Justice in New Zealand?

Justice in New Zealand? 14 April 2021

This document outlines the actions of the investigators, NZ Police and the Judiciary in relation to this case.

It was sent to the Prime Minister, Minister for the Police and several other Government ministers.

They all acknowledged receipt and passed it on to the Minister of Police, Hon Poto Williams.

He replied as follows on 20 April 2021.

This apparently trickled down through the NZ Police until it arrived on the desk of Detective Inspector Dene Begbie at Whangarei Police Station. His reply dated 14 July 2021 is remarkable in that it contains many misleading statements that are in line with the similar statements made previously by IAG. It is copied below in full.

Dear Sir


This matter was forwarded through to the Northland District Police via the office
of the Minister for police.

I note the matters you raise concern the following:

• The editing of the DVD interview that was conducted with you by Detective
Constable Bill DAWSON.

• The fact that Senior Sergeant Peter ROBINSON was refusing to act on the
detailed criminal report which was filed on the 21st of February 2021.

• Police not prepared to do anything to investigate the actions of lAG.

I have read the correspondence you have provided to the respective Ministers
and have previously reviewed this case.

As you will be aware, in April 2019 Mr William GILLANDERS sought to make a complaint
against the Police and private investigators of lAG Finance on this same matter.

This complaint also related to the handling of the Arson investigation following the
fire to your residence on Ness Road, Kerikeri, which occurred in September

There was also correspondence forwarded by Mr GILLANDERS on your behalf at
this time.


Mr GILLANDERS had prepared and forwarded a detailed report which alleged
crimes of Perjury, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, Abuse of Process
through the Court, Wrongful Arrest and taking a malicious prosecution against

I understand Inspector Ricki WHIU, the Area Commander for the Mid North, has
also previously corresponded with you on these matters, following the letter that
you forwarded to the Honourable Andrew LITTLE and Stuart NASH. He recorded
in his response that all members of Police who were involved in the investigation
had carried out their roles, in his view, thoroughly and professionally.

To assist in my review of the matters raised by Mr GILLANDERS, I met with him
in person. He is clearly of the view that the Courts in New Zealand are corrupted
by accepting stupidity from expert witnesses. He said he had raised with yourself
and your lawyer the concerns he had around a certain aspect of the ignition of
the fire which was known to you and would no doubt have formed part of your
consideration as this matter was progressing through Court.

In terms of the criminal complaint Mr GILLANDERS sought to make, this was
primarily against the investigators for the insurance company who he believed
had committed perjury and were responsible ultimately for the charging decisions
that were made by Police.

As you are aware, the Court ultimately made the decision that there was not
sufficient evidence presented in the case against you for the matter to go through
to trial.

I advised Mr GILLANDERS and am still of the view that there is no evidence that
shows any witness in this case to have given perjured testimony. This was
clearly a difficult case but one that sits with having been through the Court
system and ultimately the decision made as stated, that there was insufficient evidence
for you to face the serious charges that had been laid.

I have previously provided Mr GILLANDERS with advice on making a complaint
to the Private Investigators Body if he sought to take the actions of the fire
investigators further. This is an option that is also available to you.

The Court and Crown have not raised any concern or requested an investigation
into this case off the back of evidence given by the private investigators. The law
of Perjury is clear in that: “Perjury exists where a person gives evidence that they
know to be false and is intended by them to mislead”. I do not believe that exists
in this case.

The DVD interview was played in Court and obviously formed part of the
evidence relied upon in this case. If there were concerns around the integrity or
admissibility of that recording would rightly been dealt with in that forum.

In terms of Senior Sergeant Peter ROBINSON this year he has simply been
reinforcing the decision made following the 2019 review into these matters.
I acknowledge the points you have raised and the basis for your view, but Police
will not be investigating these matters further.


If there is any information at any stage that you have beyond that which is known
at this point, and which should be considered as part of the complaint you have
sought to make, I would be more than happy to consider that information and
review this decision.

If you require any further clarification on the matters I have detailed here, please
feel free to contact me via email: Dene.Beqbie@police.govt.nz

Yours faithfully,

On 20 July 2021, Chris replied by email to the above letter, pointing out the serious errors it contained, his reply along with the D I Begbie’s reply was sent to all the original Government Minister recipients. I also copy the reply in full below.


20 July 2021

Detective Inspector Begbie,

Thank you for your letter of 14 July 2021.

It, however, contains several serious errors of fact and process.

Firstly, the elephant in the room! The matter of my solid ALIBI. You state the view pushed by IAG since May 2015 which is misleading, as follows,

‘As you are aware, the Court ultimately made the decision that there was not sufficient evidence presented in the case against you for the matter to go through to trial.’

The entire case against me relied on a theory, Remote Ignition, produced by IAG’s Computer Expert, Mr Martin Jorgensen.

There was never any physical evidence to support this theory. It depended upon the printer at the property being instructed remotely my me from Hamilton. The printer, supposedly had, in some way, been set up as to cause the fire when it received the instruction.

The Court of Appeal had agreed with the defence that there was no evidence to show that the essential ‘Print Command’ had been issued to cause the printer to print and gave the Crown time to produce the evidence that they had already been searching for since September 2011.

I point you to the Reserved Judgment of the Honourable Judge McDonald on 17 April 2015, attached.

As noted in McDonald J’s Oral Judgment of 1 May 2015, which relates to the s347 application which was made in the arson case in Mid-2013 and continued until this date.

In the April 2015 judgment, McDonald J records the evidence supplied by Mr Jorgensen, IAG’s computer expert.

It was agreed that the last print command issued by the PC was on 8 September 2011 at 22:59:09 over 24 hours prior to the fire. (Para 13)

Mr Jorgensen then attempted to show that Direct Printing took place which would not need a Print Command but would require a change to the printer settings after the time of the last Print Command on 8 September 2011.

He introduced what would later be seen as a falsified document, an extract from one of the PC’s Registry pages, which, according to him, stated the settings were set to Direct Printing at 11:04pm on 9/09/11 just before the time of the fire. This ‘evidence’ supported his assertion.

The full registry page was then produced by the Defence expert, this had a line at the top that stated the settings had been ‘Last Written on 30 April 2011’.

The two documents were impossible to reconcile. (Para 16-19)

The printer settings had not changed, as recorded in the PC Registry since 30 April 2011, but the last Print Command had occurred on 8 September 2011. This proved that the Print Command system was in charge of the printer at the time of the fire since the settings had not changed after the 8 September 2011. Mr Jorgensen’s extract and the evidence he gave about it was shown to be false and misleading.

In trying to mislead the Court, Jorgensen had actually disclosed a document that proved that the last Print Command to the printer was 24 hours prior to the fire and that the printer would have required a Print Command to operate.

The Crown case, as recalled by McDonald J, (Para 5), relied on such a command being issued to trigger remote ignition to start the fire from 400Km away at the time of the fire but the PC registry records proved that this never occurred.

At the earlier part of this Pre-trial hearing in April 2013, Mr Joseph, IAG’s fire investigator had stated ‘I think it would be fair to say. In the absence of Mr Jorgensen’s findings, I don’t believe that the scene in itself links Mr Robinson to the actual setting of the fire.’Page 77 of the attached transcript.

With no print command and therefore no remote ignition and no evidence found at the fire scene to link me to the setting of the fire and being 400Km away, it had been proved that I had no opportunity to cause the fire. I had a solid ALIBI proven by the computer records.

This, however, was a s347 hearing, we could have applied for immediate dismissal on the evidence adduced during the hearing and it would have been successful on the above grounds but events in the s347 hearing progressed rapidly after this point.

Mr Annandale at the end of the hearing stated there was no case against me without Remote Ignition and the Crown did not appeal McDonald J’s decision.

Just two weeks later, at a hearing in front of McDonald J on 1 May 2015 the charges were dismissed under s347 and this dismissal was deemed to be an ACQUITTAL. I attach the Oral Judgment.

Your statement reflects Sergeant Robinson’s reason for not taking action on my complaints against IAG. Basically, you accept IAG’s view that I was in some way guilty of Arson due to the circumstantial evidence produced by ex-Policemen Fletcher and Dawson. Without any opportunity to cause the fire from 400Km away and no evidence found at the fire scene, the circumstantial evidence, which was never tested in any Court, is totally irrelevant.

Your statement that the Court decided that there was not sufficient evidence to go to trial is misleading in itself. I was acquitted of the charges, there was NO evidence at all.

However, there is copious hard evidence, including DNA, forced entry, items removed and rocks found on top of fire debris, showing that intruders were at the fire scene during the early stages of the fire but this was all ignored in favour of an unfounded theory that allowed IAG to decline the insurance claims. Your DS Sam Bindon with FSO Craig Bain told my wife and I on 12 September 2011 that the fire had been caused by ‘Vandals’ and this was undoubtably the true cause of the fire.

Overall, the evidence clearly shows the case against me was a conspiracy to bring false accusations against me by IAG to allow them to avoid meeting our valid insurance claims. I should be being treated as a victim of a major crime here, not, as is apparent, as a criminal trying to defraud an insurance company.

Secondly, I must point out that Bill Gillanders is a friend of mine but apart from the Crime Reports, prepared by myself, the 2021 one with professional legal assistance, that he presented to Kerikeri Police, on my behalf, I have no detailed knowledge of any other action he has taken in this matter. He does not represent me or my position in any way.

Bill has complained for many years about an incident at his property which was investigated by Mr Fletcher on behalf of IAG. I have repeatedly advised him that he does not have a case since he lacks any actual evidence to support his complaints and did not have any insurance policy with IAG or any other insurer.

Thirdly, I have no record of any recent correspondence from Inspector Ricki Whiu. I would have immediately challenged any statement that the Police involved in the incident had carried out their roles thoroughly and professionally.

Fourthly, your statement that the DVD of the Arson case Police interview was played in Court is misleading, all the court hearings in the arson case were related to the admissibility of the expert’s evidence in the one s347 application that ran between mid-2013 and May 2015.

The Police video was not relevant to those hearings, it has never even been mentioned in any Court hearing. I think you may be referring to the playing of the second Police video in the Blackmail trial but that is not the video in question.

There is irrefutable evidence that the arson case Police video created on 17 April 2012 was edited. I attach the transcript.

At the interview, I was accused of hacking the printer attached to the PC at the house so that it burst into flames causing the fire when I instructed it to print an email from Hamilton using my MacBook laptop. I immediately pointed out that my printers both used ink jet technology that had no programmable memory at all and no heat source to cause a fire.

I later reported the accusations to my lawyer Andrew Hooker and researched hacking printers and printer fires on several Printer Forums, some of my posts still exist – see them here – Printer Forum posts  

I detail the some of the issues with the Police interview, in the image below, DC Dawson is referring to the Computer Forensics report by Martin Jorgensen as confirmed in the transcript, Line 2077, note it has an image of three PC hard drives on the cover.

DC Bill Dawson
Dawson refers to Jorgensen’s Computer Forensic Report

Compare that to the four covers of the only reports that were disclosed several weeks later: –

You can download the reports using these links: –

Fire Investigation Report – RJ – 4 October 2011   http://bit.ly/EV0304102011

Fire Investigation Report – RJ – 21 December 2011   http://bit.ly/EV0421122011

Fire Investigation Report – MJ – 24 January 2012   http://bit.ly/EV0524012012 

Computer Forensic Report – MJ – 15 May 2012   http://bit.ly/EV0615052012

None of these reports has the image of three hard drives on the cover, three of them are dated PRIOR to the interview and Jorgensen’s only Computer Forensics Report is dated 15 May 2012, a month AFTER the interview so what happened to the report in the video?

The transcript to the Police interview was one of the last pieces of evidence to be disclosed, it contains the detailed references to pages and paragraphs DC Dawson showed to me during the interview.

DC Dawson refers to Page 18 of ‘Martin’s Computer Forensic Report’ on lines 2076 -77. In the only disclosed Computer Forensic Report, Page 18 does exist but it is the final page of the report and only has the signoff and Jorgensen’s signature. There is no reference to searches. Nor is there a page 18 in Jorgensen’s other Fire Investigation report.

The previous page, 17 also has no section 7 at all, the report stops at section 5.4.

Again, Dawson is referring to section 7 but the only report has no section 7 at all, the report stops at section 5.4.

It is impossible to explain how DC Dawson referred to a report that was not produced until a month after the interview or to page and paragraph records that do not exist in the disclosed reports.

The evidence on which formed the basis for my arrest and was discussed at the Police interview was not the evidence used in the case at all but the basis of the accusations was from three reports that supposedly pre dated the Police interview.

Here we have remaining bits of the hacking theory, the printer is the source of the fire not a trigger.
Lines 2279-2282 have been doctored, this section was a question about the hacking, no question now but I answered the none question ‘Yep’
Loads of ‘um’ and I talk about printer cartridge chips which were supposedly related to the hacking.

It is blatantly clear that the ‘hacking’ theory was dumped due to my statements at the interview pointing out that I only had ink jet printers with no hackable memory or heat source which effectively destroyed it.

Then IAG created the ‘Trigger theory’ and all the evidence that supported it out of thin air! There can be no basis for this evidence.

Note the total lack of the time record data in the video and the transcript when the first DVD stopped recording due to being full and the second disk inserted and the interview continued as show here but it is not a continuous conversation, I answer an unasked question!

The DVD system clock had been out by 1 hour from the start of the interview and this caused issues whenever there was an interruption, the time had to be agreed and noted to be 1 hour out but these interruptions are not noted with times in the transcript. However, when the DVD ran out of space it stopped. When it was restarted it was more complicated due to the 1 hour time error but the transcript doesn’t record a time of the restart at all, the transcript of the interview continues as if it was uninterrupted.

As you know, DVD Police interviews have a time stamp on every frame, in reality it is an overlay on the master disk set that copies combined onto the defendant’s copy as a time stamp. This prevents the defendant editing the video but the master copy can still be edited, with the permission of the Court, and the new time overlay applied.

The problem being that if the video has had frames removed the time stamp will be early compared to the spoken times on the recording, if the times are missing on the video and on the transcript then it shows the video must have been edited to remove this cross check.

IAG would have needed access to the Master set of the videos if they organised the edit but it is easier to presume that the edit was done by the NZ Police or Crown Law.

DVD sets, including ones made by the NZ Police Force, have a standard format. If the video runs to multiple disks this standard expects the full disks of the set to contain 4, exactly 1Gb, video files and some smaller files for indexing, time and other extras on the 4.7Gb capacity DVD.

The full DVD 1 of the 2-disk set for the interview has the following file structure

On Disk 1 of the DVD set of this interview there are 4 video files, 3 exactly 1Gb (Shown in Decimal, not hex) the 4th file should also be 1Gb, (1,048,544Kb) but is only 834,766Kb showing a total of 213,788Kb of video data has been cut out of the video. This equates approximately to 6 minutes of video run time removed.

Overall, we know the Police interview discussed hacking and the Remote Ignition theory based on the printer being hacked as recorded in my emails to Andrew Hooker and posts on the Printer Forum.

The three large box files of evidence given to me by Dawson after the interview contained all the evidence that supported this theory.

These box files contained the disclosure he referred to in the interview and a sealed and signed set of the interview DVD’s. I was transported to Whangarei Police station where I handed the Charge Sergeant the disclosure files ready to be collected the next day after my Court appearance and bail.

When I went to collect the files they had been ‘LOST’ I complained loudly and eventually saw a senior officer, it may have been you.

The officer repeated that the files had been lost but eventually, and very oddly, he produced a thin file that contained two DVD’s, the images taken by the Police and Fire Service at the scene and a few other useless documents. The DVDs of the interview and the reports referred to in the interview were not found.

In their attempt to totally replace the ‘hacking theory’ with the ‘trigger theory’ they intercepted the disclosure at Hamilton Police station, took several weeks editing them, and then replaced all the reports, backdated them to the original report dates and edited the Police video evidence to remove any references to the hacking theory as far as possible. The Computer Forensics Report by Jorgensen however, was not backdated but DC Dawson had supplied an updated version after the other documents had been disclosed.

None of the disclosed Reports or the Police video contain the words hack or hacking, had I not emailed Andrew Hooker and made posts on the Printer Forums about the hacking theory it would have disappeared without trace.

Much of this would have required the active assistance of the NZ Police or Crown Law or both. I have never received any plausible explanation of how these events occurred, it is a prima facie example of a defendant being framed.

William Dawson was forced to leave the NZ Police force in 2017, he is now sole Director PINZ Far North LTD and a Director of PINZ Northland LTD with Kevin Bryne and Maurice Fletcher, both ex-Policeman, both of which were involved in my case. Their main client is IAG.

It does not surprise me that you constantly try to avoid dealing with this evidence.

Fifthly, you comment that ‘there is no evidence that shows any witness in this case to have given perjured evidence.’ Once again, this is misleading, there is irrefutable evidence that most of the statements by IAG investigators Joseph and Jorgensen were perjury.

The full details of some of the instances of Perjury committed in support of IAG’s case against me are in the Crime Report submitted to Sergeant Robinson. Copy attached.

Russell Joseph committed Perjury on numerous occasions some are referenced to the Crime Report below.

The Back Door, Para 2.5 with the evidence detailed in Paras 3.27 – 3.28 and 3.55 – 3.56 along with the images in Appendix C pages 35 – 37.

Accelerants, Para 2.6 with the evidence detailed in Paras 3.29 – 3.34 along with the images in Appendix C pages 49.

Bedroom Balcony Rocks, Para 2.9 with the evidence detailed in Paras 3.35 – 3.36 along with the images in Appendix C pages 45 – 48.

Martin Jorgensen repeated committed perjury as recorded in the Crime Report, Paragraphs, 2.7 – 2.8 and 2.11

Links to copies of all the documents are in the Crime Report – Appendix B

As you state ‘Perjury exists where a person gives evidence that they know to be false and is intended by them to mislead’ as can be seen from the above evidence, Joseph and Jorgensen knew this evidence was false and they intended to mislead the Court by giving it, attempting to incriminate me whilst they knew from September 2011 that I had no connection with causing the fire.

Had actual evidence against me existed they would not have needed to fabricate a case against me by making perjurious statements.

Please remember here, that I was 400Km away at the time of the fire and have been shown by the evidence from the PC registry to have had no opportunity to cause the fire. All the evidence against me was created my IAG and their investigators to incriminate me and allow them to decline the claims. The whole case against me was a fiction made up by IAG, put into place by their investigators and validated by DC Dawson.

The images that show their actions in more detail are on my new website – IAG NZ – Bad Faith

You sidestep the Police DVD evidence, ignore the irrefutable evidence of Perjury and still hang on to the theory that I am guilty of Arson, just getting away with it since there was insufficient evidence when in fact, I have a solid ALIBI with no opportunity to have caused the fire.

If your reply had been written by IAG it would have been almost identical to what you have stated, I trust that now you can see that I am not the criminal in this case and will take action against IAG on the grounds detailed in the Crime Report.

I look forward to your reply, I repeat that I have never had any detailed response to any of the above points. I have no argument with the NZ Police, I could accept that everything could have been orchestrated by Dawson. I just want the truth about IAG revealed so that they can no longer continue to hide behind the lies they have created.

Thank you

Chris Robinson
20 July 2021

P.S. if you want to check anything, please check the new website prepared by a group of supporters with my co-operation – IAG Insurance – Case Study  which also contains a full record of this correspondence

Hundreds of New Zealanders are now visiting the web sites every day.

I have also included Detective Inspector Dene Begbie in my complaint to the IPCA due to these comments which suggest he is working directly on behalf of IAG.