Duty of Candour – Authority, Seizure, and Proceedings

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Duty of Candour – Authority, Seizure, and Proceedings 

Ref ILAW-MPI-OIA-AUTH-2026-001.

To: Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)

Copied to: New Zealand Police; Police Integrity

From: Attorney (on instructions of trustees)

Re: Simon Peter Stott / Seacures Limited

Standing

I act as Attorney, on instructions of trustees, in relation to matters concerning Simon Peter Stott and Seacures Limited.

The trustees have instructed me to ascertain the existence, scope, and source of any authority relied upon by MPI and/or Police in relation to:

1. the historic taking, seizure, impoundment, retention, or loss of machinery and equipment over an extended period; and

2. the current treatment of Seacures Limited as subject to court proceedings or enforcement.

This request is made to fulfil those instructions and to clarify the record.

PART A — HISTORIC AUTHORITY & LOSS OF MACHINERY (DECADES)

Purpose

To identify whether any authority ever existed for the taking or control of machinery and equipment, and if so, by whom and on what basis.

A1. Originating Authority

Please provide the very first document (earliest in time) that authorised, initiated, contemplated, or recommended the taking, seizure, impoundment, control, or retention of any machinery or equipment connected with Simon Peter Stott and/or activities later associated with Seacures Limited.

This includes (without limitation):

• warrants

• notices

• instructions

• delegations

• internal memoranda

• emails

• briefing papers

• referrals between agencies

For each document, please identify:

• date

• author

• recipient

• authority relied upon

If no such originating document exists, please confirm this expressly.

A2. Authority Relied Upon

For each instance where machinery or equipment was taken or controlled, please provide:

• the specific authority relied upon

• the issuing person or office

• any delegation instrument

• the scope and duration of that authority

If authority was assumed, inferred, or derived from another agency, please identify:

• the source of that assumption

• whether it was verified

• by whom and when

A3. Records & Chain of Custody

Please provide all records evidencing:

• what machinery or equipment was taken

• when and where it was taken

• by whom

• where it was held

• any transfer, disposal, loss, or destruction

If no chain-of-custody records are held, please confirm that no such records exist.

A4. Absence of Records

If MPI or Police contend that records once existed but no longer do, please provide:

• the nature of the records

• when they were destroyed or lost

• under what authority

PART B — CORPORATE AUTHORITY & CURRENT PROCEEDINGS (SEACURES LIMITED)

Purpose

To identify the authority relied upon by MPI and/or Police to treat Seacures Limited as subject to enforcement or court proceedings, in light of its Constitution.

I hold the Constitution of Seacures Limited, which governs how the company may be bound, proceeded against, or subjected to control.

B1. Authority Against the Company

Please provide the document(s) by which MPI and/or Police believe they obtained authority to:

• take action against Seacures Limited; and/or

• place Seacures Limited before a court; and/or

• treat the company as subject to enforcement, seizure, or control.

This includes:

• statutory gateways relied upon

• service instruments

• consents, resolutions, or acknowledgements

• internal legal advice addressing authority over the company

B2. Consideration of the Constitution

Please provide all documents showing:

• whether the Constitution of Seacures Limited was considered

• how MPI/Police concluded their actions were consistent with it

• any decision to proceed notwithstanding constitutional requirements

If the constitution was not considered, please confirm that expressly.

B3. Decision-Making

Please provide documents identifying:

• who decided Seacures Limited should be proceeded against

• what information they relied upon

• when that decision was made

Clarifications

• This request seeks existing documents and factual confirmation only.

• It does not seek opinion or legal argument.

• If authority exists, it must be produced.

• If it does not exist, that absence must be confirmed on the record.

Duty of Candour

This request engages the duty of candour owed by public authorities. It extends to material documents that may be incomplete, adverse, or disclose error.

Status

To date, no originating authority, no chain of custody, and no corporate gateway consistent with the constitution have been disclosed.

Procedural Note

Once responses are received (or refused), I will be required to place the existence or absence of authority on affidavit, in fulfilment of trustee instructions.

Tracy Lynch

 

In LandsAirWater Counsel