POLICE SHOULD CHARGE COLIN CRAIG WITH PERJURY RE COURT’S FINDING OF PERJURY
POLICE SHOULD CHARGE COLIN CRAIG WITH PERJURY RE COURT’S FINDING OF PERJURY
Colin Craig will not stop re-victimising Rachel MacGregor despite three courts (one jury and two judges) having found he sexually harassed her. Justice Kit Toogood found Mr Craig perjured himself in relation to editing a document which related to the harassment (refer paragraphs 92 to 101)
THE NZ POLICE SHOULD CHARGE COLIN CRAIG WITH PERJURY
CIV-2015-404-1923  NZHC 2712
 Mr Craig said in his evidence in chief that, when he wrote to Ms McGregor in February 2012, he relied on the one-page document to prepare the corresponding part of the letter. He acknowledged that he did not give the one-page note to Ms McGregor at any time. As Mr Henry exposed in his cross-examination, however, Mr Craig's attempt to promote the one-page "Things I am Doing" document as a precursor to the 7 February 2012 letter was patently false.
 I set out the one-page document in full:
Things I am Doing
Following on from the above here are the things that I am doing to ensure our relationship is constructive and appropriate. My own little action plan if you like (pretty much all as already discussed with you):
Texting only for work.
Limitation of time we are alone i.e. not nights or weekends.
When I think of you I pray for you.
Giving you a massage/hug when you want one. In your words it's "comforting".
Encouraging you to seek God and be close to him. Making our relationship focus on good and holy things. Praying together.
Encouraging you to be a supporter and helper of my wife Helen. This is actually a lot to ask ‒ I realize that. But again love is not self- seeking and if you help strengthen and build my marriage then you are doing good not evil. If/when you are married and if things don’t change (i.e. you haven’t moved away) I would likewise be a supporter and encourager of your marriage.
 I repeat the corresponding points 1, 3 and 4 in the February 2012 letter. The italicised wording below does not appear in the one-page note:
1. Texting only for work. Ouch this hurts ‒ I like texting you. OK question - is it exciting to get texts from me or is it just blah?? Why do I find texts from you exciting?
When I think of you (which is more often than I have admitted too!) I pray for you. If I love you, then I want the best for you, the best for you is God's plan.
Giving you a massage/hug when you want one (most work days LOL). My theory here is that it's better than going cold turkey with no Rach contact at all (Perish the thought�). In your words it's "comforting".
 I regard the italicised portions of the February 2012 letter as being commentary by Mr Craig which indicate that, although he set out suggested rules of conduct for the future, he wanted Ms MacGregor to know that he retained a romantic interest in her. That was consistent with other parts of the letter.
 It is clear from the formatting of the one-page note that Mr Craig had produced it by copying and pasting, and then editing, the “action plan” from an electronic copy of the February 2012 letter. First, unlike any of the other five points in the note, the numeral “1.” in the first point in the note has a blue typeface. That corresponds with the blue typeface for the second and third sentences in the first point in the February 2012 letter which are in the form of questions for Ms MacGregor to answer. Mr Craig explained in the letter that he had used blue typeface for questions he posed “for ease of reading”. None of the other numerals nor any of the contents of the one-page note are typed in blue.
 Second, the one-page document begins, under the heading, with the sentence:
Following on from the above here are the things I am doing to ensure our relationship is constructive and appropriate.
That introductory sentence only makes sense when it appears in the same position, under the section heading, in the letter. It is an obvious reference to the preceding paragraphs of the letter; there is no preceding content in the note.
 The one-page note is consistent with the representation of Mr Craig's position set out in the Chapman Tripp letter of 13 March 2015 to Ms MacGregor's solicitors, in response to Ms MacGregor’s allegations of sexual harassment. The Chapman Tripp letter sets out the six action points without any of the embellishments that appeared in the February 2012 letter. Mr Craig confirmed, when pressed by Mr Henry, that his lawyers relied upon the contents of the note to demonstrate to Ms MacGregor’s solicitors that Mr Craig had taken steps after the election night incident to put boundaries around personal contact with Ms MacGregor. Mr Craig claimed, however, that he no longer held a copy of the February 2012 letter on his computer by the time Ms MacGregor told him of her complaint to the Human Rights Commission. He said he did not have a copy of the February 2012 letter on his computer in March 2015 when he sent the one-page version of the “action plan” to his solicitors in response to Ms MacGregor’s detailed allegations.
 There was no basis for Mr Craig to assert in the Agreed Bundle of Documents that he had prepared the note on 21 November 2011; that date is five days before the election date. Under cross-examination, Mr Craig first said that the document was prepared in November 2011 but not on the 21st of that month. He then suggested that it may have been prepared on the 21st day of the 12th month, not the 11th. It was only when Mr Henry pointed out the implications of the blue numeral 1 and the preamble “Following on from the above” in the one-page note that Mr Craig conceded he had taken the material for the one-page document from an electronic copy of the February 2012 letter at some later stage and edited it.
 I observed Mr Craig’s demeanour closely while he was being questioned about these matters, and noted his evasiveness and prevarication until it became untenable for him to maintain his earlier positions. I reject as deliberately untrue Mr Craig’s evidence that he did not have an electronic copy of the February 2012 letter in March 2015. He referred to it in his letter to Ms MacGregor on 22 October 2012, saying he had reread it, so he must have had a copy then. Mr Craig acknowledged he did not give the one-page note to Ms MacGregor at any time so there was no reason for him to prepare that edited version after February 2012 other than to give it to Chapman Tripp. It is highly probable that he prepared the one-page document he gave to his solicitors by copying and pasting an edited version of the action plan from the
electronic copy of the February 2012 letter he retained, to give the appearance that he had communicated a bare statement of conduct rules to Ms MacGregor, without the compromising embellishments.
 Having reached the conclusion that Mr Craig had an electronic copy of the February 2012 letter in his possession in March 2015, I infer that he did not disclose the letter to his solicitors because its contents tend to support the allegation of sexual harassment. He is likely to have felt encouraged to withhold it because it was not referred to in the detailed letter Ms MacGregor’s solicitors Gallaway Cook Allen sent to Chapman Tripp on 18 February 2015. Given its significance, and the references in the Gallaway Cook Allen to the other letters Mr Craig sent Ms MacGregor, I conclude that she overlooked it because she did not possess a copy of it in March 2015, having given it to a friend, Mr Jordan Williams, in November 2014. I have no doubt that, had Ms MacGregor not forgotten about it, it would have received close attention in her lawyers’ letter.