SFO 'neglect' claims don't fit the facts, says former director

Adam Feeley. Photo / Brett Phibbs

Last week's story on the SFO prompted this response from former SFO director David Bradshaw.

No one questions the right of a director of the Serious Fraud Office to make changes to suit his or her management style. But being reckless with the facts or rewriting history in justification of change is not what we might expect from a person with the powers and responsibilities of director.

To say that the SFO suffered years of neglect flies in the face of the achievements of the office over many years.

In my 10 years as director I found Attorneys General East, Graham, Wilson, Parker and Cullen all committed to providing whatever resources were required to investigate serious and complex fraud. Annual reviews by the State Services Commission, the Audit Office, the Treasury and select committees over the period all attest to an office that was working efficiently and effectively.

I never found it necessary to decline any case falling within the SFO jurisdiction nor to close cases prematurely citing a lack of resource.

Despite what is now being said, investigations were usually completed within nine to 12 months; but the office would never sacrifice thoroughness just to get a speedy result or to meet an arbitrary performance measure. Delays did occur from time to time but often because of matters beyond the control of the office, for example legal processes or the need for overseas inquiries.

Just a few of the results that the so-called "neglected" office achieved, in addition to its ordinary operational activities, were:

* The development of a world class forensic accounting capability which was second to none in New Zealand.

* The introduction and refinement of an efficient and world class document management system.

* The development of a portable "electronic courtroom" that interfaced with the document management system and was held in the highest regard by those judges and lawyers who dealt with it.

* The design and build of two state of the art interview rooms.

* The establishment, with the support of the Customs Department, of a standalone computer forensics laboratory in Auckland.

* Providing the SFO staff with computer and support facilities and office accommodation at least the equal of any other law enforcement agency in NZ.

These SFO resources and developments were made available to other agencies such as the Securities Commission, the Audit Office and the Crown Law Office. This was all done within a budget of under $5 million.

Perhaps it was the fact that the office didn't make extravagant budget demands that is now seen by some as a sign of neglect.

I would note that since 1997 the office has had an almost 50 per cent increase in its budget but its professional staff and hence its expertise is today down by about 30 per cent. That might well be a concern to taxpayers.

I can't speak for what happened at the SFO in the two years before the present director's appointment. I would observe however, that the two cases he highlights as presumably showing the effectiveness of the office - Waipawa Finance and Versalko (the ASB employee) - were both substantially, if not entirely, completed by the "neglected" office.

New Zealand has been well served over the years by a small but highly skilled and dedicated group of people in the SFO. It has developed a reputation for having the utmost integrity in all of its actions.

The director should look to build on that reputation rather than seeking to denigrate the achievements of his predecessors.

David Bradshaw, former director (1997-2007), Serious Fraud Office