IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CIV 2017-042-000189 NELSON REGISTRY IN THE MATTER of sections 21 and 22 ofthe New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ROLF and UTE KLEINE Plaintiffs ATTORN EY-GENERAL Defendant AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM Dated this 23rd day of August 2017 THIS amended statement of claim is filed by STEVEN JULIAN ZINDEL, Solicitor for the plaintiffs whose address for service is at the offices of Zindels, Barristers Solicitors, 21 New Street (PO Box 1023), Nelson, phone (03) 548 0039, fax (03) 5483268, email steven@zindels.co.nz CounselActing:SJZindel Ministry of Justice!? 24 AUG 2017 NELSON Parties and Background 1. The plaintiffs are ROLF and UTE KLEINE of 9 Mockingbird Ridge, RD 1, Takaka 7183, Retailers. They are married to each other. 2. The defendant is the ATTORNEY-GENERAL sued on behalf of the New Zealand Police under the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 on the footing that the Crown is alleged to be vicariously liable for the actions of individual police officers as detailed below. 3. The plaintiffs are locally known in Golden Bay, Tasman, as being environmental activists and their concerns include being opposed to the use of what is commonly known as 1080 poison (Sodium Fluoroacetate) to control pests. 4. Both plaintiffs have acted publicly over the 1080 issue, since in or about 2010. This activity has included dealing with the media, Fonterra (following a 1080 drop near dairy farms), the Tasman District Council (in connection with consents being sought to conduct the 1080 operations), the Department of Conservation and TB Free NZ. 5. The plaintiffs have also attended organised meetings of similarly minded people, including with the group, ?Beyond 1080?. These meetings have mostly been conducted in the plaintiffs? caf? and bakery shop ("shop?) located at Commercial Street, Taka ka. 6. A threat (?threat?) in letters concerning the contamination of infant milk formula with 1080 poison, had been made to Fonterra and Federated Farmers, intended to place pressure on the New Zealand Government, on or about 26 November 2014, but the threat was only published by the Government in March 2015. The threat reportedly had a deadline of 27 March 2015 unless the use of 1080 were discontinued. The maker of the Zim?chinc-i' Statement of Claim threat was later found to be an industry insider (one Jeremy Hamish Kerr) who wished a competing product to be used. First Secret Searches 7. The plaintiffs were subject to a police undercover operation from December 2014 through a visitor to their area by the name of Eddie but this would have yielded nothing of value to the defendant. 8. On or about 20 January 2015 and/or 22 January 2015, a warrant was issued by the District Court for the search, up to 10 times over 14 days, of the plaintiffs? home and car, following an application of unknown date made by Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Baber of the New Zeaiand Police. 9. There was also an Order for Postponement of Notice and Inventory Requirements for one year made by the Judge on or about 20 January 2015 and/or 22 January 2015. This was on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to beiieve that notice to the plaintiffs would prejudice ongoing investigations following the execution of the search warrant. 10. The search warrant was exercised on 28 january 2015 at 10:00am while the plaintiffs were working at their shop, some distance away in the township of Takaka. 11. Consequent on the postponement order, the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the search on 28 January 2015 until ianuary 2016. 12. The property record sheet shows the items taken by the police included hair samples from two hair brushes, four pieces of used dental floss, swabs from three toothbrush heads and one toothbrush charger, one sheet of A4 paper for a print test and two plain sheets of A4 paper. Zia/Heine! Statement of Claim 13. A second search warrant application made by Detective Sergeant Aaron Pascoe of the New Zealand Police states that in the 28 January 2015 searches, forensic copies or clones of two laptop computers, one desktop computer, one tablet computer, one USB stick and one external hard drive were also made. Police interview 14. Two weeks before a second set of searches on 25 March 2015, two police detectives, including Det. Baber, came to the plaintiffs? private address and had a written list of questions. They read those questions out and wrote down the plaintiffs? answers. The plaintiffs cooperated voluntarily with the process. The questions were directed towards the 1080 threat. The plaintiffs indicated that if there were any other questions then they would be prepared to answer them and they were also happy to be contacted later. 15. At that point the plaintiff, Rolf Kleine mentioned that, three years previously, he had written to Fonterra about the 1080 risk to dairy farms and he printed out a computer copy of the letter for the police to take away. The letter referred to the possibility that someone might deliberately contaminate overseas milk products with 1080. The police later referred to this letter in their second application for a search warrant as not having been located by Fonterra but it had, in fact, been sent. 16. The police did not ask for any voluntary handing over of any other items, or fingerprints, or DNA for, of course, they already had them. Second Searches 17. A second search warrant application was made by the police and, there has been no information provided as to who granted the application and on what date. ZianieinefStalr-zmont ofClaim 18. 1'9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Subsequently, starting at approximately 7:00 am on Wednesday 25 March 2015, before the plaintiffs could have breakfast, the plaintiffs? house, car and retail premises were searched by a party of about ten police. The plaintiffs were detained. Rolf Kleine was (after protesting twice as to the length of the journey) taken to the Motueka Police Station at approximately 7:10 am and Ute Kleine was taken to the Takaka Police Station, at about the same time. She was returned to the plaintiffs? shop by about 11:30 am. Rolf Kleine came back from the Motueka Station after being detained for approximately 8 hours. No food, apart from a sausage, had been offered to (vegetarian) Rolf Kleine. Ute Kleine had been told that Rolf Kleine would only be away for 2 3 hours. Despite Rolf Kleine asking the police to pass on a message to his wife that he would be delayed, this did not occur. it was not until 4:00 pm that the piaintiffs returned to their house. The police searched the plaintiffs? shop on the same day and the premises could not be opened to the public. The plaintiffs arrived home to their property to find the following mess and damage: a) doors to the house left wide open; b) extensive dirt within the house,- c) rubbish from the rubbish bin was on the bench top; Zianleinej?Rtatelnr-mi nf'Cinim 25. d) a glass lamp was damaged; e) insulation was removed from the ventiiation system and not replaced; f) the exhaust ventilation pipe was ripped out of the wall, with the result being that the exhaust air did not blow out of the building for two weeks until this was discovered; and g) Groceries, paperwork, clothing, photos and other household goods were mixed up, rifled through and not returned to where they belonged. The actions of the defendant have caused great distress to the plaintiffs who are law-abiding and were previously trusting of the police. It is not clear if all seized property has been returned and there were problems encountered with the plaintiffs? phone lines and computer. There were also travel difficulties. THE AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of'sections 21 and 26. 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990) The actions of the police in secretly searching the plaintiffs? home address and car on 28 january 2015 and in searching the plaintiffs? home address, shop and car on 25 March 2015 constituted unreasonable searches in terms of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and arbitrary detention under section 22 of that Act. There were no reasonable grounds for the police concluding that evidence relating to the maker of the threat letters might be found as a result of any or all of the searches. Zin/Kleinor?Statement of Claim 27. ln terms of the 28 January 2015 searches, there was no sufficient justification for the searches, nor their covert nature, for the following reasons: a) it was stated that ESR Scientist Mark Connor had determined that the 1080 contained within the powder sample, which had been provided by the person making the threat, was ?believed to be of an analytical grade as opposed to being a technical grade product". The former is usually 99.99% pure while the latter is 95- 98% pure. b) There was no evidence in the warrant application as to how the plaintiffs could obtain 1080, still less analytical grade 1080, and police should have been more forthcoming that analytical grade 1080 would more likely have been sourced by an industry insider, (as proved to be the case), rather than an environmental activist. c) Rolf Kleine?s emails to Fonterra of an unknown date, 8 August 2012, 26 August 2012 and 20 September 2012, as well as a posting on 8 June 2011 and opinion pieces to the Stuff website in 2013 and 2014, are misleadingly referenced as being similar to the threat letters which the police were investigating. d) Rolf Kleine is described as being a dairy farmer and it is stated that he owns a bed and breakfast business. Neither of these statements was true. e) There is reference to a "2011 anonymous written threat?, about which information was withheld. It was said that Roife Kleine warranted closer police scrutiny in relation to it. No justification for this has been made availabie, nor the nature of the threat referred to. Zianloinel Statement of Claim f) it was stated by the police for the iater 25 March 2015 searches that ?{t]here is no unidentified (potential offender) DNA that is suitable for comparison against a potential suspect.? There was therefore no value for a covert first search to obtain the plaintiffs? DNA. The maker of the threat letters did not ieave any reliable identifiable DNA until on or about 3 July 2015. in any case, as was disclosed, the plaintiffs? DNA did not match the mixed profile DNA obtained from the threat letters (poor quality though they were). g) There is no basis for Detective Baber?s conclusion that: believe that Rolf Kleine is the author of the threatening letters that were sent to Fonterra and Federated Farmers on 26 November 2014?. 28. In terms of the 25 March 2015 searches, there was no sufficient justification, on the basis of the deficient information for the earlier fiawed searches and for the following reasons: a) The appiication for a search warrant did not include the information in the first application regarding the 1080 powder sample being of analytical grade quality. b) The police refer to the plaintiffs writing to Fonterra and indicating the risk of contamination of miik powder. There is no reference to milk powder in any of the plaintiffs? items of correspondence sent to Fonterra. There is only an email of 20 September 2012 from the plaintiffs referring to the risk of contamination of milk products due to dairy cows drinking from contaminated waterways. c) The police refer to the opinion of a ciinical from its Criminal Profiling Unit who focused in the threat letters on ?the use of technical names and abbreviations and reference to the term: 30 years of seif-serving science?. One was (vertebrae Zianleinei?Statement of Claim toxic agent) which is a technical name, known only to industry insiders. This aspect, as well as the 1080 powder sample provided by the maker of the threat being analytical grade, ought to have indicated to police and ought to have been conveyed to the issuing officer that the ?threat letters? likely came from an industry insider. d) The police knew or should have known that the person who wrote the ?threat letters? was a native English speaker and not Rolf Kleine. The police had consulted a forensic linguist who had discounted the likelihood of the ?threat letters? author being a non?native English speaker. A iecturer in linguistics/forensic linguist, after comparing six exemplars of Rolf Kleine?s written work and the ?threat letters?, ?concluded Rolf Kieine's work was inconsistent with the threat letters?. The linguist apparentiy noted it was always possible Rolf Kleine had obtained assistance in writing the ?threat letters? (presumably from a native English speaker) but not with the comparison documents. e) The fact that Rolf Kleine spelled Fonterra incorrectly in his email of 26 August 2012, as did the threat maker, was described as ?significant?. Rolf Kleine had spelled the word correctly the many other times it had been written by him in the emails and letters quoted. f) The need for the second (overt) searches was purported to be justified because ?[t]he [plaintiffs? 1.2 ha] property is also in view of a neighbour?s property so the grounds and a shed that was fuli of items couid not be properiy searched at all? [the first time]. However, the shed is set in a secluded part of the plaintiffs? property and cannot be viewed from neighbouring properties. g) There were 3 internet searches identified from the first search on the plaintiffs? Apple Mac laptop of websites related to 1080 at ZianIeinei?Statement of Claim J'l 9.41pm-9.42pm on 10 April 2014. 3 searches in 2 minutes would have been insufficient time to find any meaningful information and such an interest was not sinister, especiaiiy with the threat being made in November 2014. The user of the plaintiffs? Apple Mac laptop computer was said, on 13 June 2014, to have looked at brands of milk powder on the Fonterra China website. The plaintiffs did not do this. The ?threat letters? or any material relevant to the threat were not located on any of the plaintiffs? computers, inciuding among documents which had been deleted and which were still forensically examined. Apparently only two fingerprints could be lifted from the plaintiffs? house in the 28 January 2015 search, which is surprising considering that the plaintiffs live there. The plaintiffs? laptops, desktop PC and tablet have never had a label maker attached to them, contrary to that which was reported by the police. Such was not possessed. Labels were used by the maker of the ?threat letters?. The police application speaks of comments from an intelligence analyst (?anaiyst?) who, after comparing Roif Kleine?s emails to Fonterra and the ?threat letters?, noted that ?[w]hilst [Rolf Kleine] appears to be versed in some of the science around 1080 use, he does not use terms like VTA or Sodium Fluroacetate His [sic] concerns appear to be entirely domestic and he makes no mention of China or other markets He [sic] doesn?t specify infant formula in his correspondence, only miik and ?dairy products? His [sic] emails are indicative of frustration at a perceived lack of response to his correspondence rather than being of a threatening nature His [sic] general language and tone of his emails doesn?t [sic] resemble the [threat] letter?. Zim? Kieinei? Statement of Claim m) The analyst acknowiedges that Roif Kleine?s scientific knowledge of 1080 could have improved in the 2 years since his 2012 emails, but states: ?my opinion is that he is not the same author as the [threat} letter. That said, we should not disregard him as a possible suspect at this early stage?. Detective Sergeant Pascoe disagreed with the analyst?s opinion. He described Rolf Kleine?s email of 29 June 2012 as a ?threat?. n) It was stated that the "threat letters? were sent from the South island, where Rolf Kleine lives. The letters were actually sent from Wellington. No attempts appear to have been made e.g. from cell phone records to verify if the plaintiffs were in the Wellington area at the time of the posting of the threat letters. 0) Charges were said to be ?under consideration? as a result of evidence obtained from the 28 January 2015 searches but that could not reasonably be justified. 29. in both search warrant applications, there was a translation from a German newspaper article about the plaintiffs showing the anti-1080 documentary "Poisoning Paradise? in their home town of Minden in northern Germany, in 2010. The translation is incorrect, indicating a lack of care. 30. The piaintiffs? earlier actions had been public and not disguised. The plaintiffs had been cooperative with the police and were of good character. Rolf Kleine is the author of a 2007 book in German "Expedition ins Leben? (Expedition Into Life) and is stated prominently in that book to be a pacifist. Indeed, the police approach to the plaintiffs and to third parties immediately preceding the search did reveal or ought to have revealed this. Despite apparently four months of investigation and not finding anything suspicious, the police conducted the searches anyway. ZianieinefStatemeni of Claim Meanwhile, the actual maker of the threat letters was known to the police and a much more likely suspect but he was apparentiy not interviewed until 27 June 2015. THE CLAIM THE RELIEF: a) A declaration that the defendant has breached sections 21 and/or 22 of the New Zeaiand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that the actions of the police were invalid, unreasonable and unlawful; b) Compensation in the sum of $150,000; c) Exemplary damages for the high-handed and, at the least, reckless actions of the police in the sum of $15,000,- d) Costs AS AN ALTERNATIVE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION THE REPEAT THE PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND SAY (Search warrants and searches invalid due to breach of duty of candour): 31. The police failed to discharge the duty of full and candid disclosure that applies to those who apply for warrants, in respect of the searches, in reliance on that which had already been pleaded. 32. The police did not make the fullest disclosure to the Court of all facts which could reasonably be relevant to the applications, consistent with their extensive and demanding duties for what is an ex parte process. They did not advise the District Court of important considerations why the searches were not likely to disclose any relevant material. ZianJeinci?Slatement ofClaim THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THE FOLLOWING a) A declaration that the actions of the police were invalid, unreasonable and uniawfui; b) Damages in the sum of $150,000; c) Exemplary damages for the high?handed and, at the least, reckless actions of the police in the sum of $15,000; d) Costs AS AN ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION THE REPEAT THE PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND SAY (Trespass): 33. 34. The police actions were unlawful trespass as not justified by any information which the police had and the police were not authorised to enter the plaintiffs' properties, save that the plaintiffs cooperated with police when they came with their search warrants. The actions of the police, as previously pleaded, amounted to an actionable trespass or trespasses. THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: a) A declaration that the actions of the police were invalid, Unreasonable and unlawful; b) Damages in the sum of $150,000; b) Exemplary damages for the high-handed and, at the least I reckless actions of the police in the sum of $15,000; d) Costs Zin?Cleiner?Statemcnl of Claim AS AN ALTERNATEVE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION THE PLAINTIFFS REPEAT THE PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND SAY (Breach of Privacy): 35. The police actions, as previously pleaded, breached the plaintiffs? privacy. 36. The private information within the piaintiffs? home, car and shop constituted existence of private facts. These facts were published among members of the police and the humiliation, distress and harm caused to the plaintiffs through such publication make such publication highly offensive to a reasonable person. THE PLAINTIFFS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: a] A declaration that the actions of the poiice were invalid, unreasonable and uniawful; b) Damages in the sum of $150,000; b) Exemplary damages for the high-handed and, at the least, reckless actions of the police in the sum of $15,000; d) Costs AS AN ALTERNATIVE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION THE PLAINTIFFS REPEAT THE PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND SAY (Intrusion upon Seclusion] 38. The police intended to intrude on the plaintiffs? property and the plaintiffs did not authorise the intrusion. 39. The police intrusion was (or would have been, if known) highly offensive to a reasonable person. Zin! KleinciJ Statement of Claim 40. The matters intruded on, being the plaintiffs? house and car in the searches of 28 January 2015, and their house, car and shop in the searches of 25 March 2015, were private. 41. The tntrusion caused anguish and suffering to the plaintiffs. THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: bl A declaration that the actions of the police were invalid, unreasonable and unlawful; Damages in the sum of $150,000; Exemplary damages for the high~handed and, at the least, reckless actions of the police in the sum of $15,000; Costs THIS amended statement of claim is filed by STEVEN JULIAN ZINDEL, Solicitor for the plaintiffs whose address for service is at the offices of Zindeis, Barristers Solicitors, 21 New Street (PO Box 1023), Nelson, phone (03) 548 0039, fax (03) 5483268, email steven@zindels.co.nz Counsel Acting: SJ Zindel ZianIoinerStatemcnt of Claim IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY CIV-2017-042-189 UNDER THE New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 BETWEEN ROLF AND UTE KLEINE Plaintiffs AND ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant STATEMENT OF DEFENCE 29 September 2017 CROWN LAW . TE TARI TURE 0 TE KARAUNA ?gaff: 33.4554 PO BOX 2858 {3:3 WELLINGTON 6140 . .- .. 1. T81: 04 4721719 - Fax: 04 473 3482 1.. Contact Person: Kim Laurenson Genevieve Taylor 4257629_4 The defendant by his solicitor says in response to the amended statement of claim dated 23 August: 1. He admits paragraph 1. 2. He admits paragraph 2. 3. He admits paragraph 3. 4. He admits knowledge of matters in paragraph 4. 5. He admits knowledge of the matters in paragraph 5. 6. He admits paragraph 6. 7. He is only required to plead to material facts and does not plead to paragraph 7. 8. In response to paragraph 8 he says that on 20 January 2015 and 22 January 2015, warrants were issued by the District Court for the search of the plaintiffs? home and car. He admits that the warrant dated 22 January 2015 was for a search up to 10 times over 14 days, and was granted following an application made by Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Baber. He otherwise denies paragraph 8 and says further that the warrant issued on 20 January 2015 was only for one search and was never executed. 9. He admits paragraph 9, and says further that the Order is dated 22 January 2015 and was made by Judge Aitken. 10. He admits paragraph 10. 11. He admits paragraph 11. 12. He admits paragraph 12. 13. He admits paragraph 13. Police interview 14. 15. 4257629_4 He admits paragraph 14 and says further that the Police Visit was on 12 March 2015. In response to paragraph 15: 151 He admits Rolf Kleine told Police he had sent a letter to Fonterra about the 1080 risk to dairy farms, and printed a copy of this letter for Police to take away. 15.2 He admits the letter referred to the possibility that someone might deliberately contaminate overseas milk products with 1080. 15.3 He admits this letter was referred to in the second application for a warrant to search the plaintiffs? property as a document that did not match any letter or correspondence that could be located by Fonterra. 16. He says further that this was the advice Police received from Fonterra. 15.4 He otherwise has insufficient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 15. He admits paragraph 16. Second searches 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 4257629_4 He admits a second search warrant application was made by the police. He otherwise has insufficient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 17. He admits that the plaintiffs? house, car and retail premises were searched by a party of police starting at approximately 7am on 25 March 2015. He says further 12 Police officers or Police staff were present over the course of the searches. He otherwise has insufficient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 18. In response to paragraph 19: 19.1 He admits Ute Kleine travelled with Police to the Takaka Police station at approximately 8:00 am, 19.2 He admits Rolf Kleine travelled with Police to the Motuelta at approximately 7:10 am; 19.3 He says further that Ute Kleine was offered a ride back to the caf? but said she would walk and left the Police station at 11am. 19.4 He otherwise denies paragraph 19. He says further that neither plaintiff was arrested and both voluntarily went with Police. He denies paragraph 20. He says further: 20.1 He has insuf?cient knowledge of what food was offered to Rolf Kleine; 20.2 Tea and water were offered to Rolf Kleine; 20.3 Rolf Kieine?s interview concluded at approximately 12:30 and he was returned to the plaintiffs? retail premises, as requested. He denies paragraph 21. He has insuf?cient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 22. He admits Police searched the plaintiffs shop on 25 March 2015. He otherwise has insuf?cient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 23. In respect of paragraph 24: a) He denies paragraph 24(a). b) He denies paragraph 24(b). 25. 26. 27. 4257629_4 c) He denies paragraph 24(c). d) He denies paragraph 24(d). e) He denies paragraph 24(e). f) He denies paragraph 24(0. g) He admits items were rifled through as part of the search. He otherwise denies paragraph 24(g). He says all seized property has been returned to the plaintiffs, except for items that were destroyed by HSR. He otherwise has insufficient knowledge of and therefore denies paragraph 25. He denies paragraph 26. He denies paragraph 27. a)ln response to paragraph 27(a) he admits the statement of Mark Connor was in the application but denies this amounted to a reason for there being no sufficient justi?cation for the searches. b) he admits that the search warrant application did not address how the plaintiffs might have obtained 1080 and that it transpired the offender was an industry insider. He otherwise denies paragraph 27(b). c) he admits the emails are referenced in the warrant application. He otherwise denies paragraph 27(0). He admits paragraph 27 He says further that this error was not material. e) He admits there is a reference to a ?2011 anonymous written threat? in the application and an opinion that Rolf Kieine warrants closer Police scrutiny in relation to it. He otherwise denies paragraph 27 t) In response to paragraph 27(f): He admits the maker of the threat letters did not leave any reliable identi?able DNA until on or about 3 July 2015; (ii) He says further at the time of the covert search warrant application (granted 22 January 2015) Police had obtained DNA from the threat letters which had some investigative value but analysis was still ongoing; He admits that the application for the search warrant that was executed on 25 March 2015 states that ?there is no unidentified (potential offender) DNA that is suitable for comparison against a potential suspect?. (iv) He admits it later transpired the DNA profile from items obtained during the first covert search did not match any of the mixed profile DNA obtained from the threat letters, and this was disclosed in the second search warrant application. 28. 4257629_4 He otherwise denies paragraph 27(0. g) He denies paragraph 27(g). He denies paragraph 28response to paragraph 28(a) he admits the application did not include this information but denies this amounted to a reason for there being no suf?cient justi?cation for the searches. He says further that the warrant application set out the concentration of the powder sent to Fonterra and to Federated Farmers. He admits there is no reference to ?rnilk powder? in the plaintiffs? correspondence to Fonterra. He otherwise denies paragraph 28(b) and relies on the correspondence. He admits the application refers to the quoted opinion of a clinical He otherwise denies paragraph 28(c). He admits that the application included the summary from a forensic linguist as set out in the statement of claim. He otherwise denies paragraph 28(d). He admits paragraph 28(e) but denies this meant there was insuf?cient justi?cation for the searches. He admits that the quoted passage is in the search warrant application, and says further that Police could not have accessed the plaintiffs? shed in a covert manner. He otherwise has insuf?cient knowledge of and therefore denies paragraph 28(f). He has insuf?cient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 28(g). He admits the Police said in the application that the user of the laptop searched various brands of milk powder on the Fonterra China website. He says further that this information was obtained by examination of the computer by the Police Electronic Crime Laboratory. He otherwise has insuf?cient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 28(h). He admits the threat letters were not located on any of the plaintiffs? computers, but otherwise denies paragraph 28(i). He admits the second search warrant application says ?only two poor quality latent ?nger prints were lifted? during the covert search on 28 january 2015. He otherwise denies paragraph 280). He admits labels were used by the maker of the ?threat letters?. He denies that police reported the plaintiffs? laptops, desktop PC and tablet had a label maker attached to them. He otherwise has insuf?cient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 28(k). He admits paragraph 28(1) but denies this amounted to a reason for there being no suf?cient justification for the searches. in) He admits paragraph 28011). n) He admits that the search warrant application says the threat letters were sent from the South Island, where Mr Rolf Kleine lives, but it now transpires that they were sent from Wellington. He says further that at the time of making the application Police believed that the letters were sent from the South Island and it was therefore not considered necessary to verify if the plaintiffs had been in Wellington. 0) He admits that charges were said to be under consideration. He otherwise denies paragraph 28(0). 29. He admits there was a translation of this article in both search warrant applications. He otherwise has insufficient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 29. 30. He admits the plaintiffs? earlier actions had been public and not disguised, the plaintiffs had been cooperative when police visited them on 12 March 2015 and were of good character. He has insufficient knowledge and therefore denies the stance Mr Kleine expressed in any book. He otherwise denies paragraph 30. 31. He denies paragraph 31. 32. He denies paragraph 32. 33. He admits the plaintiffs cooperated with Police. He otherwise denies paragraph 33. 34. He denies paragraph 34. 35. He denies paragraph 35. 36. He denies paragraph 36. 37. He denies paragraph 37. 38. He admits paragraph 38. He says further the entry onto the property was authorised by search warrant. 39. He denies paragraph 39. 40. He denies paragraph 40. 41. He has insufficient knowledge and therefore denies paragraph 41. AND BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCES 42. He repeats paragraphs 1?41 inclusive and pleads, by way of affirmative defences: 42.1 Section 26 of the Crimes Act 1961; 42.2 Section 165 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012; 4257629_4 6 42.3 Section 6(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950. TO: The Registrar of the District Court at Nelson. AND TO: The plaintiffs This statement of defence is ?led by Kim Laurenson, solicitor for the defendant, of Crown Law. he address for service of the defendant is Crown Law, Level 3, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington 6011. Documents for service on the defendant may be left at this address for service or may be: posted to the solicitor at PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140; or (13) left for the solicitor at a document exchange for direction to DX SP20208, Wellington Central; or transmitted to the solicitor by facsimile to 04 473 3482; or emailed to the solicitor at kim.1aurenson@crownlaw.govtnz 43. 44. 425?629_4