Office of the Ombudsman – Ref 028820

The ILAW promised that it would continue looking into the CAA as people were being killed and nothing was being done about. Of interest is a crash in 2003 near CH CH where a group of scientist that were about to give a very negative presentation about Genetically Modified Food, unfortunately all died. Case – 029663 was about 5G cell phone towers effect on helicopters fuel systems, the fuel was turned off.

Subject: CASE-029663 – CAA fiduciary and administrative failures (Benton Thow & related incidents)

Kia ora Penny,

Please place the following on record for Case-029663.

For more than 30 years, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) records have shown discrepancies in crash investigations: helicopters and planes not properly logged, people falling from aircraft without full inquiry, and enforcement actions applied inconsistently.

The Benton Thow case is particularly serious:

• He was bankrupted, prohibited from flying, and sentenced to community service.

• There was no lawful evidential basis under the Evidence Act 2006.

• CAA failed to follow its own statutory duties under the Civil Aviation Act 1990, especially s 14 (Director’s functions and powers) which require impartial and lawful investigation.

• His company was effectively taken over amidst these failures, causing financial and mental harm.

These actions are fiduciary and administrative breaches. An administrator exercising statutory power is bound by:

• Article 27, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) – states cannot rely on internal law to justify failure to perform treaty obligations (here, ICAO safety obligations).

• NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – the right to justice and observance of natural justice.

• Ombudsmen Act 1975, s 13(1) – empowers your office to investigate maladministration and unfair treatment.

Precedent authorities

• CREEDNZ Inc v Governor-General [1981] 1 NZLR 172 (CA) – discretionary statutory powers must be exercised reasonably and in line with statutory purpose.

• Bulk Gas Users Group v Attorney-General [1983] NZLR 129 – administrators owe duties of fairness and rationality; failure is maladministration.

• Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration [1980] 2 NZLR 130 – a leading authority on the duty to take into account relevant considerations and disclose information affecting rights.

CAA’s failures meet all these thresholds: irrelevant considerations (nepotism, conflicts of interest), failure to consider relevant facts (actual crash data, evidence under the Evidence Act), and procedural unfairness.

Current issues

We also hold on record evidence that cell-phone towers interfere with aircraft fuel emitter systems, first documented in 2008, and that this factor has been covered up. This goes to the safety mandate under the Civil Aviation Act and ICAO standards, which CAA is failing to discharge.

Request

We ask that the Ombudsman:

1. Confirm whether CAA’s refusals under s 18(e) OIA (information alleged not to exist) are accurate.

2. Obtain from CAA search logs and schedules of documents.

3. Investigate CAA’s administrative behaviour as a fiduciary authority with obligations to fairness, impartiality, and evidence-based decision-making.

To say this is simply a “judicial” matter is not correct. We are not seeking review of a sentence. We are seeking accountability for administrative misconduct and fiduciary breach by the regulator.