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 (at least twice updated).

Peter Zohrab 2015-2022

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


The Events

My Email to the Police

The Court Hearings

The Criminal Cases Review Commission

My Letter to the Ombudsmen


The Events

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


Email to the Police


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 .



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 case.



Eventually, in a two-stage process, the Criminal Cases Review Commission rejected my application.  I subsequently wrote to the Ombudsmen as follows:



17 June 2022

The Ombudsmen
P.O. Box 10152
Wellington 6143


Dear Sir/Madam,


Complaint about the Criminal Cases Review Commission


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:

  1. I initially submitted my application form to them on 23 July 2020.

  2. 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 new material.

  3. In a letter dated 28 February 2022, the CCRC finally rejected my application.

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:

  1. 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 webpage http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/mcarlies.html), 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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).

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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

My submissions amounted to criticisms of the CCRC's provisional decision not to proceed further with my case, so I repeat them verbatim here:


Submission 1

"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 counsel.

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.


Submission 2

"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.

On that page, I have a link to the page: http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/thetruth.html which includes the following paragraph:

'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 of reasons:

  1. 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?

  2. 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 Violence.

Therefore, Michael Bott's error or errors made my legal defence more difficult to mount."


Submission 3

"Errors or misconduct by Peter Foster.

  1. 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 its content"


Submission 4

"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:

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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."


Submission 5

"Witnesses Unreliability and Perjured Testimony

Near the top of page 14 my application form, I referred you to the page http://blackribboncampaign.altervista.org/prosinno.html . It appears to me that you have not bothered to look at it and its contents properly.

I refer to the statements of the following (actual or potential) prosecution witnesses, relevant parts of which are linked to from the above webpage:

  1. Cheryl Hocking,

  2. Georgette Martin,

  3. Elizabeth (Peggy) McAree,

  4. Kathleen Nolan (Kathleen Garnham) and

  5. Christopher Vertongen.

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 witness unreliability."


Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,


Peter D. Zohrab


See also:




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

19 June 2022