Home > Issues > False Allegations > Scum-Police Deliberately Prosecute Innocent Man.

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


Scum-Police Deliberately Prosecute Innocent Man (updated).

Peter Zohrab 2015-2021

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

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:


  1. Police photos of injuries to my face (see below);

  2. 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:

  1. Dawn Benefield, 9 Faydon Close, Ohau, Activity Manager, 021 767567

  2. Elizabeth Margaret McAree, 23 Newry Road, Raumati Beach, Personal Assistant, 021 0533173

  3. Irene Walker, 6a San Vito Place, Paraparaumu, Administrator (who now seems to have moved to Waikanae), 021 6722190

  4. Stephen John Barton Eckett, 108 Wellington Road, Paekakariki, Engineer, 027 4852916


Peter Zohrab at Paraparaumu police station on 18 October 2012


Peter Zohrab <zohrab@paradise.net.nz>
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:14:39 +1300
Alexander.Waterworth@police.govt.nz, Peter Foster <lawyer@paradise.net.nz>

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 me.

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 as well.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Zohrab


POSTSCRIPT: What actually happened on the train


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.

See: New Zealand Police v Peter Douglas Zohrab -- District Court Judgment and High Court & Court of Appeal Appeal Judgments .

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 case.


See also:




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

5 May 2021