Why did the SFO not just ask?

Winston Peters’ lawyer, Peter Williams QC met the SFO today to give them documents which he said showed donations to the party were used as intended. According to the Herald report:

“He said he had seen a statement from the Spencer Trust, which received the donations, which revealed the money was used as intended and he would be handing it to senior SFO executive Gib Beattie at this morning’s meeting in Auckland.

“The statement was issued by Mr Peters’ brother, Wayne Peters, a Whangarei lawyer and Spencer Trust administrator.”

Williams also said that the SFO had bungled its inquiry by not asking to see the Spencer Trust books. It does seem strange that the SFO didn’t ask Winston Peters if he had an explanation. They must have known where to find him.

John Key has apparently stated that if Peters had the documents he would have proferred them months ago, according to the Herald. Seems Key got this wrong. Would he make important decisions on the basis of incorrect assumptions were he to gain office?

Williams also said after the meeting with the SFO:

“I believe that eventually justice will triumph and that in this case there will be an absolute clearance and there will hopefully be apologies from all those who have been severely prejudicial and haven’t look at the facts.”

It is not known at this time whether he meant to include the various right-wing bloggers who have been frenzedly attacking Peters at every turn in recent weeks.


3 Responses to “Why did the SFO not just ask?”

  1. Inventory2 Says:

    Given that it took a month for the SFO to even make the decision to formally investigate NZ First for potential “serious and complex fraud”, I woul dbe surprised to see the investigators make a quick decision.

    Depends on how compelling the evidence that they have now been given is, surely?

  2. Inventory2 Says:

    “Williams also said that the SFO had bungled its inquiry by not asking to see the Spencer Trust books.”

    That could be because the inquiry has only just begun – like yesterday!

    I2, I think Williams meant the pre-inquiry inquiry. I don’t think you get to be a QC unless you’ve got a few clues. 🙂

  3. dave Says:

    Quite. Williams has got a few clues. But you have to wonder why a QC thinks that if the donations were handled correctly, as he obviously believes, he thinks its no big deal that they were not declared.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: