Skip to Content »

Killeen disgraces the law

  • December 11th, 2012

Honest lawyers would not forge documents to damage an enemy. And if their medications made them susceptible to such  temptations they would be so mortified on realising what they's done that they would not try to evade detection. They would confess and seek better treatment and not work while they were exposing their clients to such terrible judgment.

So lets hope the Law Society now promplty and publicly takes a position to ensure that Ms Killeen is never again in a position to discredit the profession as she has today. There are plenty of satisfying jobs for people with legal training and experience that need not leave them in the profession. We do not need  more reminders of the inequalities that benefit middle class, white female defendants caught in disgraceful conduct.

I note that the Crown did not oppose the discharge without conviction. Presumably they accept the medication excuse. That might protect the judge from appearing hopelessly credulous, though I doubt that the publice will appreciate the significance of the Crown position.

We must support such judging from time to time as the price of judicial independence. But it makes it very hard for lay-people to respect the institution.


  • phronesis
  • December 12th, 2012
  • 8:13 pm

Next time I am in court and I don’t like the look of the evidence I will have to remember to ask the judge for the prosecutors medical history. After all they may (apparently) be suffering from a condition that causes them to forge evidence against me. Surely I have a right to know?

  • Conspiracyman
  • December 13th, 2012
  • 9:08 pm

Well said – this is a disgraceful example for the legal profession and the justice system generally. If the Law Society does not now act to protect the integrity of the profession and public confidence in it then what message does this sorry episode send. From what has been made public it appears that the plight of the victim (or intended victim of these crimes) was effectively ignored and the perpetrator of the crime treated as though she were somehow the victim

  • David Lloyd-Barker
  • December 18th, 2012
  • 7:23 am

From one who was there at the sentencing:Now Ive been in a lot of courtrooms over the years both as a Police Officer in the UK and latterly as the General and Inspectorate Manager of Auckland SPCA. The result was so obviously biased in Killeens favour and the Judges summing up painted her as the victim it made one feel physically nauseous. One can only hope that the Police do appeal and justice is done. On a minor point I note that much has been made of the pro bono panel that Killeen established. Look at the facts which can be found in the annual reports on When I was there prosecution rates increased by 400%. The rates of prosecution where in the late 40s and early 50s per year. Since I have left and the new panel has taken over 9 last year which is the LOWEST figure in record.

Think the pro bono panel is less of a success than expounded?

Combine this with the recent IRD investigation into SPCA Auckland et al for GST and tax fraud, the charity commission investigation and perhaps an admitted forger is well suited to this charity and its Board?

  • brendan lawler
  • December 18th, 2012
  • 6:01 pm

I agree with your assessment- especially your later published comments. When did drugs make one dishonest? The judgement of Judge Sharp is an embarrasment to lawyers and should be to her and her fellow judges.

  • Cheryl Simes
  • January 15th, 2013
  • 9:50 am

I am surprised at the harshness of your assessment, Stephen. My understanding is that expert evidence was presented about the side effects of the medication in question. Small, simple things affect the brain’s functioning – see the wealth of material now emerging from neuroscience. It is also psychologically normal to react with denial and incredulity if one has to face having done something totally out of character – just as many lawyers act with denial and obstinacy when faced with evidence that they have made a mistake in their interpretation or analysis. They don’t exactly rush to admit their error – instead they let everyone incur megabucks in legal fees, fighting it out. Morality and honesty seem to have strange interpretations within the legal profession and I don’t think Anita Killeen’s is the worst.

  • Jim sadler
  • June 30th, 2015
  • 6:40 pm

Can someone please refer me to a lawyer who is not associated with the SPCA, willing to expose SPCA corruption, lies, incompitance, and abuse of legal aid services? Any referrals will be appreciated. Time is of the essence. Thank you. Sincerely, Jim sadler

  • David Lloyd-Barker
  • January 9th, 2017
  • 2:17 pm

Dear Jim

I have tried via various means including a formal complaint to the IRD but nothing is ever done. The only upside is the recent retirement of Bob Kerridge at I hear a cost for the farewell party of 30K (Your hard made donations at work again for the benefit of the human rather than the animals)

  • David Lloyd-Barker
  • January 9th, 2017
  • 2:34 pm

You Tube audio clip of IRD interview

Leave your comments:

* Required fields. Your e-mail address will not be published on this site

You can use the following HTML tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>