially lifted recently and the prohibition now applied only to teaching pupils under 14 years.

Source:, (retrieved June 3rd, 2014)

If Justice Simon Moore QC was the person responsible for writing the extremely offensive letter to this victim of injustice and Kiwi’s are now happy to be served by a High Court Judge who holds the views expressed in that letter, then so be it.

But to make any sort of truly “informed” decision New Zealanders (and for that matter anyone coming before Judge Simon Moore QC in his court), deserve to know that he holds these out-dated and frankly dangerous beliefs…….Especially if they have been the victims of child sexual abuse.

For fuck sake even innocent Kiwi teachers are getting sick and tired of having the finger of blame pointed at everyone except those responsible, caused by judges who dish out suspect name suppression orders willy nilly (Out Paedo Colleagues Say Teachers).

LF is of the view that these “outings” should extend well beyond just the teachers responsible. They should include the names of the schools involved (so that other victims can come be identified or have the opportunity to come forward) and if need be the well-connected, well-heeled, individuals lurking behind these injudicious, seriously flawed and arguably corrupt name suppression orders.

As for the recently re-birthed uncle Tom, Judge Eddie Paul (aka EDWARD PAUL DCJ), well he should have been removed years ago, he was, and still is, a clear and present danger to the rule of law in New Zealand, no amount of  “shape-shifting” his name or pulling historic news items will change that fact.




Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Categorised in: , ,

No Comments

  • Harry Stottle says:

    For the benefit of readers the following are extracts from the law applicable in New Zealand. Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – Suppression of names –
    (1) A court may make an order forbidding publication of the name, address, or occupation of a person who is charged with, or convicted of, an offence.
    (2) The court may make an order under subsection (1) ONLY if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to—
    (a) CAUSE EXTREME HARDSHIP to the person charged with, or convicted of, or acquitted of the offence, or any person connected with that person; or
    (b) cast suspicion on another person that may cause undue hardship to that person; or
    (c) cause UNDUE HARDSHIP TO ANY VICTIM of the offence; or
    (d) create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; or
    (e) endanger the safety of any person; or
    (f) lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order or by law; or
    (g) prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences; or
    (h) prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand.
    (6) When determining whether to make an order or further order under subsection (1) that is to have effect permanently, a court must take into account any views of a victim of the offence conveyed in accordance with section 28 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.

    Victims’ Rights Act 2002 28 Victim’s views on application for order prohibiting permanently publication of name of accused or offender
    (1) This section applies to a victim if the person accused of the offence or, as the case requires, the offender applies to a court under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for an order or further order—
    (a) prohibiting the publication of his or her name, address, or occupation, or of any particulars likely to lead to his or her identification; and (b) having effect permanently.
    (2) If this section applies to a victim, the prosecutor— (a) must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that any views the victim has on the application are ascertained; and (b) must inform the court of any views ascertained under paragraph (a).

    So, Judge Paul, in the paramount interest of open justice please tell us, given the plea of guilty and the victim’s desire for publication of the case, on what ground(s) did you grant name suppression? Was this grant opposed by the victim? Mr Justice Moore QC, you are a High Court Judge in whom the public have a RIGHT to expect honesty, impartiality and objectivity. As a Permanent Resident I have that right.Did you benefit in any way at all from name suppression being granted in this case? In any way at all? Evana Belich. are you in any way connected with this case? Why try to disguise your identity when writing to LF? Answers please gentlemen and lady to this comments section on LF. No answers means what we already suspect – the law in New Zealand can be misapplied with impunity by members of the judiciary and it is dispensed to the benefit of the powerful and prominent.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: