The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

‘OPEN LETTER’/OIA REQUEST TO SFO DIRECTOR ADAM FEELEY:re: ‘SFO vs NBR’

20 October 2010

‘OPEN LETTER’/OIA REQUEST TO SFO DIRECTOR ADAM FEELEY:

Please provide a copy of the following information:

1) A copy of the letter which delegated authority to the ‘Designated Member’ of the SFO, whose (illegible) signature appears at the bottom of the ‘Notice to Require Production of Documents’ addressed to Neville Gibson, Editor in Chief, National Business Review, dated 19 October 2010.

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE ACT 1990 AND STATE SECTOR ACT 1988:

A) SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE ACT 1990
33 Delegation of functions or powers
(1) The provisions of the State Sector Act 1988 relating to the delegation of functions or powers shall apply in all respects to the Serious Fraud Office:

Provided that no delegation of—

(a) Any power conferred by Part 1 or Part 2 of this Act; o

(b) Any power to authorise, under section 36(2) or section 37(3)(b) or section 39(2)(b) of this Act, the disclosure of protected information,—

shall be valid unless it is to a designated member and is in writing.

(2) For the purposes of the provisions of the State Sector Act 1988 relating to the delegation of functions or powers, any person who is seconded to the Serious Fraud Office shall be treated as if that person were an employee of the Serious Fraud Office.

______________________________________________

B) STATE SECTOR ACT 1988:

23 Delegation of functions or powers

(1) The Commissioner may from time to time, either generally or particularly, delegate to any person or persons any of the functions or powers of the Commissioner under this Act or any other Act, inluding functions or powers delegated to the Commissioner under any Act.

(2) Every delegation under this section shall be in writing.

(3) No delegation under this section shall include—
(a) the power to delegate under this section; or
(b) the Commissioner’s powers under sections 35 and 36 of this Act
(which relate to the appointment and reappointment of chief executives);
or
(c) the Commissioner’s powers under section 39 of this Act (which relates to the removal from office of a chief executive); or

(4) In any case where the Commissioner has, pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, delegated any of the functions or powers of the Commissioner to any person, that person may, with the prior approval in writing of the Commissioner, delegate such of those functions or powers as the Commissioner approves to any other person or to the holder for the time being of any specified office in the State services.

(5) Subject to any general or special directions given or conditions imposed by the Commissioner, the person to whom any functions or powers are delegated under this section may exercise those functions or powers in the same manner and with the same effect as if they had been conferred on that person directly by this Act and not by delegation.

(6) Every person purporting to act pursuant to any delegation under this section shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed to be acting in accordance with the terms of the delegation.

(7) Any delegation under this section may be made to a specified person or to persons of a specified class, or to the holder or holders for the time being of a specified office or of specified classes of offices.

(8) No such delegation shall affect or prevent the exercise of any function or power by the Commissioner nor shall any such delegation affect the responsibility of the Commissioner for the actions of any person acting under the delegation.
(My underlining)
________________________________________________________________________________

2) A copy of the information upon which you as Director of the SFO are relying, in your claim that the NBR have a ‘statutory obligation’ to ‘produce documents etc’, as per s9 (1) (b) of the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990; in their capacity as ‘third party’ media reporting on alleged fraud, as opposed to being a party suspected of carrying out alleged fraud, or linked to a party suspected of carrying out alleged fraud.

RELEVANT SECTION OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE ACT 1990

www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0051/latest/DLM211434.htm

9. Power to require attendance before Director, production of documents, etc

(1) The Director may, by notice in writing, require—

(a) Any person whose affairs are being investigated; or

(b) Any other person who the Director has reason to believe may have information or documents relevant to an investigation,—…

3) Copies of ALL ‘Notice(s) to Require Production of Documents’ which have been served by the SFO, as per s9 (1) (b) of the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990; on ALL/ANY ‘third party’ media, who have reported on cases of alleged fraud, at any time since the establishment of the SFO in 1990.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

Advertisements

October 20, 2010 - Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Human rights

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: