Evidence of prosecutorial misconduct - the crime of "following":

After witnessing the victim of a crime being told that Police would not be taking a statement from them recently because apparently the complaint "didn't meet the standard required", We were surprised to receive a copy of a statement to Police which was released to me (by the Police) after I requested information regarding an unrelated matter.   I could not believe that a Police officer had considered this rambling monologue to be worthy of actually recording in evidence to be potentially used in Court.  Particularly after Police had rejected the complaint of a genuine victim of crime, the offender being none other than the husband of the complainant in the other matter.

After making further inquiries other information was received regarding this matter and it became apparent from the evidence that local Police are extremely selective to the point of blatant corruption regarding the enforcement of the law, that witnesses and 'complainants' are being encouraged to commit perjury by vindictive local Police officers, who are desperate to convict people they don't like, at any cost, regardless of the moral or legal implications.

This link to the phone call to emergency services which was made on 18 February 2014 by Melissa Peacock, recently married to Ronald Peacock, a member of the Nomad gang according to Police, with a long history of violent offences.  She complains of "tailgating" and "trying to run me off the road" and claims to have been travelling behind an ambulance at the time this occurred.

This is a link to the formal statement of the complainant in this matter.  Paragraphs 3-8 indicate a desire to "set the scene" for the allegation.  Being of an inquisitive nature, I wondered what action was taken as a result of statements being made to Police by two witnesses alleging they saw a man make threats to them.  Enquiries revealed that the alleged offender had never been charged with threatening to kill either complainant as a result of this incident referred to in the complainants statement to Police regarding the alleged event on 18 February 2014. 

The complainant begins by stating her full name and that she is speaking to Senior Constable Simpson about an incident that occurred that afternoon while she was driving her car. 

She states that this matter "involves Lee Harris."  Mr Harris is a local property developer who minds his own business and works hard according to neighbours and others who know him, who is known to the complainant.

The apparent 'involvement' in this case appears to have been the agreed fact that the defendant happened to drive out of a side road into in a merging lane and the complainant over reacted to this.  The evidence is odd to say the least, and deserves wider scrutiny.

The complainant continues to say that she has known the defendant for a long time, but that she and her husband have had "ongoing problems" with him for "5 - 6 weeks" - yes, since her husband assaulted an innocent woman who happened to be known to the defendant with a knife and a motor vehicle and threatened her, on the mistaken assumption that the victim was the defendant's [Lee Harris's] "missus".

Paragraph 11 is odd because it refers to "my friend Bridgette" rather than "my sister in law Bridgette Peacock", given the reference to Ronald Peacock in the initial paragraphs.  

The complainant's statement goes on to describe an 'event' which appears to be based on her perception of imminent danger rather than any ACTUAL danger.  Paragraph 16 describes how the complainant noticed a car pull out of a side road into a merging lane on the main highway - a perfectly normal occurence.

"I was on SH2 approaching Clareville heading towards Carterton and just as I went past the Chester Road intersection there was a car, all of a sudden, just there, right next to my drivers door."

"I got such a fright I pulled over into the road verge and stopped."

It would seem that the complainant was driving along in a daze, possibly under the influence of some substance, as the defendant alluded to during the cross examination of the complainant, and she suddenly noticed that there was a side road there and that she was driving alongside a merging lane, and there was a car in the merging lane, which happened to be the defendant's car.  This is alleged to have happened in rush hour traffic.  The prosecution goes on to spout a garbled account that is frankly in the realms of fantasy, and the evidence given adds a lot of weight to the defendant's references to the complainant's drug addictions perhaps, and indicate that this woman should not be driving on the road if she is going to panic for no reason, if her eyesight is seriously impaired which it obviously is and if she is going to drive in the erratic  manner described in her statements and evidence and while talking on the phone.  There was no ambulance.  And if there had been, and what she said was true, the ambulance driver, or any of the other motorists, would have certainly reported it.

In the interests of transparency and the fair administration of justice, here is a link to the Court documents regarding this matter.  If you have trouble viewing these documents leave a comment below with your email address and we will mail them to you directly.  Comments are moderated prior to publication and confidentiality guaranteed.

Compare this information with the letter sent to Police from a lawyer stating this:

14 February 2014
Inspector Brent Register

Masterton Police
cc Garry Wilson & Jodie Lawrence, Prosecuting Sergeants
cc Glen Jordan, Officer in Charge
VIA EMAIL

 Dear Inspector Register

PROSECUTION OF RONALD PEACOCK FOR SERIOUS OFFENCES AGAINST[NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES]

I act on instructions for [NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES], (my client), and I am writing to you in regard to the lack of Police response to very serious criminal activity by Ronald Peacock, (the defendant), against my client.

Background

As you are no doubt aware, my client is now essentially in hiding, (with Police assistance), in a Masterton motel, following the burning down of her home on Waitangi day this year.  The house one paddock over, was burned down a week or so before this, which in light of everything I have been instructed about this matter, can only be viewed as an error on the part of a very determined arsonist, who corrected his error a few days later.

However this matter is viewed, my client's life has clearly been placed in serious and immediate danger by a determined and aggressive criminal.

I do not lightly link the defendant's name to the arsons alluded to above, but rather I do so in light of very compelling evidence, which will be outlined below), following clear threats by him to the life of my client, coupled with an assault with a knife and a vehicle by the defendant against my client.  Further to this, the defendant has stalked and harassed my client on a number of occasions, with such behaviour demonstrating at the very least an intention to run an on-going campaign of fear and harassment against my client; with the clear possibility that he indeed intends to make good on his threat and murder [NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES].

My client is terrified of this man and in light of such clear criminal activity against her is very unhappy that this on-going threat remains against her, as this man is neither charged, nor in custody.

The compelling evidence which [NAME WITHHELD TO PROTECT THE VICTIM OF THE SERIOUS OFFENCES] would give against Ronald Peacock is as follows:

Following her contacting me on 12 February 2014, I took a statement from my client on 13 February 2014, the essence of which is condensed as follows, without losing any of the essential elements of her allegations, nor exaggerating or minimizing anything she said:

That on 9 January 2014 at about 10.00pm the defendant arrived outside the address of the complainant at [ADDRESS WITHHELD].  The defendant pulled up in an AU Ford Utility, with dark tinted windows.  He started talking to the victim through the passenger window, while parked in the street, slightly to the left toward the pavement on [ADDRESS WITHHELD].  The complainant could not hear him and came around to the driver's side.  On coming around to the driver's side, my client observed that the defendant appeared to be badly affected by drugs or alcohol or both. 

My client observed that the defendant was frothing at the mouth and saying in very strange and exaggerated way:  "What do you want"  The defendant went on to say:  "Give a message to [NAME OF MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE, WITHHELD TO PROTECT PRIVACY OF OTHER VICTIM OF OFFENDER] from me, (referring to a friend of my client).  The victim responded, (noting the condition of the defendant), by saying "Do your own messages, he's just down the driveway". 

The defendant responded with again saying in an exaggerated voice: "Give a message to [NAME OF MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE WITHHELD]."  My client then said:  "I'm sick of you _____ _____ trying to use me as a messenger.  Go down the driveway and tell him yourself". 

While sitting in the driver's seat the defendant produced a large black knife with a black handle.  My client, who is a chef, recognized this as a chef's knife.
The defendant then got out of his utility vehicle with the knife and he said to my client: "I'm going to kill you bitch."  My client responded: "No you're _____ not."
My client backed off.  The defendant got out of the vehicle and lunged at my client with the knife several times.  My client kicked the door of his car so that the door of his car went back toward him and formed a barrier between them. 

The defendant then came around from the door of his car and lunged toward my client with his knife. 

Throughout this attack the defendant was just several feet away from my client.
My client then ran to her car, which was just parked a few feet away, outside the driveway of [ADDRESS WITHHELD], Carterton.  My client found that her car was locked and jumped into the deep gutter of [ADDRESS WITHHELD], screaming for help. 

The defendant drove at my client in his vehicle, attempting to hit her.  He would have succeeded, except for the fact that the gutter in [ADDRESS WITHHELD], (in which my client was standing), is unusually deep and his vehicle would have become completely stuck had he driven into the gutter. 

The defendant did a U turn and turned back toward my client who had picked up a rock to deter him.  My client threw the rock at the window of the defendant's vehicle.  The defendant drove past the gutter and into the side of my client's vehicle, clipping the driver's side mirror, (damage done to such mirror is captured in a photograph).  Paint from the defendant's vehicle is clearly visible on my client's vehicle.
That this was a terrifying incident for my client. 

However, since this time, the defendant has "stalked" my client on a number of occasions:  Following her to school with her son, following her to a service station and following her to Greytown.  On these occasions he has parked his car, or followed my client, in order that my client  would be aware that he is nearby and has the ability to harm her and her family at a time of his choosing. 

That the defendant is relentless in his stalking of my client and that he has attempted to make good his threats to kill my client by in all probability, burning down her home, or arranging for someone to do this on his behalf.

That the defendant will not cease the above type of behaviour until in custody, particularly so as his behaviour is drug induced.

That my client has been forced to go into hiding, with the knowledge and support of the Police, which is totally unfair.  This would not be necessary if the defendant was in custody.

That in the circumstances outlined above, the defendant ought to at the very least be charged with:

    (i)    Threatening to kill; and
    (ii)   Assault with a weapon x 2, both with a knife and a car; and
    (iii)  Criminal harassment

My client seriously fears for her life and accordingly I need an assurance from Police that the defendant will be charged with the offences outlined, or similar offences, on an urgent basis.  Failing this, I have very clear instructions to initiate a private prosecution and to oppose bail forthwith.

Accordingly please advise me on an urgent basis if the Police intend to charge the defendant with offences as outlined above.

The circumstances are so dire for my client, (who is in hiding with your support and knowledge), and she is so badly stressed by everything that has occurred; that I can only give you until 19 February 2014 to advise me that you will take action against the defendant.  Failing this I will immediately commence a private prosecution on her behalf.

Yours faithfully,

[Name of lawyer withheld for reasons of personal safety]

 Here is the response to that letter.  Readers will notice that this response has nothing to do with the matters raised in the letter, it refers to a completely different incident at a completely different place and time - click on the image to view, or comment below in confidence with an email address and we will mail you a copy of all evidence referred to on this website - Police are now obstructing the private prosecution and totally ignoring the concerns of this lawyer, and we have recently received a considerable amount of evidence that this is not an isolated incident, and there is considerable evidence of a pattern of this corrupt behaviour by local Police, indicating that the problem is much bigger than we thought: 

Court documents:

*  Transcript of phone call to Police from complainant

*  Formal Statement of Melissa Peacock to Police

*  Formal Statement of Ronald Charles Peacock
       The Formal Statement of Ronald Peacock has been edited to protect the victim of Peacock's violent attacks and arsons:

 This statement is being made to Police NINE DAYS after Melissa Peacock made up a false accusation to Police (which can be accessed by clicking on the link above)- making false allegations is a serious offence.  One of the most overlooked of the ten commandments in the Bible, which people swear on in Court, is 'you shall not bear false witness'.  Mr Peacock is a bit slow, but NINE DAYS is a long time.  What took him nine days to remember allegedly receiving this anonymous phone call, and what took him nine days to tell Police about it?  It just does not add up whichever way you look at it.

It is frankly beyond credibility that a Police officer could actually deem this nonsense worthy of recording.  I can not believe that this was actually written down, and typed up.  What an utter waste of Police time.

It's hard to know where to begin, when it comes to trying to describe how ridiculous this statement actually is.  For one thing, paragraph 12 refers to two women.  Both of them assured Police that what Peacock describes never happened and nothing remotely like it ever happened.  In fact, Peacock has repeatedly attacked these two women and been convicted for attacking them, with weapons.  Both woman assure the writer that Mr Harris has never laid a finger on either of them or ever even come close to it.  Fire investigators have said that they think it is most likely that two arsons are the work of Mr Peacock, the paper reported that the whole community think it was Mr Peacock who burned down the local woman's home, and her neighbours home.

Paragraph 21 is especially revealing.  "Melissa is scared of Lee HARRIS." - yes, because Ronald  Peacock has instilled this fear in her, because "I have told her what he is capable of."  By all accounts, and by the look of these rambling, paranoid and delusional statements to Police and the Courts, Ronald gives Melissa lots of drugs and tells her bedtime stories that give her nightmares, in which the big bad wolf is always named Lee HARRIS.

Paragraph 23 is a clear indication that this man and his wife need urgent psychiatric intervention - "He knows that Melissa is not from our world, she hasn't grown up like us, he knows she is scared."  Well so she should be I think, she's just married a violent gang member, a convicted rapist, convicted woman basher, widely believed to have committed two if not three local arsons, who seems to have bullied or manipulated her to make a false complaint to Police and then to give perjurous evidence in Court.  I'd be scared if it was me, I know that much.

Paragraph 27 is ridiculous because 'the straight' finishes miles away from the Chester Road intersection, which is situated on a bend and visibility is not good, traffic is reasonably heavy as the cemetery and golf course are a short way up Chester Road and Peacock's allegations are no more believable than his wife's were.  She was forced to admit in Court when cross examined that her account of things was absolutely and completely impossible, and the Police were forced to admit it too, which is very concerning indeed. 

It is also interesting to note that this statement was made to Police on the same day that this newspaper report was published:

 

*  Court transcript

*  Notes of Judge B Davidson on sentencing

- Judge Davidson has issued some odd decisions alright, but this one takes the cake, (apart from the ridiculous content of it) because it's not a decision, it's some "Sentencing Notes".  

Someone needs to tell Judge Davidson that he's not allowed to "sentence" someone who is ACQUITTED.

 

Ronald Charles Peacock and his relationship with Police and Court staff:

While the Wairarapa Police continue to persecute innocent people and refuse to acknowledge or investigate complaints in general from the victims of crime, it's concerning indeed to note their continuing refusal to charge certain local violent offenders - people who pose a real risk to the community, like Ronald Charles Peacock, the person who is the subject of this news report above, who assaulted a woman with a knife in a usually quiet residential street, and then assaulted her with a motor vehicle - no matter how compelling the evidence against them.  

The attack was clearly witnessed.  The problem is that witnesses are threatened, subtly and not so subtly, by Police and local media, who breach their privacy and spread untrue rumours throughout the community, and encourage the offenders to further harm the victims in response to victims' complaints about Police misconduct.

Police continue to refuse to charge the perpetrator, Ronald Peacock, despite the fact that there is clearly indisputable evidence of a crime having been committed, including a statement from the offender himself, which boasts that he went to the address where the assaults took place to seek revenge for an anonymous letter he alleges was sent "via his doctor". 

The attack was completely unprovoked - the attacker drove aggressively toward the victim and shouted at her to pass on a message to a mutual acquaintance.  The victim, not wanting to get involved with any interaction between the offender, and the acquaintance responded by saying "Tell him yourself", whereupon the assaults were committed in full view of the witness and the whole street.

Here is a typed transcript of the statement Peacock made when interviewed regarding the attack (the original handwritten Police notebook entry will be added as soon as we remove the victim's name from it).  It has been made crystal clear to the writer that the victim is NOT Mr Harris's "missus" at all.  Mr Harris refers to her as "a woman I know" and both he and the victim have repeatedly stated to Police that the victim is not Mr Harris's "missus" - the Police and Ronald Peacock repeatedly try and link the victim with Mr Harris despite all the evidence to the contrary, in a blatant effort to cook up some "excuse" for the assaults:

Lloyd McKay
Constable
Notebook entry 9 January 2014
Event PO16022473
20:45  Clifton Ave re

20:59 10/7 ??? Lincoln Rd? Carterton
? Speak to Ronald Peacock.

Peacock admits going to Clifton Ave in his vehicle and speaking with Lee Harris's missus - [Name of victim withheld for reasons of personal safety].

He says he warned her not to threaten him or his family as he received a letter in the post today.

He (Peacock) believed the letter was posted to him - via his Dr (Doctor Cherry of the Carterton Medical Centre) by Lee Harris.

Peacock then showed me the letter.

Photograph then taken of both letter and envelope.

Peacock made special mention that rear of letter where senders details are located is that of Whetu Hansen of ? Plasterers and Roofers.

Peacock stated that Whetu Hansen is the missing male from the Manawatu who has gone missing in suspicious circumstances believed to be gang related.

Peacock said "this is Lee Harris's way of doing things.  He is threatening me and my family."

Peacock hands letter to me stating "here have it, show the other copper."

_______________

21:25 4Q Clifton Avenue.

Speak with Harris and [Name of victim withheld for reasons of personal safety]  with other Police units.

Harris denies sending any letter to Peacock as does [Name of victim withheld for reasons of personal safety].
_______________

22:21 4Q ??? Lincoln Road?
Again speak to Peacock in presence of Sgt Irving.
Also speak to Peacock's new wife Melissa (nee Cherry)
Peacock states they received three phone calls from Harris and [Name of victim withheld for reasons of personal safety] whilst Police at Clifton Ave tonight.  Peacock states his home phone number is _____

Peacock given advice about self protection
Warned not to go to Clifton Avenue.

Peacock did not want to make formal complaint but wanted Police informed as to what was going on.

Peacock requested his letter be returned to him once we (Police) have finished with it.

This is absolutely outrageous - Peacock admitted to Police that he had gone there and confronted the victim and there is more than enough evidence to establish a prima facie case!  The ongoing refusal of Police to prosecute this offender, and to pervert the course of justice by lying to the Judge on the rare occasion they are actually forced to initiate a prosecution against him - such as when he bashed the victim at the Masterton Court and terrorised everyone in the near vicinity - has become blatantly unacceptable.

Peacock allegedly tried to assault his new father in law, local GP Dr Craig Cherry, at his wedding to Dr Cherry's daughter, less than six weeks prior to this latest attack, after Dr Cherry attempted to put some of the alcohol away, according to witnesses.  It is beyond belief that Dr Cherry would be Ronald's doctor - it would be extremely unethical just for a start, and given how Dr Cherry feels about Ronald Peacock it is clearly a delusional figment of Ronald Peacock's overactive imagination that Dr Cherry would be his doctor!

It is outrageous that Police "gave Peacock advice about self protection" instead of arresting and charging him! 

The happy couple and their wedding party

Peacock has a history of serious violence, so do his family, and fellow gang members.  He and his sister also seem to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the local Police, Court staff, and the 'reporters' at the local paper.

A 'news report' published in the Wairarapa Times-Age dated Friday 12 December 2014 refers to the hearing of charges against Peacock for throwing a loaded rifle out of a vehicle after he threatened and intimidated people with it after he assaulted another woman who is related to the target of Peacock's crusade of violence, Mr Harris, in an incident bearing striking similarities to the attacks in Clifton Avenue involving a knife and a motor vehicle, the assault outside the Court, and other recent assaults involving violence and weapons, by Ronald Peacock.  This man is a walking time bomb.  He needs to be urgently assessed by mental health professionals and drug tested.  He is clearly paranoid and delusional and a serious danger to the public.

Ironically, local 'community advocates' like real estate agent Gerry Brooking, and the dodgy journalists at the Wairarapa Times-Age, promoted Ronald Peacock's sister Bridget as a role model for their White Ribbon campaign (formerly featuring disgraced ex MP Georgina Beyer), for 'narking' on her partner for bashing her.  Nothing's changed in the Wairarapa, the same old people are running the show, and running the Wairarapa into the ground.  Sgt Rix is apparently the officer who assaulted the mother and grandmother of a young person a few years ago, outside the Shell service station in Masterton.

"The allegations were being investigated" my foot.  The crimes are being covered up - Police are making excuses not to charge Peacock, who assaulted the woman with a knife and a motor vehicle as Constable Dean Adams and a number of other people stated at the time - the attacks were witnessed - Police should get on with laying charges and stop making up excuses not to. 

A few days later, on January 21 2014 the victim's neighbour's house was burnt to the ground, in what Police called a "suspicious fire".  A few days after that, the victim's was torched, Police have confirmed that that fire was arson, the cause of the neighbour's fire is unknown.  The local paper featured the arson with headlines in the print edition and posters outside all the retail outlets saying "WRONG HOUSE TORCHED?" which can be viewed on their  website .

This refusal of the Police to charge violent criminals is well known in the Wairarapa - corrupt local Police conspire to pervert the course of justice on a regular basis, they cover up crime for their mates, and throw child abuse files away.  This is the result:

Then on 19 April 2014 Cherie Taylor at the Times-Age write a fictional account (below) of what took place in the Masterton District Court when Ronald Charles Peacock represented himself and unsuccessfully defended himself on charges relating to his attack on the same woman, the victim of the arson, and the knife attack and attempted hit and run, this was yet another attack, this time it happened right outside - and inside - the Masterton District Court.  Contrary to Taylor's lies there was no evidence whatsoever of any "heated feud" between the offender and the victim, or that the victim "spun her car around", because neither thing happened.

Cherie Taylor also plays along with bent prosecutor Garry Wilson in sending a very clear message to anyone else considering doing the right thing, such as the one witness who Wilson called despite the fact that there were at least half a dozen witnesses who worked right there in the Court and at the car yard right over the road, Wilson forced this other witness to take a day off work and travel over 100 kms to Masterton and back to face Ronald Charles Peacock angrily and ineptly cross examining him and threatening him AND his wife, who was also required to take a day off work to accompany and support her husband during this unnecessarily stressful ordeal.

Cherie Taylor is very well aware of what a dangerous and violent criminal Ronald Peacock is, and the fact that she has gratuitously and unnecessarily named the witness as well as the victim several times, stated his occupation, etc is inexcusable, and the fact that her 'report' also makes a point of stating that the witness only received $25 for doing the right thing while not one of the other witnesses working a the Court and at the motor dealership over the road was summoned apparently, although their statements to Police make it abundantly clear that they saw Peacock strike the victim and saw him further threaten and assault her as well.

The message is if you stick up for victims of violence in the Wairarapa you can expect to be forced to take a day off work to come to the circus of a Court hearing, bringing a support person because you will be too stressed to drive afterward I can assure you.   You can expect to be reimbursed the paltry sum of $25 for this, you can expect to be threatened and have your wife and family threatened during this circus of a Court hearing, and you can then expect to be named and targeted by the local hack reporters as well, as they seek to spin the line that the victim somehow asked for it.  Here is what they printed with my comments in italics and brackets:

"Assault after heated feud results in fine:

By cherie.taylor@age.co.nz
6:00 AM Saturday Apr 19, 2014
With an "axe to grind" [name withheld for reasons of personal safety] spun her car around outside the courthouse and confronted Ronald Charles Peacock about a fire at her house.  [Not according to all the witness statements, her driving was perfectly normal.]

He then punched her in the nose.  [that's right, punched her in the nose.  After he boasted about burning down her house.  There's nothing normal about that.  Many people saw him do this,and saw him chase her inside the Court in a further attack and a violent rampage which endangered members of the public as well as Court staff.]

Peacock was convicted by Judge Bruce Davidson of assaulting [name of victim withheld for reasons of personal safety] following a defended hearing in Masterton District Court this week.

He claimed she had injured herself.  [Yes indeed.  He claimed she had injured herself.  In full view of everyone at the public Court, including all the Court staff, all the people who worked at the car dealership right over the road (who all made statements to Police), all the members of the general public who were present at Court that day, and his newly married wife.  He claimed that she must have just punched herself in the face because there was nobody else around and he denied the gutless attack on a small vulnerable harmless woman.]

Peacock represented himself at the hearing, [which was dangerous and disturbing for all present.  It revealed a lot about his mental state, and that was also disturbing and dangerous.]   Judge Davidson appointed lawyer Peter Stevens as amicus curiae to help him.  [Judge Davidson actually appointed lawyer Peter Stevens as Ronald Peacock's defence lawyer due to a serious procedural error by the Registrar.   According to Judge Davidson, the Registrar told him that Peacock was entitled to a legal aid funded lawyer when that was not the case at all, and given that the assaults happened right in front of Court staff, it's a bit of a shocking indictment on all concerned that the free lawyer, the Police prosecutor, the newspaper reporter and the victim advisor and Judge and Registrar were all seated on the far side of the offender during the whole Court hearing and there was nothing whatsoever between the offender and the victim, despite her repeated requests for a screen to be provided.] 

Police prosecutor Sergeant Garry Wilson said there had been an ongoing dispute between the pair resulting in an argument outside the court on February 19 and Peacock punching her.  [He leaves out the bit about Ronald Peacock chasing her inside the Court in a violent rampage and further assaulting her, burning down her house, attacking her with a big knife, trying to run her over, etc.]

In evidence, [Witnesses name and occupation withheld for reasons of personal safety] said he heard the commotion from inside his car parked outside the courthouse.

He heard a woman screaming and Peacock yelling back at her to "stay away from me".

[Witnesses name withheld for reasons of personal safety] told the court the pair kept arguing and Peacock punched her to the face with his right fist.

"She had blood on her nose," he said.  [Well that sounds fairly clear doesn't it.]

In evidence, [The victim] said she had known Peacock for five years.

On the morning Peacock hit her, [The victim] said she was driving past the courthouse when she heard Peacock yelling at her so she spun around and parked up.  [No she didn't.  She had been advised by a lawyer that it may be necessary to instigate a private prosecution against the offender if Police continued to refuse to charge him, or even investigate her complaints.  None of the witnesses stated or inferred anything untoward about the manner in which the victim drove or parked her vehicle.

She confronted him about the fire, when she got hit.  [Well that's fairly clear]

[The victim] said she was "100 per cent sure" Peacock had head butted her not punched her.  [He was aggressively jerking his head and arms and screaming in her face and she literally didn't see what hit her. There was nobody else who it could have been because nobody else was there who it could have been.]

She told the court she believed Peacock had burnt her house.  [Because that's what the Fire Investigators had told her they believed to be the most likely cause of the fire.[

"I was traumatised and stressed. I was distressed ... we have lost everything ... I was asking Ron why he did what he did. He started yelling in my face. It became heated. He was intimidating me ... he then said you want to play the game and he smashed me on the top of the nose ... I was frightened."

In cross examination Peacock put to [The victim] that she was set on confronting him but she denied this.

"You are a violent man ... I do believe you burnt down my home ... I was badly traumatised."

Peacock said [The victim] had yelled "it's not over".  [Not according to the witnesses.]

"I kept telling her to stay away."  [As he advanced menacingly on the victim and chased her into the Courthouse still screaming at her, threatening her, trying to assault her and terrorising the Court staff and the general public as well as the victim.

Judge Davidson said it was clear emotions had been running high between the pair at the time of the assault.  [No shit Sherlock.]

"You both have an axe to grind with each other ... others have been dragged into the circle of dispute."  [This is utter nonsense - and totally untrue.  Fire investigators had informed the victim that they believed that the defendant was responsible for the arson of both her and the arson of her neighbour's house.  The evidence given established that the victim has never harboured any resentment against the offender until he assaulted her in Clifton Avenue.]

Mr [Name of witness withheld for reasons of personal safety] was a credible witness, the judge said. "It is clear there was an assault."  [We have chosen not to name the witness, for the protection of him and his family.  The witnesses wife was intimidated in the adjournment and the offender was spoken to by the Judge about also threatening the victim during one of the adjournments.].

He convicted Peacock and ordered he pay $25 in witness expenses and fined him $400.  [There is no mention of Court costs, reparation of course, victim offender levy, and the sentence is an absolute insult to the victim and the only other witness who was forced to attend.]

On 12 December 2014  there was another report in the local paper, which stated that  Ronald Charles Peacock had been convicted of assaulting a woman, throwing a loaded rifle out of the window of his vehicle on a busy public road, a rifle he was convicted of possessing unlawfully.  "Jail avoided over firearms offence" trumpets Taylor.

"Ronald Charles Peacock, 42, was sentenced to home detention after earlier pleading guilty to charges of assault, unlawfully having a firearm and driving while disqualified.

Loud clapping erupted from supporters in the public gallery in Masterton District Court as Ronald Charles Peacock was sentenced to home detention.

The 42-year-old of Carterton, who had been remanded in custody since he threw a loaded sawn-off firearm out of his car window after assaulting a rival associate's adult daughter, previously pleaded guilty to charges of assault, unlawful possession of a firearm and driving while disqualified.

Lawyer Michael Bott said there was a background of "long extensive provocation and harassment" between his client and the victim's father and argued home detention was an appropriate one as his client was making positive changes.

"There are strong mitigating circumstances ... He is changing his lifestyle. The prospects are encouraging," he said.

Judge Barbara Morris said it was dangerous for Peacock to have thrown a loaded rifle onto the street.

"The gun could have gone off."

She said Peacock had a significant history of violent offending but was tackling his drug addiction and was in a positive supportive relationship.

There were positive steps Peacock was making, she added.

Peacock was sentenced to four months' home detention with six months' special conditions to follow.

"There has been nothing with violence since 2011 ... because of the promise you hold ... the steps you have taken, the support of your wife and your motivation to change, this is not the normal sentence."

As Peacock walked from the dock the public gallery erupted with loud clapping from a large number of his supporters.

Judge Barbara Morris needs to be informed forthwith that she was deceived if she was informed that Peacock had no convictions for violent offences since 2011 because that is not the case.

Peacock bashed a woman right outside the Court and followed her inside threatening her after he almost broke her nose, looking to bash her and intimidate her a bit further on 19 February 2014 - while he was on bail for 'allegedly' being caught by Police in possession of knives and pistols.

Peacock is well known in the community as a gutless wonder who attacks and assaults women who he believes are related in some way with the real target of his homicidal rage, Mr Harris.  Too scared to pick on someone his own size (and Mr Harris is half the size of Ronald Peacock anyway) - Ronald gets to work out at the taxpayer's expense as he languishes in jail at Her Majesty's pleasure, fed and housed by you and I, and training daily in the gym - since he cut off his home detention electronic monitoring device repeatedly after Judge Barbara Morris let him off with a slap on the wrist in the erroneous belief that he had no convictions since 2011!

The victim enters the Court after being punched in the face by Ronald Peacock, after being advised by a lawyer to collect papers from the Court regarding a private prosecution of Peacock for an earlier attack, after Police continue to corruptly refuse to charge him, despite charging the victim of one of Peacock's earlier serious assaults on the basis of the most ridiculous "statement" I have ever read.  

Peacock chased the terrified victim, who is covered in blood, inside after punching her in the face.

Peacock continues to attack the victim in the Court house.

Peacock assaults the woman again, raising his fist as he threatens her.

Staff shout for the Court security guards and Police as the attacker continues his assault.

Court security guards finally intervene, and a short time later detain Peacock till Police arrive.  The fat bald fellow on the right is Phil Patterson,  husband of Masterton Mayor Lyn Patterson.  Police protected yn Patterson after she was involved in the fraud at the former Carterton Community Centre during her employment at the Carterton District Council, and she and her husband were rewarded with new jobs, as Mayor and Court bailiff  respectively.

A witness corroborated the evidence given by the victim of the knife attack, not to mention the evidence of the offender - who stated that he'd gone to the address to confront a person  who he mistakenly believed was involved in allegedly sending some anonymous letter to the offender's doctor.

Peacock assaulted the victim with a large knife and a motor vehicle on 8 January 2014 in Clifton Avenue in Carterton, the evidence in that matter certainly met the Solicitor General's guidelines for Prosecution as stated in the letter to Police from Ian Hard, despite the claims by Police to the contrary.

No surprises that Peacock was represented by slimy, bent, politically ambitious lawyer Michael Bott. 

Who exactly informed Judge Barbara Morris that Peacock had no convictions for violence since 2011?  Just who are the Police and the Court staff protecting, because it seems to be the violent offenders and their families and associates rather than the victims.

The so called 'justice system' has just sunk to a new low and so have the New Zealand Police - the evidence is absolutely indisputable.  Ronald Peacock and members of the local Police force are fond of repeating the phrase "Lee Harris is a nark" ad infinitum - we think it is indisputably obvious who the local nark is and it's not Mr Harris.  

It is also indisputably obvious that the statements made by Ronald and Melissa Peacock contain deliberate untruths and are a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice, as well as strongly indicating the effects of heavy methamphetamine use, such as violence, paranoia and aggression.

It is unbelievable that Police saw fit to record either Melissa Peacock's statement about her 'freaking out' about Mr Harris inadvertently driving into a merging lane near her ( - not to mention the potentially perjurous allegations contained in the statements made to Police by her and her new husband, especially the one about Mr Harris driving like a madman and overtaking her and a non existent ambulance repeatedly despite being proven a liar in the Court) - or the rambling 'statement to Police' made by Ronald Peacock on 27 February 2014 - the day the news report about his assault on the victim at the Court was published.

The record of the Court transcript also makes it crystal clear that Mr Harris, to his credit, bears no ill will whatsoever toward Mr Peacock's wife - despite her deliberately making a false complaint to Police against him, and wasting his time and the time of the Police and the Court on her abject nonsense and blatant lies.

Meanwhile the editor of the local paper pontificates as if anyone gives a flying fox about his ignorant, self focused, ill informed, Johnny-come-lately 'opinion'