Formal Notice — Crown Authority, Electoral Roll Integrity, Evidential Verification and Public Accountability — For Attorney-General and Solicitor-General

WE REVIEW THE CROWN — RECORDS OFFICE
FORMAL NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PUBLIC-LAW ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS
19 October 2026

From: Tracy Lynch, for the Records Office, 

We Review the Crown
Correspondence: [email protected]
Records copy: [email protected]

To: Attorney-General of New Zealand

For the attention of: Solicitor-General and Crown Law Office

RE: FORMAL NOTICE — CROWN AUTHORITY, ELECTORAL ROLL INTEGRITY, EVIDENTIAL VERIFICATION AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Dear Attorney-General and Solicitor-General,

I write on behalf of the Records Office of We Review the Crown to place before you matters of constitutional and public-law concern arising from records and correspondence maintained by this office.

Our records reflect repeated instances in which material questions concerning public authority, evidential verification, disclosure, legal responsibility and corrective action have been raised without what we consider to be substantive answers. 

These are documented concerns, not established findings of unlawful conduct.

1. IDENTITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE CROWN

Proceedings are frequently commenced or conducted in the name of the King or the Crown. The existence of the Crown as a constitutional institution is recognised. The question in individual matters is which person, office or agency exercises a specific power, and under what legal authority and limits.

We request identification of: 

(a) the relevant constitutional or statutory authority; 

(b) the responsible decision-maker;

 (c) any legally relevant appointment, delegation, warrant or instruction; 

(d) the duties governing verification of the factual and evidential foundation;

 (e) the office responsible for examining established errors; and

 (f) the review and remedy process available to affected persons.

2. EVIDENCE, DISCLOSURE AND CONTINUING PROCEEDINGS

Our records reflect concerns involving disputed identification, service, ownership, liability, evidential sufficiency, and alleged omission, narrowing or redaction of information supplied to decision-makers. We ask how public prosecutors and agencies are required to assess material contradictory evidence, comply with disclosure duties, and reconsider matters where material error is established. We recognise that an unanswered question does not automatically invalidate proceedings.

3. ELECTORAL ROLL INTEGRITY

The Records Office raises concerns about electoral roll administration and requests identification of the responsible authority, safeguards for accuracy, processes for investigating alleged discrepancies, and independent review and correction mechanisms. We do not assert that any compromise or electoral invalidity is established without verification.

4. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Please explain the respective responsibilities of the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, Crown Law, prosecuting agencies and instructed practitioners for authority, prosecution oversight, disclosure, correction and review. Please identify the appropriate electoral and other independent oversight authorities, and refer any matters outside your jurisdiction or advise the correct referral procedure.

5. CONFIDENTIAL EVIDENCE REGISTER

We propose to provide an anonymised schedule (Case A, Case B, Case C, etc.). The Records Office will retain identities, proceeding numbers, correspondence and evidence in a separate confidential register. Please identify a secure method for submitting that material.

6. CONSOLIDATED NOTICE

This single notice is directed to the Attorney-General and copied to the Solicitor-General and Crown Law Office to avoid unnecessary duplication. We request that each office identify its responsibilities and that a coordinated response be provided where practicable, without diminishing separate statutory responsibilities.

7. RESPONSE REQUESTED

Please acknowledge receipt, identify the responsible official or office for each category, provide an itemised response citing applicable law and review processes, and confirm a secure evidential-submission procedure. 

Please provide a substantive response or reasonable timetable within 15 working days.

The fundamental question is: where a public authority exercises coercive or enforcement power, who is legally responsible for establishing its factual and legal foundation, correcting established errors, and providing an effective remedy for resulting harm?

Yours faithfully,

Tracy Lynch

For the Records Office
WE REVIEW THE CROWN

[email protected]
Public-interest records and accountability inquiry
Not acting as legal counsel.