The following Facts prove: ACC fraudulence, perjury, conspiracy of deceit and criminal intent to defraud claimants of their rights of entitlement in violation of the bill of a Claimants Code of Rights.
This provocation has been sanction by so called honest independent reviews that are paid by ACC and judge’s that refuses to view the facts and failing to hold ACC accountable for intentionally withholding evidence and covering up ACC dirty criminal activities of Corruption,

Fraud Charges for the police

Crimes Act 1961.

FORMAL COMPLAINT: ALLEGATION OF PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY

To: The Officer in Charge / Financial Crime Unit
Agency: New Zealand Police

Date: 8 June 2026

Complainant: Mr. Warren Peter Smith
Subject of Complaint: The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and

 

instructing Legal Counsel (2007–2008 Litigation Team)
Primary Offences Targeted:

• Perjury– Section 108, Crimes Act 1961
• Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice– Section 116, Crimes Act 1961
• Fabricating Evidence– Section 113, Crimes Act 1961

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This complaint outlines a deliberate course of conduct by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and its legal representatives during District Court appeal proceedings (114/2008 before Judge Cadenhead in May 2008).

It is alleged that ACC corporate officers and legal counsel Mr B Marten, Ms F Becroft intentionally misled the District Court by falsely claiming that vital evidence regarding the Complainant’s medical history and incapacity had been destroyed prior to 2002. Sworn documents now prove that ACC held the definitive medical timeline—the Dr. Farr Medical Certificate/Report (received 2 May 2007)—in its active custody, yet suppressed it from the Court. This material misrepresentation induced the Trial Judge to apply legal estoppel, resulting in a perversion of the course of justice and the denial of the Complainant's statutory interest entitlements under Section 114 of the Act.

 

2. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK & OFFENCES COMMITTED

The documented conduct satisfies the criminal thresholds for the following offences under the Crimes Act 1961:

• Section 108 (Perjury):ACC submitted statement [47] under oath/affirmation confirming possession and reliance on the Farr Report to back-pay weekly compensation. Conversely, oral/written submissions were made to Judge Cadenhead stating that historical data was totally missing or destroyed, creating a false assertion intended to mislead the tribunal.

 

• Section 113 (Fabricating Evidence):Creating a false legal narrative that "no primary records existed" to establish a gap in liability, despite holding a comprehensive medical reconciliation report compiled on 27 April 2007.

 

• Section 116 (Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice):Preventing a District Court Judge from reviewing a critical, legally binding medical report (The Farr Report), which effectively altered the outcome of a judicial proceeding.

 

 

 

3. EVIDENCE OF CONFLICTING STATEMENTS & SUPPRESSION

The assertion of criminal intent is established by comparing ACC’s concurrent, mutually exclusive representations to the Court and internal operations:

1. Knowledge of Incapacity and Possession of Evidence

• The Document:Medical Certificate/Report by Dr. Farr (Dated 27 April 2007, received by ACC on 2 May 2007) prior to both court cases .
• ACC Sworn Admission [Para 47]:"Mr Farr's report... is the information that the respondent relied on to confirm that the appellant was incapacitated during the relevant period (4 October 1991 to 6 February 2002)."
• Operational Action:Acting directly on this report, ACC back-paid the Complainant's weekly compensation in June 2007.

1. Misrepresentation to the Court (Suppression)

• ACC Court Submission:Counsel asserted that Mr. Smith's historical files prior to 2002 had been completely destroyed, rendering primary facts unproducible.Judicial Reliance [Para 79,80, 82]: Judge Cadenhead relied directly on this false premise: ACC counsel stated to the judge Mr Smiths files prior 2002 have been destroyed. Hence his decision in the following 
• [79] Considerable difficulty has been caused in this appeal by the destruction of the files at least by 2002, in contravention of section 66 of the present legislation. I am of the view that this is a significant matter of prejudice to the appellant and places an evidential onus on the respondent.
• [82] The primary facts, including documentation were in the power of the respondent, but those facts were destroyed and they can no longer be produced. I have said in earlier decision that I found that the appellant was an honest man and I have no reason to doubt his submissions.
• "Subsequent Admission of Omission:A memorandum from Ms. Becroft explicitly confirms: "The Applicant’s point is that it (The Farr Report) was not considered by the District Court in 2007 and 2008..."

1. The Material Causation of Harm

Because ACC intentionally suppressed the (The Farr Report) from the Judge while claiming total asset destruction, the Court ruled Mr Smith could not sustain an interest running date prior to 27 December 2004 due to issue estoppel [Para 83]. Had the Farr Report been produced, it would have conclusively proven continuous medical incapacity dating back to 4 October 1991, invalidating the estoppel argument.

4. EVIDENCE INVENTORY ATTACHED

To support this investigation, the following primary documents are appended to this complaint:

Exhibit A: District Court Judgment 114/2008 (Judge Cadenhead, May 2008) The Judge stated at issue.                                                                                              [2] This is a claim for interest from 4 October 1991 until February 2002. The personal injury occurred on 2 January 1990 and there was also a further injury on 4 October 1991. The appellant has been back-paid from the period 4 October 1991 to 6 May 2007.

 

1. Exhibit B:ACC Sworn Submissions (specifically noting Paragraphs [39] and [47]

[39] The first two periods of weekly compensation stem from the same accident, when in January 1990 the appellant injured his left shin while working as an engine reconditioner. That wound did not properly heal, and was aggravated by a further injury on 4 October 1991. His leg was amputated below the knee in February 2002..

[47] Mr Farr's report (dated 27 April 2007, and received by the respondent on 2 May 2007) is the information that the respondent relied on to confirm that the appellant was incapacitated during the relevant period (4 October 1991 to 6 February 2002).

2. Exhibit C:Full Copy of the Dr. Farr Medical Certificate/Report (Dated 27 April 2007). Attached
3. Exhibit D:Memorandum of Ms. Becroft confirming ACC did unlawfully, withheld this vital documentary evidence from the courts in breach of s 154 (1) (c) tsthe non-consideration of the Farr Report by the District Court in 2007 and 2008.  Ms Becroft:  “The Applicant’s point is that it was not considered by the District Court in 2007 and 2008, when the District Court considered appeals in relation to decisions the Corporation had made about interest on backdated weekly compensation payments”.

 

4. Exhibit E:ACC Internal Memo (1998) noting chronic condition and 47 specialist visits. Attached.                                                                                                            The reviewer decision on the 4^th August 2000 confirmed the chronic ulcer had not healed for 8 years the specialists notes are listed as part of the Dr G Farr investigation from 1990 to 2007. ACC did attendd that review.

 

5. FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

The Complainant requests that the New Zealand Police Financial Crime / Criminal Investigation Branch:

1. Commence a formal investigation into the individuals comprising the ACC legal and claims management team involved in the 2007–2008 appeal.
2. Interview the instructing officers and counsel regarding the decision to plead "destruction of files" while actively holding the 2 May 2007 Farr Report.
3. Lodge formal charges under Sections 108, 113, or 116 of the Crimes Act 1961 if evidence of a deliberate, fraudulent omission is sustained.

Signed:  Warren Smith

 Smith (Complainant)

12 A Totara Drive  Saint Andrews

Hamilton    P/C3200

Email warren.accadvocate@gmail.com

Exhibit E: ACC MEMO with Exhibit B

ACC had full had full knowledge Mr Smith was in fact incapacitated from 1990.

In court with Judge Spiller, Mr Smith’s basic human and legal rights were violated again. Mr Smith wanted to presented the following facts to the court on the day; Judge Spiller without looking at the facts accepted the reviewers corrupted decision. This is how this dirty sick corrupted ACC system really works our honest independent reviewer and corrupted judges agreed with ACC the earliest date ACC had evidence of Mr Smith’s incapacity was DECEMBER 2004.

ACC agreed in 2001 to pay for the surgery that resulted in Mr Smith’s leg amputation and paid weekly compensation until 31 October 2003

“Yes” 18 honest independent reviewers and honest district court judges over 20 years have covered up ACC heinous fanatic.

ACAR 155-26 Warren Smith for the attention of Judge spiller
INITIAL MINUTE OF JUDGE P R SPILLER
Date of Minute: 11 May 2026

OBLIGATIONS ON THE CORPORATION
[1] On or before 8 June 2026, the Corporation will provide the Registry with:
[a] the names and contact details of any person who had a right to be present and heard at the hearing of the review (other than the appellant);
[b] the information set out in section 154(1) of the Act (“the Review File”); and

154 Corporation’s duty to make record available

(c) all documents, items, and exhibits relating to the review that are in the custody of the Corporation or the reviewer;

ACC have also intentionally failed to comply with s 156 of the act re question of Facts.
The question of Law: has ACC complied with with Judge Spillers minute this information was requested by 8 June 2026
In ACC claim number 90214192. ACC LIED to the court in 108/2007 by stating to the court as noted:
[17] In the present case, the earliest that the respondent had evidence of the fact of incapacity during the period for which weekly compensation was sought, was the certificate from Dr Patterson dated 10 November 2004, and provided to the respondent on 23 December 2004.
Had ACC complied with s 154 of the act in 2006 2007 2008 and released all information ACC did have in their custody. As in the following factual evidence and the two medical certificate that clearly prove Mr Smith did sought weekly compensation on the 29th April 1990 and 24th April 2001. This proves to any honest judge Mr Smith did sought weekly compensation on those date this was prior to 2004. ACC LIED again and withheld this vital factual evidence from the courts to deny Mr Smith his rights to a fair hearing in a court of Law and has perverted the course of Justice as to Mr Smith rights to interest.

There can be NO argument in Law this following ACC payment receipt under claim number 90214192 clearly proves, ACC in law have accepted Mr Smith is entitled to interest, ACC were erroneous in law by only partially paying Mr Smith interest as per item [B,C,D] on this following receipt as it is from 5th October 1991 to the 6th February 2002. ACC did also pay interest from 27th December to 16th August 2006. The outstanding interest payable is from 12th April 1990 to the 4th October 1991 and from 7/2/2002 to the 26th December 2004 it is approximately $ 8,000.00 to complete this late payment of interest for claim number 90214192. Please pay to this bank account; Kiwi bank Warren Smith 38-9001-0329124-01 the outstanding balance for the first claim 90214192.

This medical certificate date clearly dates the ACC covered injury was the 2/1/1990. Mr Smith was paid weekly compensation therefore was an earner prior to that injury. The ACC claim number is 59/9024192 on this medical certificate and close examination of diagnosis ( ankle abrasion–ulcer)

On close examination of the following back dated GPs medical certificate notes Claim numbers 59/90214192 and T316888-001 it’s dated from 27th March 1990 to the 4th October 1991 there for the medical certificate on the above page with number 455 falls inside this date from 27th March 1990 to the 4th October 1991.

In Law: ACC in the following letter changed the claim number of a medical certificate V 394088 to another number to fraudulently deny Mr Smith his rights to week compensation as on the following letter. The medical certificate is a legal document. This proves Mr Smith did sough weekly compensation to an earlier date than December 2004

Under New Zealand law, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) cannot legally alter or manipulate a medical certificate, nor can they arbitrarily swap claim numbers to defeat a claimant's statutory right to backdated weekly compensation. If a valid medical certificate establishes incapacity dating back prior to December 2004, it serves as primary documentary evidence of a historic entitlement.

Please be advised the second claim T3168888001 from 4^th October 1991 to 2002 is under police inquire for fraud, perjury. 

The full details will be up on my web site: https://accexposed.co.nz  for ALL New Zealanders to see how this dirty sick corrupted ACC Abuse claimant’s rights for 20 years!