Auckland Barrister and convicted National Finance former director Anthony Banbrook in the dock, during his sentencing at the Auckland High Court, in March last year..

Barristers, Hookers, Fraudsters & Bent Cops – The Paul Currie Case

Auckland Barrister and convicted National Finance former director Anthony Banbrook in the dock, during his sentencing at the Auckland High Court, in March last year..

Auckland Barrister and convicted National Finance former director Anthony David Banbrook in the dock, during his sentencing at the Auckland High Court, in March last year.

On the 3rd August 2010 a small article appeared in a number of New Zealands mainstream media outlets. The article announced the upcoming trial of one Paul Desmond Currie on charges of blackmail, the Crown alleging that currie had blackmailed his lawyer for the sum of $300’000. The complainant lawyers name however was nowhere to be seen, the article citing a name suppression order:

Man accused of blackmailing his lawyer

Published: 12:14PM Tuesday August 03, 2010

Source: NZPA

A jury has been sworn in for the trial of an Auckland man who is accused of blackmailing his lawyer. Paul Desmond Currie, 45, faces one charge of blackmail after he allegedly threatened to expose his lawyer when he lost $200,000 in a divorce settlement. Between October 3 2006 and November 13 2006, Currie is accused of threatening to disclose information about the lawyer, including that he was in a relationship with a prostitute and took the class A drug methamphetamine.

The Auckland lawyer’s identity is suppressed. A jury of eight women and four men were sworn in for the trial this morning, which is expected to last until the end of the week.

Crown prosecutor Nick Flanagan is expected to begin his opening address later on this morning.



Nick Flannagan, of Meredith Connell, Aucklands very shonky Crown lawyers

Crown prosecutor Nick Flannagan, of Meredith Connell, Aucklands very shonky Crown lawyers. A law firm that appears to have made a very bad habit (and a quid or two) of misleading New Zealand Courts and Tribunals.

Earlier this week LF was contacted by an associate of the convicted man and asked if team LF would consider taking a closer look at the case. LF is of course not the first to have looked at the conviction of Paul Currie on allegedly spurious blackmail charges. The websites and have both published material, with the later posting various pieces late last year:

Its the same evidence as before, its exactly the same evidence as before

Source; (published November 7th 2013)

Fraud unrecognised by Supreme Court

Source: (published June 15th 2012)

Whilst these two sites have both posted material the documents they have supplied are unfortunately far from conclusive, at least from a readers perspective. However what has been supplied by these two sites, who are obviously somewhat limited in what they can post by their domain geography, combined with the many mainstream media articles LF have managed to locate leaves a number of big questions unanswered. This said, it is almost always a foregone conclusion, when it comes to the New Zealand Police force, and the country’s courts, when questions remain unanswered and the Courts deliberately set in place orders designed to thwart any attempt to obtain those answers then something is seriously wrong.

Paul Currie, yet another victim of New Zealands perverted justice system?

Paul Currie, yet another victim of New Zealands perverted justice system?

In this case one can start with the fact that the mainstream media neglected to mention, in their coverage of the case, that being that Paul Currie had already faced trial for exactley the same charges and that those charges were dismissed. The MSM also failed to mention, or bring to the publics attention, the fact that Paul Currie was then charged a second time by police with nothing less than exactly the same offence.

It was only after doing so that police managed to finally obtain a conviction. A queer turn of events, but not at all strange in New Zealand; one only need look at the Gwaze case to see that its pretty much standard fare in Kiwi Courts.

This sort of behaviour by police is at best an abuse of process, “double jeopardy” is another term that immediately springs to mind, or how about autre fois acquit or convict? This corrupt behaviour by police was the first red flag for LF in this particular case, primarilly because it is a strategy that New Zealand Police regularly employ so as to, at all costs, obtain convictions and thus discredit the falsely accused.

The next red flag for LF was of course the name suppressions granted by several Courts in favour of the complainant (a lawyer). The third red flag was a telephone conversation that, it has been alleged, took place between the complainant and Paul Curries lawyer, who at the time of the alleged telephone call had already withdrawn from representing Currie. It was the sort of  telephone call that no lawyer, worth their salt, would be likely to forget, a call that was duly noted:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge Note: The redacted name is that of convicted National Finance director and barrister Anthony David Banbrook

Peter Andrew, Paul Curries first Barrister

Peter Andrew, Paul Curries first Barrister

Now, no honest barrister is going to wilfully lie and then commit that lie to letterhead, unless of course he or she’s a fraudster and that normally means there has to be more than a dollar or two in it for them. Not ony did Peter Andrew, himself a former Crown prosecutor, keep the records he then repeated the allegation in an affidavit. Mr Andrew is obviously an honest man and was also clearly aware of the significance of what the complainant, also a barrister, had himself done – he’d undoubtedly attempted to extort money?:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge Note: The redacted name is that of convicted National finance director and barrister Anthony David Banbrook

The fifth red flag was the trial judges highly unusual refusal to release the trial notes to Currie following the, arguably seriously flawed, second trial and Curries subsequent conviction:

He (Currie) requested the notes from the trial in August to be referred to the ADLS. But Justice Lang refused his request. “The complaint to the ADLS will not be focused on your actions, but the actions of your former lawyer. “Given your former lawyer’s opposition, I decline to make the trial notes available, but I will reserve leave for the ADLS to ask me for the notes if needed,” Justice Lang said.


Finally, and whilst in our experience these red flags are certainly not likely to be exhaustive, the fourth red flag for us all here at LF was a proceeding that unfolded soon after Paul Curries, probably wrongful, conviction on the blackmail charge. That particular red flag was a whopper. Despite the many name suppression orders that had been succesfully sought and that were in place it is now known that the complainant was none other than convicted Auckland Barrister and National Finance former director Anthony David Banbrook:

A director of a failed finance company has had his application for leave to appeal dismissed from the country’s highest court. Former National Finance director Anthony David Banbrook had applied for leave to appeal at the Supreme Court following a dismissal from the Court of Appeal.

Banbrook had applied to appeal his conviction of making an untrue statement in a prospectus. The senior litigation lawyer was sentenced to eight and a half months’ home detention and was ordered to pay $75,000 reparation when he appeared in the High Court at Auckland earlier this year.

In his application for appeal at the Supreme Court, Banbrook argued substantial prejudice arose from the ruling because of the death and unavailability of witnesses, and loss of company records during the period of delay after he was charged.

However Justice John McGrath, Justice William Young and Justice Terence Arnold said whether the unavailable witnesses or lost minutes would have helped Banbrook with his defence was highly speculative. `

`The application for leave does not reveal any specific basis for his claim that the lapse of time caused him substantial prejudice.” Overall, the Justices said they saw no possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The application for further appeal was accordingly dismissed.


National party's Anne Tolley, not particularly good with correspondence.

National party’s Anne Tolley, not particularly good with correspondence.

Now as always Shannon Parker of, having formed her own conclusions, fired off a letter to Anne Tolley, the National party in Governments Minister of police. That was also late last year and to date Tolley has failed to even so much as acknowledge receipt of Shan’s complaint, Shan also posted a copy on Labour spokesperson Phil Goffs facebook page, again to no avail:

Anne Tolley

Parliament Buildings

Private Bag 18041

Wellington 6160

New Zealand

To Anne Tolley,

Regarding: Paul Desmond Currie

We currently hold disclosure documents relating to the charges New Zealand Police laid against Paul Desmond Currie. We note that you have had such documents (approximately 400 + pages and four CD’s) since 24 February 2012 and have not answered the Currie family.

It has been brought to our attention that there are four differing disclosers that Police put forward in this matter. We intend to publish this case as we believe it is a matter of public interest due to the extreme documentation tampering that occurred after the initial case was withdrawn.

For fairness and transparency we are giving you, as Minister of Police this opportunity to comment on this matter, which you have full disclosure of. Our initial concern is how police came to alter the disclosure documents and then mislead the court. I draw your attention to the below. Sworn evidence of Ian Peter Collin 21.9.09 Q. Is there any new evidence in this latest charge Mr Collin?

A. It’s the same evidence as before. It’s exactly the same evidence as before.

We look forward to your response.

Yours Faithfully

Shannon L Parker

President New Zealand Police Corruption Association

Phone: 021 151 0579

Clearly there is something very wrong with this case. It has been far from transparent, what with all the highly questionalble name suppression orders. Certainly it would also appear that Banbrook didn’t take his purported blackmail very seriously if he was offering to make it all go away for a one off payment of $20’000.00o. Of course Banbrook, a highly experienced barrister, would have also known that, under ordinary circumstances, he would not have been in a position to control the conveyance or conduct of a police prosecution, or was he? Currie of course appealled his conviction but without legal representationhe was fucked from the get-go:

Paul Desmond Currie was convicted of blackmail for demanding $350,000 from another man to keep quiet about allegations that his victim was in a relationship with a massage parlour worker and smoked drugs. Currie was sentenced in September last year to 12 months’ supervision and 350 hours’ community work. Currie, who represented himself but had his brother Robb Currie argue his position due to ill health, told the Court of Appeal in Auckland today that he was innocent of the charges against him.


Then theres the involvement of a mysterious “professional negotiator”, a bloke by the name of John Pippos and his company PJM & Associates (2003) Ltd. John Pippos, a man, who despite allegedly being employed by Paul Currie, and purportedly having negotiated a mutually agreable settlement of $351.886.10 with Banbrook, that Banbrooks insurers then allegedly declined to pay because the indemnity insurance policy premiums had not been kept up to date, then somewhat strangely had little if anything to say during the trial other than a few words that may have assisted the Crown’s case, having painted Currrie as a likely nutjob:

The judge said Currie was at a low ebb after his marriage breakup and had also been declared bankrupt. He became obsessed that the lawyer had let him down. Even the advocate hired to help him with his case against the lawyer had said he was “an emotional shipwreck”.


In fact Mr John Pippos’ performance in court, along with a search of the New Zealand Companies office (archived records) on PJM & Associates (2003) Limited, makes for some slightly disturbing reading. It seems that the so called advocates company responsible for the letters to Banbrook may have been a little more deverse in its scope of work than just advocacy – specialist in almost everything, especially tractors and an agricultural work force:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

It would appear, prima facie, that Mr Paul Currie may just have been the one taken for a ride, but by exactly who remains to be seen. Theres a lot in the way the police altered their summary of facts and from LF’s perspective it points to Curries so called “advocate” having been nobbled by the cops. Below is the sumary of facts police first used:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Then at the second trial police presented a variation on the same theme, Page two of the summary had been changed and someone had ensured the date at the top had remained the same as that found in version one – POL 262 03/06  In fact the only decernable difference is that Mr John Pippos and his “Company” are not “featured” in the same dubious light in fact in the mark II version its Mr Paul Currie that police have now put squarely in the “frame”, how convenient – Its an old but a goody:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The LF team will be investigating this case over the coming months and we’ll of course be keeping our readers informed of any progress. Suffice to say there are some serious questions that need plausible answers, but at this stage this case has all the hall marks of yet another gross injustice at the hands of the New Zealand police, a bevy of bent barristers and various Courts that were either grossly mislead, incompetent or in the alternative, had been a party to what transpired.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Categorised in:


  • The Crown can agree to a retrial on some occasion’s and then offer no evidence. We have done this on 2 occasion’s. There would have to be an originating application. This case should not be hard to turn over and I would like to help.

    • Robb Currie says:

      Hi Elton. Paul or Robb Currie can be contacted at email :
      At the corrupt “trial” on the 03.08.2010, Tony Banbrook committed over one hundred individual counts of perjury in securing this false conviction. Being a barrister, the appeal courts protected him from prosecution. (Do not question the word of another barrister)
      We have attempted to file 4 Private Prosecutions against Banbrook but the incestuous corruption by the courts continues to knock us back.
      The most damning perjury was in his naming of John Robin Holmes as having been his instructing solicitor. When the case was discharged on the 24.07.2008, Banbrook admitted that he DID NOT have an instructing solicitor. He could not have represented Paul under these circumstances …..
      However, at “trial” on the 03.08.2010, he swore under oath that Holmes had been the instructing solicitor…..
      We arranged a meeting with John Holmes at his office on the 01.03.2011 to discuss this matter. We secretly (But Lawfully) tape recorded the meeting. Mr Holmes confirmed that he WAS NOT the instructing solicitor for Banbrook and there was no way he could have been. He further confirmed that Banbrook had blatantly lied under oath – there were no documents on the court file with his name on them – and he sent no accounts as required by an instructing solicitor. Naturally, Banbrook gave false evidence about these facts at “trial” also.
      In total we had 4 tape recorded meetings with John Holmes – all revealing startling admissions and confirmation of Forgery, Perjury and Accounting Fraud. Although put to the appeal courts, this evidence has NEVER been acknowledged.
      We would welcome any assistance in overturning this false conviction. We can gladly send any information to a P.O. box should anyone be interested.

  • Harry Stottle says:

    Thanks LF. Also incidentally, I wonder why a Detective Constable in an elite unit would give it up to rattle doorknobs at midnight in Auckland dressed in pretty uniform. I also wonder where he’s been putting his truncheon since being banished to court duties in Queenstown. Perhaps an off-duty policewoman could tell us when she sobers up. Interesting too that he appears to fit the profile of a type of Brit immigrant that is equally, if not more, ruthless than an indigene once it is realised how entrenched and systemic corruption is in 100% Pureland and how it (systemic corruption) can be used to personal advantage.

    • “I wondered why a Detective Constable in an elite unit would give it up to rattle doorknobs at midnight in Auckland dressed in pretty uniform” – Harry Stottle

      Team LF also wondered why Detective Constable Ian Collin would do such a thing Harry; migrating to a shit-hole at the end of the earth to start all over again, and undoubtedly with a serious drop in salary.

      That then begs another question; is there a little more to Constable Ian Collin and his service in the British constabulary than first meets the eye? A little history that he’d rather be kept under wraps?

      LF thinks that a little archaeological excavation in that particular corner of Collins career paddock may well be in order.

  • Harry Stottle says:

    The civilised standard for holding a retrial has three elements 1) It must be with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions (or equivalent, depending on the jurisdiction) 2) It must be in the public interest and 3) there must be NEW and COMPELLING evidence. Mr Justice Lang should have thrown it out, on the papers alone. The question is why didn’t he?

    • Agreed Harry,
      Your points 1. 2. and 3. are spot on, so if the case was in the public interest why the name supression. The cop involved also grabbed our interest. His name is Ian Peter Collin. The strange thing about this case, other than the reworked police summary of facts, is the fact that Curries first trial attracted absolutely no media attention, which normally means the cops kept it on the QT, probably because of Banbrooks involvement.

      When Currie was up on retrial the press were there, we know that the Curries themselves had alerted the media to the retrial but the judge then granted the name suppression.

      Even stranger was the fact that dispite the case being Auckland based, with no obvious connections to Otago the Otago daily times (OTD) nevertheless picked up on the story.

      Again for this to have happened it would normally indicate that the OTD had been tipped off by the police media liaison office, somewhat strange, we certainly asked ourselves why this would have occurred.

      A little digging however provided the explanation we sought. We’ll be running another piece on the OTD connection soon.

      In the interim LF’s readers will no doubt be able to pick up on the reasons behind the Currie cases cameo appearance in the OTD once you’ve read the following OTD articles (links below.):

      “The police and legal communities in Otago and Southland are set to benefit from a new prosecutor being based at Queenstown, serving the Alexandra and Queenstown district courts. Sergeant Ian Collin has moved to Queenstown from Auckland and will start work at the resort’s court on Monday”


      “Queenstown police prosecutor Sergeant Ian Collin is facing a code of conduct inquiry after being caught driving at 149kmh”


      In fact it seems that since his arrival in Queenstown in January 2010 the OTD has been pumping out stories on Ian Collin like their was no tomorrow.

      Team LF are wondering whether Sgt Ian Collin was the officer responsible letting Queenstown taxi driver basher, Jenny McNee off the hook:

      “Queenstown’s largest taxi company is accusing police of closing ranks to protect an off-duty policewoman involved in a late-night incident involving one of their drivers”


      Incidentally, Ian Collins was a British cop, a Yorkshire native, who had obviously responded to the New Zealand Governments recruitment drive in the UK during the mid 2000’s, although unlike many other British cops Collin did not return to the UK after having found the NZ police corrupt:

      “The judge commended the officer and his colleagues Detective Constables Richard Fray, Andrew Wilson and Ian Collin for their “diligent and dogged” professionalism.”


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: