Today the Court of Appeal has found the Serious Fraud Office has been acting indiscriminately and unlawfully throughout an eight year long investigation.

The SFO has shown their incompetence and arrogance and shown to be abusing their authority to conduct its own overreaching and unlawful fishing expeditions.

The Court of Appeal said the SFO has relied on its misuse of compulsory interview and production powers, and unlawful use of search warrants.

They ruled that the number and breadth of the notices and warrants was unnecessary, unreasonable and oppressive.

Of most concern is the fact they found that the SFO’s actions amounted to a substantial and unjustified invasion of privacy.

The outcome of this ruling shines a spotlight on the operation of the SFO, its current ongoing investigations, and also questions their methods, authority, and overreach for previous investigations.

The fact is the SFO was warned by reputable council in 2017 about their unlawful methods, yet they decided to ignore it and continue on regardless.

The modus operandi of the SFO to conduct unlawful fishing expeditions is now apparent and demands that the directors who have been in charge, both past and present, need to be held to account. This ruling is not a matter that can be swept under the carpet.

This exposure of how the SFO is operating is not new. New Zealand First was previously investigated in the same manner by the SFO and we won – not once but three times.

A certain journalist fell over themselves to sustain a biased attack our Party twenty-seven times in favour of the SFO and their methods – and not once was it reported when New Zealand First won the case. And a so-called law-expert also regularly joined in the chorus of opinions on the case providing running supportive commentary on the attack.

Where are they now?

Of most interesting note, the Court of Appeal ruled that “Parliament cannot have intended that these intrusive powers, which may have considerable impact on the liberty of an individual, could be exercised in a disproportionate or indiscriminate manner, beyond what is reasonably necessary in the circumstances to further the objectives of the Act.”

Parliament may very well need revise the law surrounding the operation of the SFO or completely re-write the SFO Act and the role of the SFO itself.

© Scoop Media