Response to OIA-2526179 – Prosecution Oversight, Evidential Sufficiency, and Accountability

Kia ora Tracy

 We acknowledge receipt of your email of 8 May 2026 requesting information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 In accordance with section 15 of the Official Information Act, a response to your request will be provided as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in any case within 20 working days of receipt of your request, i.e. by 8 June 2026.

 Ngā mihi nui | Kind regards

 Te Tari Ture o te Karauna Crown Law Office

19 Aitken Street | PO Box 2858 | Wellington 6011

 Thank you for your response dated 8 May 2026 regarding Official Information Request OIA-2526179.

 The response raises significant concerns regarding prosecutorial accountability, evidential sufficiency review, procedural fairness safeguards, and systemic oversight within the public prosecution framework in New Zealand.

 In particular, your response confirms:

 • The Solicitor-General maintains general oversight of public prosecutions;

• Prosecutors are expected to apply the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines;

• Prosecutors must continually reassess whether the Test for Prosecution remains met;

• Crown Law does not routinely review evidential sufficiency decisions;

• Crown Law does not routinely audit prosecution decision-making;

• Important categories of prosecutorial review and communication are asserted to fall outside the Official Information Act under the Law Officer function.

 The response therefore appears to acknowledge a substantial separation between:

(a) the issuing of prosecutorial standards and expectations; and

(b) practical accountability where those standards are not followed.

 This gives rise to legitimate concerns regarding:

• continuity of supervision;

• procedural fairness protections;

• evidential integrity;

• disclosure compliance;

• consistency of prosecutorial conduct;

• and the identification of responsible oversight mechanisms where prosecutorial failures are alleged.

 These concerns are not theoretical.

 There are presently multiple proceedings in which serious questions have arisen concerning:

• disclosure sufficiency;

• evidential completeness;

• identification of prosecutorial authority;

• witness and evidential continuity;

• and whether the evidential and public interest tests have genuinely been maintained throughout the life of proceedings.

 Your response appears to confirm that no routine central review process exists to independently verify whether those prosecutorial obligations are being complied with in practice.

 Please therefore clarify:

 1. Where allegations arise that the Test for Prosecution is no longer met, which entity or office carries ultimate supervisory responsibility for ensuring prosecutorial compliance?

 2. What formal mechanism exists for independent review where disclosure failures or evidential insufficiency are alleged during ongoing proceedings?

 3. If Crown Law does not supervise individual prosecutions, and prosecuting agencies self-assess compliance with the Guidelines, what external accountability mechanism exists to ensure consistent application of the evidential and public interest tests?

 4. Does Crown Law maintain any statistical, operational, or systemic monitoring regarding:

   (a) failed prosecutions;

   (b) disclosure breaches;

   (c) stays of proceedings;

   (d) withdrawn charges;

   (e) judicial criticism relating to evidential sufficiency or prosecutorial conduct?

 5. Please clarify whether any national standards exist requiring periodic auditing of disclosure compliance and evidential reassessment by prosecuting agencies.

 6. Please clarify whether the Crown Solicitor File Review Pilot includes review of:

   • disclosure conduct;

   • evidential sufficiency reassessment;

   • procedural fairness;

   • or judicial criticism of prosecutorial conduct.

 This correspondence is sent respectfully and in good faith due to increasing concerns regarding the practical operation of prosecutorial safeguards in multiple current proceedings.

 Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

 Nāku noa, nā

Tracy Lynch

InLandsAirWater Counsel