THE CROWN’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC POWER

Supplementary Memorandum — The Crown’s Responsibility for the Exercise of Public Power | OIA-2627045, OIA-2627076, OIA-2627083

THE CROWN’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC POWER
A Human Appeal for Accountability,

 Evidential Integrity, Fairness and the Correction of Official Error
FORMAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM
23 October 2026

To: Crown Law Office — Crown Counsel and the Solicitor-General

From: Tracy Lynch, 

We Review the Crown — FARQ Records Office
References: OIA-2627045 | OIA-2627076 | OIA-2627083

1. PURPOSE
This memorandum is submitted in good faith, not to attack the Crown, the King, the judiciary or public servants, but to ask: when the exercise of public power causes harm, who takes responsibility for establishing what happened, correcting what went wrong and preventing recurrence? We seek answers and practical solutions. Institutions are strengthened when mistakes can be acknowledged and corrected.

2. BEHIND EVERY FILE IS A PERSON
Behind every case number may be a family whose property has been taken, an elderly person frightened by enforcement, a business owner who has lost a livelihood, or someone facing criminal allegations without access to records needed to understand or challenge the case. The consequences may affect homes, health, reputations, relationships and futures. A file can be closed administratively while its consequences continue in a person’s life.

3. WE DO NOT EXPECT PERFECTION
Officials can misunderstand information, make errors or rely on incomplete records. An error does not necessarily establish misconduct or bad faith. What matters is whether the responsible institution examines the records, identifies the decision-maker and authority, enables challenges to disputed evidence, corrects established mistakes and considers the effects on those harmed.

4. WHY WE ASK WHO THE CROWN IS
Our requests concerning the King, the Crown and the Sovereign in right of New Zealand have a practical purpose: to identify the offices and authorised people exercising public powers, and the mechanisms for holding them accountable. We recognise that the King does not personally investigate offences or decide individual proceedings, and that judges, prosecutors, agencies and executive officials have distinct functions. People should be able to identify the correct responsible actor without being endlessly referred elsewhere.

5. EVIDENCE MUST BE OPEN TO LAWFUL SCRUTINY
In matters brought to our attention, questions have arisen about warrant foundations, statutory powers, ownership records, witness accounts, disclosure and administrative accuracy. These concerns are allegations, not findings; each requires case-specific assessment. We seek existing records explaining the applicable duties to assess evidence, disclose information, investigate material discrepancies and correct errors.

6. THE HUMAN COST OF UNANSWERED CORRESPONDENCE
People may spend months gathering documents and identifying inconsistencies. Repeated refusals that do not address the distinction between requests for existing records and requests for newly created legal advice leave them uncertain how to proceed. We accept that the Official Information Act does not require new legal advice to be created and that some material may lawfully be withheld. We ask Crown Law to explain which existing records were found, which are not held, and the grounds for withholding any responsive records.

7. CORRECTION AND REMEDIES
Not every error gives rise to compensation and not every disputed decision constitutes misconduct. But where an error and resulting harm are established, the relevant avenues for review, correction and legally available redress must be identifiable.

8. SPECIFIC REQUESTS
Please identify:

(a) Existing records identifying offices and legal capacities through which Crown authority is exercised in New Zealand proceedings;

(b) Statutory instruments, appointments, delegations and guidance identifying the relevant chains of authority;

(c) Existing guidance on investigators’, prosecutors’ and Crown legal officers’ responsibilities for evidential assessment, disclosure and correction of material inaccuracies;

(d) Existing procedures for concerns about official error or misconduct;

(e) The records searched and categories of responsive information located, as appropriate;

(f) The particular grounds relied on for withholding or refusing responsive information;

(g) Other appropriate agencies or offices where Crown Law does not hold records;

(h) Any guidance governing referral to the Solicitor-General, and consideration of referring this memorandum.

We are willing to refine or separate the requests to assist identification of existing information and would welcome constructive discussion.

9. AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE
This is not a declaration that all institutions act improperly. It is an invitation to examine whether accountability mechanisms are accessible and effective. Public confidence grows when concerns are heard, evidence can be examined, decisions challenged and proven errors corrected.

10. A HUMAN REQUEST
Please read this as an explanation of why these questions matter to people under emotional, financial and personal strain. We do not ask anyone to surrender lawful authority or accept allegations without proof. We ask that authority be identifiable, that credible concerns be examined fairly, and that established mistakes be corrected.

We are trying to fix a problem, not create another one.

Please provide a substantive response to the outstanding information requests and this supplementary memorandum.

Yours faithfully,
Tracy Lynch

We Review the Crown — FARQ Records Office
[email protected]

Copy: [email protected]

This memorandum records concerns and requests for existing information; it makes no findings of wrongdoing in individual proceedings and does not replace court or oversight processes.