Home > Issues
> False Allegations > Scum-Police Deliberately
Prosecute Innocent Man.
Scum-Police Deliberately Prosecute
Innocent Man (at least twice updated).
Peter Zohrab 2015-2022
On 18 October 2012, I was assaulted by a Maori woman called Dawn
Benefield (who resembles Hekia Parata, the Minister of Education)
on a train between Paraparaumu and Paekakariki stations, New Zealand.
This occurred as a result of her racist intervention (she said,
"Why don't you go back where you came from?") in a dispute
between myself and the mainly female White people mentioned below.
I used my cellphone to call the police. Meanwhile, I could hear
the White people around me (mostly women who knew each other) telling
a pack of lies about what had happened. So I told the police that
it was a conspiracy. Because I was outnumbered (only one man supported
my side of the story), the police arrested me and charged me. The
police case rested purely on the lies that these people told. The
objective evidence supported my story, viz:
The police recording of my emergency call (which
you can listen to here -- I have retained the police filename for
this audio file, except that I have deleted the letter "p"
which was originally the first character of the filename, because
the police now make me vomit). One minute and 56 seconds into
the Police recording of my 111 phone call to the Police, you can
hear me speaking to a woman who was wearing a white ribbon. Since
she approached from my left and I am right-handed, she presumably
did not see my cellphone or realise that I was using my cellphone.
I understand that that woman was "Sue", a Tranzmetro employee,
because other witnesses say in their written statements that someone
called "Sue" came to speak to me, and the woman with the
white ribbon was the only woman who spoke to me at Paekakariki station.
Kathleen Anne Nolan's statement also says that a female guard spoke
to me and was wearing a white ribbon.
The lying witnesses claimed that I had hit Dawn Benefield, but there
were no photos of her injuries, since she had not been injured.
While awaiting trial, I sent an email to
the police, pointing out that, of their original eight (8) potential
prosecution witnesses (i.e. people who said I had done bad things),
five had mentioned a conversation that I had had with "Sue"
a railways employee who was wearing a white ribbon, and
ALL FIVE had told gross lies about it. I therefore suggested
to the police that they drop charges against me.
This conversation with "Sue" took place while I was on
the phone to the police, so it was recorded. Those five lying witnesses
obviously did not realise that I was on the phone, or that the phone
call was being recorded, because they all told horrible lies to the
police in their written statements.
Instead of dropping charges, the police just dropped four of the
five witnesses who had told the provable lies, so that I could not
prove a conspiracy in court. Consequently, I was convicted of Assault
and Disorderly Conduct and sentenced (I was offered diversion, but
that would have meant pleading guilty, so I refused it. Unlike my
lawyer and the police, I had a focus on the truth, since this had
obviously been a Feminist conspiracy, and my war against the Feminists
has always been about the truth versus Feminist
lies). My then lawyer, Peter Foster, told me that you can't usually
cross-examine your own witnesses, so he could not call the witnesses
who the police had dropped and cross-examine them about their lying.
Subsequently, my lawyer at the High Court appeal, Tony Ellis, contradicted
Peter Foster on this point.
If all eight witnesses had appeared in court, my lawyer would have
been able to show that all of those eight who had mentioned "Sue"
(i.e. five of them) had lied about her. Those lies were similar to
each other, so it would have been obvious that those five probably
had lied in other things that they had said about me. Since the three
who had not mentioned "Sue" said similar things about me
to the five who had mentioned "Sue", that made it probable
that they were in a conspiracy to perjure themselves, so as to get
me into trouble.
This means that the police themselves must have realised that there
was probably a conspiracy to commit perjury, and that I was innocent.
Therefore the police deliberately went ahead
with a prosecution against me,despite the fact that they knew, or
ought to have known that I was innocent!
If just one person had told lies about my conversation with Sue,
it could have been an accident, but the fact that five people told
lies about it shows that they were all part of a conspiracy, or that
they were all independently hostile towards me, which is less likely
-- or some combination of those two possibilities. In other words,
the original conspirators could have recruited some additional witnesses
on the spot, as they seemed independently hostile towards me.
My conversation with Sue is the only time when what the Prosecution
witnesses say happened can be compared with an objective record --
the Police recording.
The Police case was built purely on witness testimony, without any
objective evidence of any kind. All the objective evidence supports
my version of events. Apart from the Police recording referred to
above, there were Police photographs showing that I received injuries
to my face. There was no objective evidence of any injury to Dawn
Benefield, who the Police treated as the victim.
The four prosecution witnesses who appeared in court (apart from
the police themselves) were:
Dawn Benefield, 9 Faydon Close, Ohau, Activity Manager, 021 767567
Elizabeth Margaret McAree, 23 Newry
Road, Raumati Beach, Personal Assistant, 021 0533173
Irene Walker, 6a San Vito Place, Paraparaumu, Administrator (who
now seems to have moved to Waikanae), 021 6722190
Stephen John Barton Eckett, 108 Wellington Road, Paekakariki,
Engineer, 027 4852916
Email to the Police
Peter Zohrab <email@example.com>
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:14:39 +1300
Alexander.Waterworth@police.govt.nz, Peter Foster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Constable Smith,
My lawyer will be unavailable for me to consult with until Tuesday.
There is a status hearing on Wednesday. My lawyer is writing/has written
to the Police Prosecutor to suggest that they drop all charges against
In that context, since certain relevant matters have occurred to me,
I am hereby notifying you of them, since they may be relevant to any
future decisions as to costs.
1. The credibility of most of your witnesses is severely undermined
by the gross discrepancies between what they say in their sworn statements
about my interaction with "Sue", the Tranzrail employee wearing
the white ribbon, and what is evident as transpiring in the recording
of my 111 call.
2. According to your disclosures, you appear not to have noticed the
bruise on my left chin (which I told the police about on the day in
question) which is evident in some of your photographs of me, you have
not measured the distance between my left nostril and that bruise, you
have not measured the size of Dawn Benefield's fist, and you have not
compared those two measurements.
Consequently, I am formally suggesting to you that you should urgently
contact the Police Prosecutor and suggest that they immediately drop
all charges against me. Failure to follow this suggestion will, in my
estimation, possibly have costs implications and other implications
I was convicted in the District Court, appealed to the High Court,
where I had a Maori female judge, lost there and I tried unsuccessfully
to get leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
I later applied to the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, soon
after it was set up. However, there were serious problems with its personnel,
so I wrote the following open letter: Political
Bias in the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
I also wrote a very similar letter to the Commission at the same
time, which concentrated on the effects of its personnel on my particular
Eventually, in a two-stage process, the Criminal Cases Review Commission
rejected my application. I subsequently wrote to the Ombudsmen
17 June 2022
P.O. Box 10152
I gather that the Criminal Cases Review Commission ("CCRC")
comes under the Ombudsmen's Act (1975), because it was founded by statute
and is a Crown Entity listed under the Crown Entities Act (2004).
Could you please review and investigate its handling of my application
to them (Ref ID 0035)?
My first lawyer was Michael Bott, but I fired him when he insisted
that he mount a self-defence defence. Since I hadn't hit anyone, I did
not want to say in court that I had hit the other main protagonist (a
Maori woman) in self-defence. My second lawyer (District Court) was
Peter Foster and my final lawyer (High Court appeal) was Tony Ellis.
My grounds for my application to the CCRC are stated on page 14 of
my CCRC application form (apart from preliminary details, including
a link to a webpage) as follows:
I was convicted on the basis of perjured testimony. The only
objective evidence were a police photo of an injury to my nose, the
lack of any evidence of physical injury to the other main protagonist
and the police recording of my 111 call, in which I reported having
been assaulted on a train. The latter included an incidental recording
of my conversation with a female train employee wearing a white ribbon.
I emailed the police later, asking them to drop charges against me,
since the lies which several of their witnesses told about that conversation
showed that they were colluding with each other and that they were
unreliable witnesses. The police just responded by not calling most
of these witnesses and Peter Foster said that he procedurally could
not call them himself and treat them as hostile witnesses. Tony Ellis
later disagreed with that statement, but he did not appeal on the
grounds of Foster's incompetence. Ellis had asked me if I wanted to
appeal on the grounds of incompetence, but I had left it up to him,
since I am not a competent judge of courtroom competence, though I
have an LLB and passed Professionals.
The three main dates in this matter are as follows:
I initially submitted my application form to them on 23 July
In a letter dated 25 June 2021, signed by the Chief Commissioner,
the CCRC told me that the CCRC would not be proceeding further with
my case, but gave me 28 days to make further submissions or provide
In a letter dated 28 February 2022, the CCRC finally rejected
When the CCRC gave me 28 days to make further submissions or provide
new material, I responded with five emails
(within the 28-day period), each of which contained one submission/set
of new material. I did not try to distinguish between what was a submission
and what might be considered new material.
My Complaints about the CCRC
My complaints about the CCRC's Supplementary Statement of Reasons
(in its letter dated 28 February 2022, responding to my submissions)
are as follows:
The CCRC claims that the witnesses in the District Court were
cross-examined on the risk of collusion and their reliability was
challenged appropriately. However, this ignores the fact that my
lawyer did not use the police 111 recording in court to confront
the witnesses with the disparity between their written statements
and the facts as recorded. This is partly because the police decided
not to call most of the relevant witnesses. However, my lawyer did
not even confront the witness, Elizabeth (Peggy) McAree (see the
with the fact that her written statement said that the woman with
the white ribbon was trying to calm me down, whereas the recording
clearly shows that I was perfectly calm, talking to the police and
not in need of calming down. (The police case was that I had become
enraged and hit a Maori woman). The CCRC says that the prosecution
witnesses who were not called at the trial could not have perjured
themselves, which is irrelevant. The point is that, if they had
all been called (by the prosecution or by the defence), all those
who had mentioned in writing what had happened between me and the
woman with the white ribbon would have been shown up as liars, when
confronted with the recording. This would have shown them to be
unreliable witnesses and to be colluding with each other.
As regards Michael Bott, the CCRC refers to his advice (which
is not the issue) and ignores the fact that he prevented me from
getting a copy of the CCTV footage at Paraparaumu station (there
was no CCTV on the train), by applying to the police (who didn't
have it), instead of to the railway company. By the time my next
lawyer, Peter Foster, applied for it, it had been wiped.
The CCRC is lying, when it says that the fact that Peter Foster
did not integrate the recording into his defence of me is irrelevant.
See my point No.1 (above).
It is outrageous for the CCRC to state, "The Commission
is also satisfied that you accepted the advice provided by Mr. Foster
prior to trial regarding the decision not to call the additional
witnesses." The whole point of hiring a lawyer is that
you rely on them to give you the correct advice about technical
issues such as courtroom procedure. If I knew all the ins and outs
of criminal procedure (which I do not), I would not have needed
a lawyer in the District Court!
The CCRC fails to mention, or deal with, the issue of why Tony
Ellis left it to me to decide whether to appeal on the grounds of
Peter Foster's incompetence. Since he had raised the issue, he should
have told me why he had raised it. Since I am not a competent criminal
lawyer, how could I tell if Peter Foster was incompetent or not?
It appears that Tony Ellis thought that Peter Foster was incompetent,
in which case he should have appealed on those grounds.
In a letter dated 22 February 2021, signed by the Chief Executive,
the CCRC told me that my "Connector" would arrange a time
to meet with me "sometime soon", the next time they were
in the region. I was never contacted to arrange such a meeting and
no such meeting ever occurred.
My submissions amounted to criticisms of the CCRC's provisional decision
not to proceed further with my case, so I repeat them verbatim here:
"In the statement of reasons (received yesterday by email from
you), the CCRC states that the collusion and witness unreliability grounds
have already been canvassed in previous proceedings relating to my conviction.
I think that that is clearly not true. The collusion and witness
unreliability grounds were not canvassed by either Peter Foster in the
District Court or by Tony Ellis in the High Court. As I have already
stated in my CCRC application, Peter Foster would have had to call the
prosecution witnesses who the police did not call, if he had wanted
to canvas the collusion and witness unreliability grounds. I myself,
at one point in the District Court hearing, did briefly verbally attack
the prosecutor about this issue, but this was quickly shut down by the
judge and did not constitute a proper canvassing of the issues by competent
Could you please state what evidence the CCRC has that the collusion
and witness unreliability grounds have already been canvassed in previous
proceedings relating to my conviction."
They did not reply to my request to state the nature of this evidence.
"On my application form, I referred the CCRC to my webpage http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/prosinno.html
and I assumed that the CCRC would read it and any links coming off it.
'The first lawyer I contacted was Michael Bott, who had been
President of the New Zealand Men’s Rights Association, prior
to going to Law School. He said he had a heavy cold and refused to
mount a conspiracy defence, which he regarded as hopeless. He told
me to plead self-defence. He apparently asked the police for CCTV
footage from Paraparaumu station, but the police had not procured
it themselves, so that was a waste of time. By the time my next lawyer,
Peter Foster, contacted the train company for the CCTV footage, it
had been wiped. I had changed lawyers because I was not prepared to
say in court that I had hit someone in self-defence when I had not
hit anyone at all. I had not even contemplated hitting anyone!'
I would like to make the following two points here, in relation to
the issue of counsel errors, which is a heading in the CCRC's statement
I do not know whether Michael Bott's refusal to mount a conspiracy
defence and telling me to plead self-defence counts as a counsel
error. Does it?
However, his asking the police for CCTC footage was definitely
a counsel error, since he had no evidence that the police had ever
asked for that footage. He should have asked the railway owners
for that footage. If my side had obtained that footage, we
would have been able to show that all these women (and one man)
formed a group (making a conspiracy seem more plausible), that there
was a butch Lesbian involved and that she did not board the train,
in all likelihood. Why would she be on the platform and not board
the train -- unless she was the evil genius behind the conspiracy?
I would have been able to link Lesbians
to anti-male, unscientific, Feminist Domestic
Violence theory, since I know a lot about them and Domestic
Therefore, Michael Bott's error or errors made my legal defence more
difficult to mount."
"Errors or misconduct by Peter Foster.
Peter Foster stated that he procedurally was not permitted to
call the "missing" prosecution witnesses and then treat
them as hostile witnesses, for the purpose of providing evidence
of perjury and/or collusion and/or conspiracy. This evidence would
have emerged if he had -- in cross-examination -- compared their
written statements with what I was recorded by the police (when
I phoned 111) as having said to the woman with the white ribbon
on the train. The details are all on the page http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/prosinno.html
and pages linked to from that page. Either Peter Foster was
correct on the procedural issue, or he was not. Tony Ellis later
told me that he was not correct and that he could indeed have called
the "missing" prosecution witnesses and then treated them
as hostile witnesses. He said how that could have been done, but
I took no particular notice of the details. If Peter Foster
was not correct, then that constituted a severe error on his part.
Can the CCRC tell me whether he was correct, or do I have to find
out for myself? Peter Foster also made an error in relation
to the use of the police 111 recording in court. The prosecution
had not played the recording when Peter Foster started to make his
oral submissions. Peter Foster told me later that he had expected
the police to play it. The result was that the recording was not
integrated into Peter Foster's submissions and he just played it
(lamely) after his submissions, without making any comments about
"Possible errors or misconduct by Tony Ellis.
In my CCRC application form, I mentioned Tony Ellis, in passing, in
relation to a very important possible error by Peter Foster. Since the
person who told me that it was an error was Tony Ellis, I could hardly
avoid mentioning him too. I did not myself know that what Peter Foster
said/omitted to do was an error, so I only had Tony Ellis' word for
that, so I had to mention him as the authority for the idea that Peter
Foster had made an error.
However, both the CCRC and Tony Ellis have taken the view that what
I said about Tony Ellis constituted a complaint about him and Tony Ellis
has therefore refused to assist me by clarifying what he said about
Peter Foster, by citing the relevant legislation.
That being the case, I feel that I should indeed make a complaint
about Tony Ellis, after all -- in fact, three complaints:
Was it appropriate for him to ask me if I wanted to appeal to
the High Court on the grounds of Peter Foster's incompetence, when
(as he should have known) I was not competent to judge Peter Foster's
competence or otherwise?
Having asked me that question, was it appropriate for him to
have himself not chosen to appeal to the High Court (on my behalf)
on the grounds of Peter Foster's incompetence? He must have had
some reason for raising the issue with me in the first place.
Was Tony Ellis correct in saying that Peter Foster could indeed
have called up some potential prosecution witnesses, who the police
did not call, and treat them as hostile witnesses? If Tony Ellis
was correct, then Peter Foster made an error. If Tony Ellis was
incorrect, then he himself made an error. Either way, it is inescapable
that one counsel or the other made an error."
"Witnesses Unreliability and Perjured Testimony
Near the top of page 14 my application form, I referred you to the
. It appears to me that you have not bothered to look at it and its
I refer to the statements of the following (actual or potential)
prosecution witnesses, relevant parts of which are linked to from the
What all of them said about my conversation with "Sue,"
a railways employee who was wearing a white ribbon, was grossly at variance
with my actual words and my actual behaviour, as evidenced by the police
recording of my 111 call to them. That is clear evidence of perjured
testimony in respect of that conversation and therefore evidence of
Thank you in advance.
Peter D. Zohrab
19 June 2022