Financial audit and public-cost breakdown concerning the withdrawn charge against Simon Peter Stott:

16 June 2026
 

 
Subject: Request for financial audit and public-cost breakdown — 

The King v Simon Peter Stott, CRI-2025-025-001671, CRN 25076000586
 

 
To whom it may concern,
 

 
I request a financial audit and public-cost breakdown concerning the withdrawn charge against Simon Peter Stott:

 

 
The King v Simon Peter Stott    
 
Invercargill District Court CRI-2025-025-001671    
 
CRN 25076000586   

 
 
Charge: Conversion of a vehicle  

 
 
Complainant/context: Smith’s Auto Rentals
 

 
The Crown Memorandum of Counsel dated 16 June 2026 records that the charge related to a rental vehicle from Smith’s Auto Rentals, that Mr Stott subsequently paid the tax invoice for the period he had the vehicle, that Police confirmed the invoice was paid, and that on that basis the Crown would not proceed with the charge.

 

 
The Crown Charge Notice dated 16 June 2026 records that the Crown withdrew the charge.
 

 
My concern is financial accountability. 

I want to know how much this matter cost the defendant, how much it cost the Crown, how much it cost Police, and how much it cost the government/public purse overall.
 

 
1. Financial audit requested

 

 
Please provide a full financial audit trail for this matter, including:

 

 
a. the amount allegedly owed to Smith’s Auto Rentals: 

b. the amount actually paid;

 

 
c. the date payment was made;

 

 
d. who received the payment;

 

 
e. whether any payment was made, delivered, held, receipted, transferred, released, or recorded through Police, the court, Crown, Ministry of Justice, Smith’s Auto Rentals, or any other person or agency;

 

 
f. whether any money was treated as reparation, restitution, invoice payment, civil debt payment, exhibit/property money, court-held money, trust money, or any other category;

 

 
g. all receipts, payment confirmations, banking records, property records, file notes, emails, and audit entries recording the payment or handling of money.

 

 
2. Public-cost breakdown requested
 

 
Please provide the total public cost, or best available cost estimate, for the investigation, prosecution, administration, and withdrawal of this charge, including:
 

 

a. Police staff time;
 

 
b. Police investigation costs;
 

 
c. Police prosecution or file-preparation costs;
 

 
d. Crown Solicitor / Crown prosecutor costs;

 

 
e. Ministry of Justice / court administration costs;
 

 
f. court appearance costs;

 

 
g. disclosure preparation costs;
 

 
h. filing and administrative costs;
 

 
i. any invoice, reimbursement, payment, or cost entry connected with PRLaw, Crown Law, Police, Ministry of Justice, or any other public agency.

 

 
3. Cost to the defendant
 

 
Please provide any records held showing costs imposed on, sought from, or incurred by Mr Stott in relation to this withdrawn charge, including:

 

 
a. legal-aid records, if applicable and lawfully disclosable;
 

 
b. any reparation or payment records;
 

 
c. any court-cost records;
 

 
d. any records showing payment made to Smith’s Auto Rentals;

 

 
e. any records showing whether Mr Stott was required, pressured, or expected to pay money before the charge would be withdrawn.
 

 
4. Third-party benefit
 

 

Please identify whether Smith’s Auto Rentals received any payment, financial benefit, or debt recovery outcome as a result of Police or Crown involvement.
 

 
If yes, please provide:
 

 
a. the amount received;
 

 

b. the date received;
 

 
c. who arranged or facilitated the payment;
 

 
d. whether Police, Crown, or the court played any role in obtaining, holding, confirming, or transferring the payment;
 

 
e. the lawful basis for any public agency involvement in securing payment for a private third party.
 

 
5. Decision-making and value-for-money review
 

 

Please provide any records showing whether Police, Crown, or any public agency considered:

 

 
a. whether the matter was a civil debt or invoice dispute;
 

 
b. whether public prosecution resources should be used where payment was the central issue;
 

 

c. whether the prosecution met any public-interest or value-for-money threshold;

 
d. whether continuing the charge was justified after payment was made or tendered;

 

 
e. whether the charge should have been withdrawn earlier.
 

 
6. Requested outcome
 

 
I request:
 

 
a. a full financial audit trail;

 

 
b. a public-cost breakdown;

 

 
c. a breakdown of any private-party payment or benefit;
 

 

d. identification of who paid what, to whom, when, and under what authority

 

 
e. confirmation of how much this matter cost Police, Crown, Ministry of Justice, and the government overall;
 

 

f. confirmation of how much this matter cost Mr Stott, so far as records are held and lawfully disclosable;
 

 
g. confirmation of whether any internal review, audit, complaint, or public-money accountability process has been opened or should now be opened.
 

 
Please treat this as a request for official information and, where necessary, as a request for information to be transferred to the agency that holds the relevant financial or audit records.
 

 
Yours faithfully,
 

 
Simon
 Stott