MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Offender Anita Killeen Gets Special Treatment

Filed under: Boys / Youth / Education,Gender Politics,General,Law & Courts — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 8:39 pm Tue 18th December 2012

You might have come across this case last week in which a former Chief Prosecutor for the Serious Fraud Office was nicely discharged without conviction after pleading guilty to forgery charges for which she could have been jailed for up to 10 years. She was also given special treatment during the trial. A complaint was made to the NZ Law Society about this but nobody seems to have mentioned the obvious, that aside from being a lawyer the next most important factor in her special treatment will have been the pussy pass. The Ministry of Men’s Affairs has asked the Law Society to investigate the role of her gender in how amazingly well she was treated (see below). You see, on the Law Society’s web page it displays an item asserting that it opposes “any gender discrimination” , in relation to objections by a female lawyer that the Hawke’s Bay branch Christmas social was to be held at the premises of a club that allowed only male members. Well, let’s see if the Law Society is true to its word, or if it really meant that it opposes any gender discrimination except that favouring women or disadvantaging men. The Ministry of Men’s Affairs also issued a media release about this (see below), and as usual all media appeared to have binned it. Anything inconsistent with feminism just ain’t sexy enough huh?

Then today we see an other quite unbelievable example of the pussy pass in action. This female teacher seriously tried to organize, through a student, the kneecapping of her male principal (by some man of course). No worries to our Courts, she was given diversion and discharged without conviction! The Teacher’s Council has also decided she’s quite fit and proper to be teaching our kids again. Can this really be happening?


PO Box 13130, Tauranga 3141
[email protected]

13 December 2012

Paul Byers
Legal Standards Officer
NZ Law Society
PO Box 5041
Sent via email to [email protected] and [email protected]

Dear Mr Byers

Re: Apparent special treatment of criminal offender Anita Killeen

We understand that a complaint has been made concerning the special treatment Ms Killeen received during “sentencing’ for serious forgery offences that she admitted.

The Ministry of Men’s Affairs, an NGO existing to protect the interests of men and fathers because successive NZ governments have failed to do so, requests that in investigating the special treatment shown towards Ms Killeen, the NZ Law Society also investigates the role of her gender.

New Zealand research published in the prestigious international journal Criminology previously proved pro-female gender discrimination in Court sentencing (Jeffries et al, 2003) but no attempt has ever been made to address this disparity.

It is obvious to an ever-increasing number of men and women that New Zealand’s criminal justice system frequently continues to show bias in favour of female offenders. The men’s political movement refers to this phenomenon as the “pussy pass’.

Sentencing bias favouring women (conversely, discriminating against men) is almost always apparent and often blatantly so. For example, just over the last few weeks we have seen the following examples in which women were treated more leniently by juries or judges than men would have been for the same crimes:

Judge rejects Hawke’s remorse

Extortionist stripper sentenced to community work

Woman found not guilty of murdering partner

Bigamist sentenced over insurance scam

Fake Apple trader lucky to avoid jail

Booze crash mum avoids jail

Men’s movement web blogs in New Zealand have frequently commented on gender bias in sentencing as well as in judges’ comments and news reporting concerning female offenders when compared with that for male offenders. I attach herewith a range of cases commented on at various sporadic times over recent years.

The Ministry of Men’s Affairs does not necessarily call for harsher treatment of women but it does want gender equality. In many cases there would be justification for showing similar levels of understanding and mercy towards men as is typically shown towards women, while in other cases female offenders clearly deserve much greater accountability.

The NZ Law Society has on its web site a current news release titled “Law Society opposes any gender discrimination’. This release was in response to the objection by a female lawyer to a Law Society social event being held at the premises of a club that allowed only male members. The release expressed a hope that the club might be persuaded to change its policy about male-only membership. The Ministry of Men’s Affairs is concerned that the Law Society’s claimed opposition to gender discrimination never appears to have been supported by any action or expression of concern regarding discrimination in favour of female defendants and offenders, gender bias in the Family Court, ongoing gender bias in a number of laws including “Male Assaults Female’ and “Infanticide’, or about numerous women-only organizations and services such as gymnasiums, domestic violence shelters and businesswomen’s groups.

The Ministry of Men’s Affairs urges the NZ Law Society to demonstrate that its claim of opposing any gender discrimination is more than a hollow slogan that simply supports women’s concerns, by
(i) investigating the role of gender bias in the Court’s treatment of Ms Killeen, and
(ii) monitoring and commenting on the almost ubiquitous favouring of women in our justice system.

Yours faithfully

Kerry Bevin
Programmes Manager
Ministry of Men’s Affairs

Copy to: David Lloyd-Barker via email to [email protected]


Jeffries S, Fletcher GJ, Newbold G (2003). Pathways to sex-based differentiation in criminal court sentencing. Criminology 41(2), 329-354


PO Box 13130, Tauranga 3141
[email protected]

Contact Kerry Bevin (09)4247762 or Hans Laven (0274)799745

13 December 2012


Gender Discrimination Alleged in Sentencing

Community group The Ministry of Men’s Affairs has asked the NZ Law Society to investigate whether gender discrimination led to special treatment of a former top barrister and prosecutor in the Auckland District Court this week. Anita Killeen pleaded guilty to forgery offences for which she could have been jailed for up to ten years, but at sentencing she was allowed special privileges in the Court and then was discharged without conviction.

Research by Professor Greg Newbold and others at the University of Canterbury has previously shown that women typically are treated more leniently than men by NZ Courts. According to spokesman for the Ministry of Men’s Affairs, Kerry Bevin, nothing has ever been done to address this gender inequality.

Mr Bevin said “The Law Society has a current release on its web site claiming that it opposes any gender discrimination. Well, the Society now has the opportunity to demonstrate its claim by investigating and speaking up about the amazingly lenient treatment Ms Killeen has enjoyed.”

Mr Bevin also challenged the Law Society to speak up against ongoing gender discrimination in some laws such as Male Assaults Female and Infanticide, and against women-only clubs and services. He said the Society had encouraged a club in Hawke’s Bay to change its men-only membership rule, and he questioned why nothing was said about women-only gyms, domestic violence shelters and businesswomen clubs.

Mr Bevin emphasized that The Ministry of Men’s Affairs does not necessarily call for harsher treatment of female offenders but it does want gender equality. “In many cases there would be justification for showing similar levels of understanding and mercy towards men as is typically shown towards women, while in some other cases female criminals clearly deserve much greater accountability.”


  1. Good story on the kneecapping teacher. Did you find out which charity accepted the $150 donation? – White Ribbon perhaps.

    Comment by Down Under — Wed 19th December 2012 @ 8:42 am

  2. I don’t recall seeing any references in MENZ to the female Hastings lawyer, Sacha Maria Beacham. 3 drink driving offences and only a mere $1,200 fine and 9 months loss of license.

    The case is covered here:

    And just to round off a fine piece of new zealand justarse; the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal decided by “a fine margin” to censure and suspend the former Hawke’s Bay lawyer for two years rather than strike her off completely.

    This girl was really on a roll; seems she wasn’t too happy with the way the police treated her when apprehended. A bit of foul language, refusing to be handcuffed and stripping herself naked in front of officers only cost her $ 200.

    I’m seriously considering going to law school; oh wait I don’t have mammary glands.

    Comment by Bruce S — Wed 19th December 2012 @ 8:48 am

  3. if anyone finds themselves on the wrong side of the law youll have an endless amount of cases to refer to receive as lenient a sentence

    Comment by Ford — Wed 19th December 2012 @ 3:43 pm

  4. …and now; a nominee for the “white ribbon poster girl of the year” award. Surely Natalie van Breugel, (or for the benefit of the google search engine, Natalie Reader) has to be at least a podium contender. The wee dear didn’t like the idea that her partner du jour, Lance Bain, had decided to sell of a supposedly jointly owned vehicle. So in the words of our intrepid herald reporter ….” Van Breugel struck Mr Bain repeatedly with the mallet, hitting him in the arms, torso and legs and left him with bruises on his arms and his left leg. Later that day the argument continued and it was loud enough for neighbours to call police. Mr Bain got in his car to leave van Breugel’s place and she thumped on the window with her fist and yelled something like: “Open the door you f***ing bastard, I am going to kill you…” ”

    Anyway; the mallet wounds became infected and Lance Bain ended up dying. Natalie van Breugel was originally charged with manslaughter which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

    However, at her brief appearance at the High Court at Auckland today, the Crown downgraded the charge to injuring with intent to injure which has a maximum of seven years in prison.

    The 45-year-old pleaded guilty to the charge and will be sentenced in March.

    Full story here:

    Croquet anyone?

    Comment by Bruce S — Fri 21st December 2012 @ 3:38 pm

  5. Thanks for that one Bruce S. Bets are open for the sentence. My bet: The crime has a maximum of 7 years jail, the pussy pass will knock at least a third off that so that brings it down to about 4.5 years max. The pussy pass will also mean that provocation is taken into account, so provocation will knock about half off again, bringing it to 2.25 years (after all, any woman would be severely provoked if a mere male partner did something without her permission). She may well claim that she was abused emotionally or financially by the deceased, that will be believed immediately without any need for evidence, and that will halve it again to 1.12 years. The judge will then reduce it a bit more to allow home detention, so my prediction is 9 months home detention. However, it may well be considerably less than that. After all, it’s only a male who is dead, she actually did the women of NZ a favour, award her a special ceremonial white ribbon for her sterling efforts.

    Comment by Luther Blissett — Sat 22nd December 2012 @ 8:39 pm

  6. wow that story also said he used to be rich until divorce, funny that he didn’t see the light and stay sinlge?

    feel sorry for him, there mustn’t be any evidence about the mallet cauing the injuries becuase you all know if it was a man hitting it would be LIFE!

    shes not even going to end up in jail, just home detention and isn’t that what she did as a job anyway house wife?

    Comment by To Tired... — Sat 22nd December 2012 @ 9:13 pm

  7. Drunk in charge of a car with two children on board would not be tolerated.

    Drunk in charge of a house with two children inside which catches fire from an overturned heater while you’re passed out on the footpath is no crime.

    “I cannot be satisfied that she failed to take reasonable steps to protect the children from burns,” Judge Harrop said.

    “I acknowledge, of course, her high level of intoxication, which put both herself and her children at significant risk, and she is properly criticised for that.”

    However, he said it did not follow from such negligent parenting that she was in breach of her duty to take reasonable steps to protect the children from injury.

    “While she may well have created the risk, that does not mean she may not then have taken sufficient steps to remove the boys from the risk.”

    It will be interesting to see what comments turn up on stuff on this article. Something for the Glenn Inquiry to have a look at.

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 8:39 am

  8. Madness! If that had been a father he would have been named and shamed and got the 10 years sentence and wouldn’t be allowed to see his boys. If a man sneezes and his ex takes offense, that is enough for the courts to eject him from his kids lives. When are all the excuses for women going to stop?

    Comment by Scott B — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 8:44 am

  9. This is precisely why you wouldn’t get anywhere with the domestic violence industry running the Glen Inquiry.

    Look at the Judges thinking. It is not just an unattended heater in a house. The Judge limits the woman’s responsibility to ensuring that the children do not burn themselves because they have a heater in their bedroom.

    She is in charge of the house, the children and the heater but he declines to make her accountable for ensuring their safety. If children who cannot rationalise that a heater is burning a carpet how could they rationalise that smoke inhalation might kill them.

    This is a woman passed out on the street from alcohol abuse with a heater knocked over, a carpet on fire and neighbours rescuing the children – they could have died.

    The neighbours are congratulated for their effort but the mother is given name suppression and she is even applying for discharge without conviction after obstructing the police from entering the house.

    This name suppression is of course to protect the children.

    This is absolute rubbish. Will there be an appeal from Police on this decision?

    Comment by Down Under — Mon 10th June 2013 @ 9:40 am


    Kitto is serving a jail sentence of two years and three months after being convicted of four separate fraud charges in May, which automatically prohibited her from holding a real estate licence for 10 years.

    However the tribunal formally cancelled her licence and ordered that she must never be “employed or engaged again in connection with real estate agency work”.

    This makes me wonder if some women are being treated differently by the legal system because they are the legal system.

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 3rd September 2013 @ 5:22 pm

  11. In other words are ‘women’s problems’ only an excuse for legal workers and women in the family court?

    Comment by Downunder — Tue 3rd September 2013 @ 5:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar