CROWN RISK & INDEMNITY CLARIFICATION REQUEST

(Public Law Non-Adversarial)

To:

Crown Risk and Assurance

The Treasury

From:

Tracy Lynch – Attorney, acting for David Mills and Brigitta Maas

Dated today 6th January 2026

Re:

Clarification of Crown Risk, Indemnity, and Insurance Coverage

Police enforcement actions undertaken in connection with Rangitīkei District Council matters

1. Purpose of this Request

This correspondence is made for the limited and specific purpose of clarifying Crown risk ownership and indemnity responsibility in respect of certain enforcement actions undertaken by New Zealand Police.

It is not a complaint, does not seek adjudication, does not allege criminal liability, and does not request intervention in any court or operational matter.

The request is made to ensure clarity of risk allocation where authority, process, and insurance coverage appear to be in question.

2. Background (High-Level and Undisputed)

The matters giving rise to this request include:

• Police entry onto private property and seizure of property, including firearms and related items;

• The absence, to date, of any identified court-issued warrant or issuing-officer authority authorising such entry and seizure;

• The absence of a contemporaneous seizure inventory following the first entry, with inventories only appearing after later actions;

• Police enforcement activity undertaken in connection with, or alongside, matters involving Rangitīkei District Council;

• Ongoing reliance on those enforcement actions despite unresolved authority and record-integrity issues.

These matters are currently the subject of public-law correspondence and are being addressed through appropriate legal channels. No determination of lawfulness is sought from Treasury.

3. Reason for Treasury Engagement

Given the above, there is uncertainty as to:

• whether the conduct described constitutes an insurable Crown risk;

• whether the actions fall within Crown indemnity, particularly where Police activity appears to support local-authority enforcement rather than core policing functions; and

• which Vote or agency ultimately carries financial responsibility should the actions be determined to fall outside lawful authority.

Treasury is the appropriate body to clarify these matters.

4. Clarification Requested

Accordingly, clarification is respectfully sought on the following limited questions:

1. Whether enforcement actions of the kind described above constitute an insurable Crown risk for the purposes of Crown indemnity arrangements;

2. Which Vote or agency would carry indemnity responsibility in circumstances where:

• Police actions are undertaken in support of local-authority enforcement; and

• authority and procedural defects are alleged;

3. Whether Police actions undertaken primarily for non-core policing purposes(including civil or regulatory enforcement support) fall within standard Crown indemnity coverage;

4. Whether Treasury is aware of any insurance notification or indemnity assessment having been made in respect of these events.

No comment is sought on the merits of any legal proceedings.

5. Status and Reservation

This request is made in good faith to clarify risk allocation and does not waive any rights or remedies. It is issued without prejudice and without submission to any court or tribunal jurisdiction.

In good faith,

Tracy Lynch

Attorney, acting for David Mills and Brigitta Maas under instructions from trustees