Home | 32 GOOD COPS »
The policeman’s payout
Nov 22, 2008
Asking the question doesn’t mean you will get the answer. At least not for a very long time.
“Mr Rickards was paid his contractual entitlements, comprising salary and outstanding leave entitlements. The settlement sum comprised approximately $90,000 for leave entitlements and approximately $210,000 in salary entitlements. In total $300,000 was paid (less PAYE).”
That’s it, the result of a question the Herald asked Police HQ under the Official Information Act one year ago.
We wanted to report the details of the departure deal the police struck with its disgraced Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards.
The police refused to answer, citing “private information about employees and individual employment matters”.
The police acknowledged that they had not taken into account an earlier ruling by the Ombudsman that provided something of a precedent - ordering that the Fire Service Commission reveal what it paid departing Fire Service boss Jean Martin in 2000. But that made no difference, the information still wouldn’t be revealed.
That Rickards was facing 11 internal disciplinary charges (including alleged sexual misconduct, his public condemnation of the police team that charged him in two rape cases - in which he was acquitted - and his public support of former colleagues convicted of rape) might serve to heighten public interest in transparency and accountability in the process.
We pursued the question of his secret payout via a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman, who last week told the police and Rickards that her final ruling was that the public interest outweighed privacy considerations and ordered the police to provide the information.
It was a view also shared by the Privacy Commissioner, whose opinion was considered along with those of the police and Rickards in the course of the Ombudsman’s review.
The result of that long process was the two sentences above, which reveal the bare minimum of detail.
Not explained, for example, was that the police paid out the remainder of Rickards’ contract - 13 months salary, plus holiday pay (he had already received about $500,000 while stood down on full pay). Or, that this was paid as a result of an apparent flaw in his employment contract enabling him to push to be paid out the full term.
This appears to be a significant oversight on the part of police.
In her decision upholding the Herald’s complaint, Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem says: “My understanding is that fixed-term employment agreements in the public sector should incorporate measures (such as limited notice periods) to minimise the exposure of the agency to large liabilities in the event of early termination.”
“I have reviewed Mr Rickards’ employment contract, and I have not identified any such provision,” Wakem wrote. “If, as a result, he is entitled to a payment equivalent to 13 months’ salary, then there is a very substantial public interest in the police being publicly accountable for this situation and the financial exposure that has resulted.”
However, police head of human resources, Wayne Annan, yesterday told the Weekend Herald that there was a three-month clause in Rickards’ contract but that Rickards circumvented this by tendering his resignation with a departure date 13 months away.
That left police with the option of keeping him on the payroll and accruing holiday pay, or paying out his contract. Police could have continued the disciplinary process under the first option but with no guarantee it would be completed by the resignation date.
The Herald understands the omission has been amended and the contracts of senior police now include a notice period of three months. Under these terms, the salary due to Rickards on resignation would’ve been $48,459 (instead of $210,000), reducing his total payout from $300,000 to to $131,541.
It’s impossible to know whether this played a part in the police’s refusal to release the information.
But in her submission to the Ombudsman on the Rickards matter, Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff raises the topic by quoting the then attorney-general, David Macdonald from a 2002 report titled Severance Payments in the Public Sector.
“For many”, Macdonald said, “secrecy is evidence of public officials having something to hide. Indeed, if an employer has been at fault in its conduct leading up to or during a dispute, it should be accountable for that.”
Wakem says ordering the details of Rickards payment was not a difficult decision. “As a general rule, it is in the public interest for the public to know how public money is being used.”
She noted that Dr Mark Prebble, former State Services Commission head, had cautioned state chief executives about entering confidentiality agreements with senior staff because of the public interest in how public money is spent.
Rickards was a senior official, his payment was no more than was required under his contract and “apart from his feelings, which were outweighed by the public interest, there was no good reason to withhold [the information].” Which leaves the effect the settlement had in stopping the disciplinary process. How does the public know the disciplinary process wasn’t used as a tool in negotiating the departure of a problem staff member? The short answer is we don’t.
We tried asking the police to explain the rationale for agreeing to an arrangement whereby the disciplinary process on charges unprecedented for an Assistant Commissioner, and therefore clearly of high public interest, was stopped.
Claiming that Rickards’ resignation left police with no choice wouldn’t cut it. Employment law specialist Peter Cullen told the Herald it would be unusual if police were locked into such a position. “I believe that there would have been a negotiated exit agreement and I’d be surprised if there weren’t other options.”
In answer to the question, Deputy Police Commissioner Lyn Provost said: “Mr Rickards was no longer an employee therefore internal disciplinary charges could no longer continue.”
Was discontinuing the internal charges raised in negotiations which resulted in Rickards’ resignation?
We asked the question but we didn’t get the answer.
Provost: “Mr Rickards was facing an internal disciplinary process at the time of his resignation.”
News of Rickards’ payment didn’t please former Inspector Roger Honan, who led inquiries into the alleged disciplinary breaches. He told a reporter he was told by police management Rickards would get nothing but his superannuation.
Nor did it please a woman who was to have testified at the disciplinary hearing. She told the Dominion-Post that Deputy Commissioner Provost had assured her Rickards had not got a pay out. It may be semantics that what was meant was that Rickards did not get a pay out beyond what his contract dictated.
We tried, unsuccessfully, to clarify the point with the Deputy Commissioner but was told she “has no response to the public comments by the woman”.
“Mrs Provost is happy to talk to the individual concerned to clarify any misunderstandings.”
RICKARDS’ LEAVING PACKAGE
* Leave entitlements: $90,000
* Salary entitlements: approximately $210,000
Timeline of a destroyed reputation
The events which destroyed Clint Rickards’ 28-year police career stretch back two decades.
In 1986, Rotorua teenager Louise Nicholas, 18, was allegedly raped and violated by three police officers. The men named were Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum.
The claims were investigated in 1993, and despite severe criticism over police handling of the investigation, were subsequently shelved. Rickards’ career progressed and he rose through the ranks to become Auckland’s top police officer and then assistant commissioner.
In early 2004 the Nicholas claims became public and Rickards, Shipton and Schollum went to court. They faced a second trial for allegedly kidnapping and indecently assaulting a then 16-year-old girl. They were acquitted in both cases but Schollum and Shipton were sentenced for the pack rape of a young woman in Mt Manganui in 1989.
Suspended on full pay, Rickards began studying law at the University of Auckland four years ago. He has now qualified, though the New Zealand Law Society said it “agonised” over whether to allow him to practise law.
In this year’s Reader’s Digest Trust Survey, Rickards beat convicted murderer Scott Watson for last place. The former police officer claimed 85th spot. Watson - currently serving a life sentence for the New Year’s Eve 1997 killing of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope - was 84th.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Secret witness payouts slammed
Dec 12, 2001 6:22 PM
The lawyer for Christopher Lewis, the man who was accused of murdering Tania Furlan in her Auckland home, says he is appalled that a man later convicted of another murder was paid to give evidence against his client.
Lewis killed himself before being tried for the 1996 killing of Furlan.
The Court of Appeal has now lifted suppression orders, revealing that the police paid Travis Burns to be a secret witness for the prosecution.
Burns was later convicted of murdering Joanne McCarthy in her home at Whangapaora, north of Auckland.
Lawyer David Jones, who represented Lewis, says he cannot believe Burns was paid $30,000 to give evidence against his client.
Jones says before his death, Lewis always claimed that Burns had killed Tania Furlan, and he says he wonders why Burns was paid when he had initially volunteered to give evidence against Lewis.
Shocking and identical murders
In two murders which shocked the nation, the two Auckland mothers, Joanne McCarthy and Tania Furlan, were bludgeoned to death in their homes within two years of each other.
The violent murder of Furlan, 27, remains one of New Zealand’s most intriguing criminal mysteries.
In 1996 Furlan was bashed to death at her Howick home and her baby daughter was abducted and dumped 18 kilometres away.
Initially police thought a deranged woman had killed Furlan to kidnap her baby.
But they dropped that theory when Burns told them his old jail mate, Lewis, was boasting of the murder.
Superintendent Nick Perry says the evidence that Burns provided then gave “a very valuable lead in terms of who was responsible for the murder of Tania Furlan.”
By this time police were offering a $50,000 reward for information leading to Furlan’s killer and they decided to pay Burns $30,000 for his help.
Lewis committed suicide in jail before he went on trial, but he had maintained it was in fact Burns who was Furlan’s killer.
Burns murder suspicion turns tables
Police were forced to test the theory that Burns was the real killer of Furlan when he himself was arrested and eventually convicted of the murder of McCarthy.
They set up a special review to investigate Burns’ role in the Furlan case.
“It was important that we ensured there was no link between Travis Burns and the Furlan murder, and the review was conducted on that basis,” Perry says.
Burns’ role in the Furlan case and the police payment to him has been suppressed for four years. But the Court of Appeal says it is an exceptional case and the media has the right to investigate.
However, police are adamant they got the right man.
“Based on the evidence that we had then and the evidence that we have now, I’m quite happy that Chris Lewis was the offender in respect of the Tania Furlan murder,” Perry says.
The review police are conducting is not yet signed off, but Perry says there is more evidence today against Lewis than when police first arrested him, and he says alibis Lewis presented at the time were false.
Lewis was awaiting trial for Furlan’s murder when he took his own life. He had confessed to a long and violent criminal career and had also admitted an attempt on the Queen’s life in 1981.
But despite his record he steadfastly professed his innocence of the Furlan killing, claiming that the culprit was Burns. However, Burns told police Lewis was Furlan’s killer.
After a specially-commissioned re-investigation, police did not charge Burns with Furlan’s murder.
Contentious evidence
Pivotal in the police case against Lewis were prints from his highly unusual pair of running shoes, found at the Furlan murder scene. Police identified one shoe as belonging to Lewis.
Former 60 Minutes director David Lomas visited Lewis in Mount Eden Prison while preparing for a story.
He said Lewis was pretty adamant that Burns had basically set him up.
Also crucial to the police case against Lewis were pen imprints on a piece of paper: a note in Lewis’ scrawl outlining his plans to kidnap Tania Furlan and demand a ransom from her husband Victor.
But one factor which did bring Burns under police suspicion was the similarity between the killing of McCarthy, for which he was found guilty, and the fatal bashing of Furlan. Both victims were home alone with young children and both were bludgeoned to death with a hammer.
The publisher of a book on Lewis, journalist Ian Wishart, also visited Lewis while he awaited trail for Furlan’s murder.
He has strong opinions on Burns’ involvement. Wishart claims Burns boasted to a third party that he had killed Tania Furlan.
“He described it as being a ‘thrill kill’ and he had… got a kick out of it… lo and behold another women is brutally murdered in exactly the same way and the police claim ‘gee coincidence’,” Wishart says.
“Doesn’t wash, it really doesn’t,” he says.
Burns was ordered to spend a minimum of 15 years in jail for McCarthy’s murder.
Furlan’s family moved to Australia several years ago and are now based in Canberra.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Christchurch cold case reopened
29/05/2008
The Chief Coroner has reopened a Christchurch cold-case from 1996.
Judge Neil MacLean plans to hold an inquest into the death of Barry Coleman, who fell down the stairs of Wicked Willies nightclub on Christmas Day 1996 and died two days later.
The nightclub’s owner Greg Mather was initially charged with his murder. That charge was later dropped to manslaughter, then to obstruction.
A High Court judge ruled the investigation had not been conducted in a reasonable and proper manner and awarded Mr Mather costs. Police later paid him compensation, the amount of which has never been made public. He then moved to Australia.
Judge MacLean says the case came up during a review of deaths and he expects it will be heard before the end of the year.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Policeman’s conduct ‘truly outrageous’
01 November 2008
A judge has slammed the “truly outrageous” conduct of a Christchurch police officer who elbowed a man three times in the face while he was handcuffed in a patrol car.
Judge Colin Doherty said Constable Nathan Connolly committed a “gratuitous assault” and awarded $5000 to victim Steven Fredericks.
Fredericks, 23, of Taylorville, and friend Ronnie McGee were driving out of Revingtons Hotel, in Greymouth, on September 8, 2005, when the incident occurred.
Leaving the carpark about 10.30pm, they were stopped by a police patrol, which included Connolly. McGee took a breath test, which he failed.
Although the judge found McGee was “obstreperous” during the incident, he concluded Fredericks was a “reticent and relatively subdued personality”.
Earlier this month, the Greymouth District Court heard that Connolly tried to get Fredericks out of the car and a scuffle developed which ended with him being handcuffed on the ground and then put in the police car.
As Connolly put the seatbelt on Fredericks, the officer elbowed him in the face, the judge found.
“(Fredericks) described three separate blows, each of them deliberately aimed and applied; the last of them appearing to have particular thought put into it by Constable Connolly,” the judge wrote in his judgment.
“Constable Connolly was in my view frustrated and wanted to teach the plaintiff a lesson because of his earlier resistance. His conduct carried with it a sense of retribution; of reinforced arrogance.”
The judge said “right-minded people” would find these actions “abhorrent”.
Connolly denied he hit Fredericks and a fellow officer said he had not seen anything “untoward”.
The judge said the case came down to one man’s word against the other’s, but that Fredericks’ evidence had “the ring of truth about it”.
“On the other hand I think Constable Connolly downplayed his role in the matter.”
A doctor said the injuries to Fredericks’ face were consistent with being hit in the eye socket and nose.
Fredericks’ co-counsel Jonathan McCarthy said the judgment gave him the “greatest confidence in our justice system”.
Since the incident, Connolly has moved to Christchurch. The Press was told yesterday that he was taking “extended leave”.
Police spokesman Jon Neilson said the case was still “in the court process in terms of a right of appeal”. The officer was being dealt with under a human resources employment process.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Police crash inquiry not acceptable: judge
20 September 2008
A judge has criticised police for its handling of a crash investigation involving an Alexandra man who was later cleared of careless driving charges.
Yesterday, Shane Cribb, of Alexandra, was awarded $17,900.45 costs by Judge Stephen O’Driscoll.
Mr Cribb was convicted in March 2006 of careless driving causing injury after a crash on Earnscleugh Rd involving Senior Constable Neil Ford.
Judge O’Driscoll recommended that in the future police prosecutions seek independent expert crash investigators for crashes involving officers.
“The investigation of the crash by the police … was less than satisfactory and not in accordance with best practice.
“There was not an independent investigation of the crash nor was independent evidence provided to the court by the police at the defended hearing,” he said.
Judge O’Driscoll dismissed the charge in the Alexandra District Court in June because a woman who witnessed the crash said the policeman turned in front of Mr Cribb without indicating.
Mr Cribb’s lawyer Russell Checketts sought an order for costs of more than $25,000.
The claim included costs for time spent by people assisting Mr Cribb’s defence and interest incurred by his supporters. However, Judge O’Driscoll said neither were costs incurred by Mr Cribb and could not be awarded.
The $17,900.45 was the actual costs of his defence.
Mr Cribb’s advocate throughout, Steve Potter, had paid the defence costs for Mr Cribb. Mr Cribb had been driving Mr Potter’s daughter’s car at the time of the crash.
“We are happy that we’ve been awarded our legal expenses but we are not happy that we haven’t been given other costs incurred fighting truth and justice,” he said.
He had spent 770 hours working on the case, which he had claimed $10 an hour for and was now considering a civil case.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Acquitted worker wins extra $20,000 in costs
Saturday July 05, 2008
A woman acquitted on a charge of stealing nearly $400,000 from her employer was awarded $20,000 by the Court of Appeal yesterday.
Fay Afato was charged in 2005 with stealing $390,000 from her employer, Travelex. The money had been stolen out of a safe using Ms Afato’s security codes.
Ms Afato and another employee were also apparently filmed on a closed circuit television (CCTV) tape turning off the recording 12 hours before the burglary.
Police charged Ms Afato, who denied any involvement in the crime.
Before the trial, Ms Afato hired a detective who discovered that if the CCTV recording had been viewed in its entirety, it was clear the video recorder had not been turned off as police had thought.
The prosecution accepted the detective’s findings but still elected to take Ms Afato to trial. During the trial it was established Ms Afato’s security codes were not secure and were available to other staff members.
It was also discovered a key used to gain access to the building was one that had been lost by another employee some months earlier.
The presiding judge acquitted Ms Afato of all charges and awarded her $8072.80 to cover costs of hiring the detective.
Ms Afato appealed against the amount of compensation, saying it was inadequate.
In their decision yesterday, Justices William Young, Warwick Gendall and Ronald Young said the pre-trial investigation by Ms Afato established that her actions in relation to the security camera were not suspicious.
Further questioning of witnesses during the trial also established she was not guilty, the justices said. They said a proper police investigation would have revealed there was not sufficient evidence to charge Ms Afato.
The judges awarded Ms Afato $20,000 on top of the $8072.80 already awarded to her.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s a spicy Police Meatball!
Protestor awarded $5,000 after being pepper-sprayed in face
A judge has awarded a protestor $5,000 in compensation after he was pepper-sprayed in the face by police. The judge found that the pepper-spraying of Simon Oosterman at a GE Protest in 2005 was unreasonable and breached police guidelines. The arrest of Mr Oosterman was captured on camera, but he was just out of view when police pepper sprayed him. Mr Oosterman then had to be carried off by police. In awarding Mr Oosterman $5,000, a judge found the actions of the arresting officers were unreasonable and breached the bill of rights. “I wasn’t given warning, it was too close to my eye,” Mr Oosterman says. “Iit should be a metre away. It was 20 centimetres and there were other options that were available for those officers.” The judgement also criticised police for breaching their own guidelines which prohibit the carrying of pepper spray at protests unless there is specific authorisation.
Bah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! And the Judge warned the cops that next time they will be charged with exemplary damages on top of whatever fine they get for misusing pepper spray and that warning comes in the week when Police have to pay out to another person they wrongly pepper sprayed. The Falwasser family should take a private prosecution against the police and make them pay for their abuse of Police powers with his cell block smash down. $5000 – that’s one spicy Police meatball!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Detained pepper-spray victim finally gets $7500 payout
July 02, 2008
The man was taken into police custody before he was pepper-sprayed.
An Auckland man has won a seven-year battle with police after receiving a $7500 payout for being unlawfully detained in police cells, during which time he was pepper-sprayed and needed ambulance treatment.
The man, now 47, admits to having a “chequered past” but has since turned his life around.
He has changed his name, is self-employed and owns his own home on the North Shore - achievements he attributes to an education programme he attended which taught him a trade while serving almost five years in Paremoremo Prison for a charge of grievous bodily harm.
The police payout several weeks ago stems from an incident in Wellington Central Police Station in January 2002 when the man, then known as Seamus McDonnell, reported for his weekly bail check.
Mr McDonnell was on bail awaiting sentencing on five charges of providing police a false driver’s licence after being caught speeding five times.
When he reported to the station on January 2, an error on the police computer system meant the senior sergeant on duty believed Mr McDonnell was meant to be reporting three times a week, and had therefore breached his bail.
Mr McDonnell was taken into police custody, where he was pepper-sprayed. He went into a seizure which resulted in ambulance treatment.
In the ensuing battle, Mr McDonnell’s lawyers sought $25,000 in costs, alleging he had been denied the opportunity to consult a lawyer, unfairly detained, strip-searched, handcuffed and pepper-sprayed.
A police report form from the arresting officer states that Mr McDonnell was advised of his rights and that he “removed all of his clothing without being requested to doso”.
It states Mr McDonnell became aggressive and the police officer, fearing for his safety, used a “long burst” of pepper spray in his face.
Police called an ambulance when they found Mr McDonnell lying on the floor having a seizure, the report said.
The report chastised the courts, saying it was “not satisfactory” staff had not updated Mr McDonnell’s bail reporting conditions.
A brief apology to Mr McDonnell from Assistant Commissioner Jon White, dated March 18 this year, reads in its entirety:
“I acknowledge that lapses in the system for recording bail conditions resulted in you being arrested and detained for breach of your bail reporting conditions on January 2, 2002.
“I acknowledge that you had complied with the condition of bail and regret the interference with your liberty.”
Mr McDonnell, who does not want his new name revealed because he has moved on from his former life, said he was pleased his fight with police was over.
He does not care about not being paid $25,000, saying his battle was not one of money, but principles.
He wants people to know that it is possible to take on the police and win.
“I want people to know that we can get something in the end,” he said.
“I want everyone to see that someone they [police] don’t like can do it.
“One comfort to me is now they know they have to watch out a little bit.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No admission after police payout
Aug 2, 2002
Police have paid thousands of taxpayer dollars in compensation to a former West Coast farmer who was injured during his arrest in 1999.
The armed offenders squad was called to farm land in Reefton because of public safety concerns after Brian Terry objected to a motorcycle gang riding over a section of land he previously owned.
Terry was charged with trespassing and threatening police officers.
After his arrest he was admitted to hospital with broken ribs.
Tasman Area police commander, Inspector Grant O’Fee reviewed the incident and agreed to pay about $20,000 in compensation, although the police admitted no liability.
O’Fee also reopened an investigation into police handling of the incident.
-
Policeman wins his old job back
13 April 2008
An officer who was hounded out of the police and came close to suicide has won reinstatement plus four-and-a-half years’ back pay.
The Employment Court has also ordered the commissioner of police to pay former Taumarunui police sergeant Craig Hawkins $35,000 for hurt and humiliation.
And Judge Coral Shaw has told the police to pay $77,500 towards Hawkins’ legal costs.
Late last year, the judge handed down a damning judgement about the extent of Hawkins’ persecution while at Taumarunui police station.
She said he was forced out of his job following years of pressure.
Judge Shaw found Hawkins quit on medical grounds after bullying from another officer, Detective Sergeant Derek Webb, who is no longer in the force.
The judge also said the former Ruapehu area commander, Inspector Don Allan, now head of the National Bureau of Crime Intelligence, deliberately undermined Hawkins’ position.
In a just-released decision, Judge Shaw ordered Hawkins’ reinstatement as a sergeant in Taumarunui.
He was to receive the back pay, less any earnings during that time, and have the contributions he would have been entitled to during the four and a half years paid into his superannuation fund .
Hawkins left the police in June 2001 but sought reinstatement when assault charges against him were dropped in 2003.
Police had opposed Hawkins’ reinstatement, claiming it wouldn’t be practicable for him to resume his old duties.
But 46-year-old Hawkins, who had been declared medically fit since November 2004, produced police Ten-One magazines that trumpeted four constables who returned to the police after an average of 16 years in civilian life.
Hawkins also said in evidence that his troubles at Taumarunui were now in the past.
Webb and Allan were no longer there and he had no problems with the current senior officers in the area.
The judge said it was accepted Hawkins should undergo retraining to bring him up to date with current practice and procedure.
Awarding $35,000 for hurt and humiliation, Judge Shaw said Hawkins had suffered a mental breakdown.
“At the hearing on remedies, Mr Hawkins said that at the time he `perfed’ he was on the point of considering suicide,” the judge said.
“He was fortunate that his friends rallied around him and took steps to protect him as best they could.”
She said the episode had had a devastating effect on his life.
“He said it was hard to put into words how low he felt during this period.”
The judge said she took into account the “untenable stress” suffered by Hawkins.
“In addition, I take into account the humiliation of the publicly voiced views of Inspector Allan at the time that Mr Hawkins’ situation was being discussed at open meetings at the Taumarunui police station,” she said.
“It was made clear to his colleagues that he had no future in the police and this was also conveyed to Mr Hawkins.
“As a result, Mr Hawkins became suicidal.”
Hawkins’ lawyer Peter Brosnahan said his client would be retraining in the next couple of weeks to be reinstated as a member of the New Zealand police.
“He just wants to get on with being a policeman,” Brosnahan said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Free Dougherty campaign to hit screen
06 April 2008
The campaign to free David Dougherty - jailed for a child kidnapping and rape he did not commit - is about to be transformed into a feature film.
NZ on Air has given $1.35 million to the project, which will screen in TV One’s Sunday Theatre slot.
Until Proven Innocent is the story of Dougherty and the trio who fought for four years in the mid 1990s to have him freed and awarded compensation - Sunday Star-Times deputy editor Donna Chisholm, scientist Arie Geursen and lawyer Murray Gibson.
The campaign was the first case in New Zealand in which DNA was used to free an innocent man from jail. Dougherty was awarded nearly $900,000 compensation in 2000 and in 2002 another man, Nicholas Reekie, was convicted of the crime.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A damning judgement has been handed down on police for allowing one officer to persecute and bully another out of his job - including claims the persecuted sergeant was “fitted up” on criminal charges.
The far-reaching judgment cuts through the highest ranks of the force - and even points the finger at an officer at Police National Headquarters.
Judge Coral Shaw found that former Sergeant Craig Hawkins had been forced out of his job after years of pressure, retiring on medical grounds after “bullying” from a high-ranking officer, former Detective Sergeant Derek Webb.
She also found the then-Ruapehu area commander, Inspector Don Allan, “deliberately set about undermining” Hawkins’ position with the police.
Allan is now head of the National Bureau of Crime Intelligence. Webb has retired from the force.
Judge Shaw implicated both men in the handling of failed assault charges laid against Hawkins which were used to place further pressure on him. She stated that then-police commissioner Rob Robinson “should and would have foreseen” Hawkins’ resignation and the reasons for it.
Hawkins would not comment, but his lawyer Peter Brosnahan of Wanganui said his client was “fully justified” in seeking reinstatement as a police officer.
It is the first of a number of cases expected to come out of management of the Taumarunui police station.
Police headquarters would not comment on the judgment, saying only that an appeal would be lodged.
Central District commander Superintendent Russell Gibson said the station was well-managed and morale was high.
The judgment has led to calls by former senior detective Bryan Rowe for police headquarters or Police Minister Annette King to launch an inquiry. Judge Shaw says seven police officers at the station were counselled by a clinical psychologist because of morale at the station. “There was tension between Detective Sergeant Webb and other staff because of his bullying and intimidation of them,” the judgment reads.
A complaint from a female officer in 1999 led to Detective Inspector Doug Brew being sent from police headquarters in Wellington to investigate problems at the station.
Brew interviewed Hawkins on the promise of confidentiality and was told that Webb “overloaded female staff, that he was a bully and was difficult to work with”.
The judge found that - despite assurances - Brew then told Webb about Hawkins’ concerns. “From then on, Detective Sergeant Webb’s behaviour to Mr Hawkins became even more difficult.” Hawkins was told by a colleague that “Webb was serious about getting him for what he said”.
Hawkins also went to senior officers to report Webb’s behaviour, which led to the area commander, Inspector Allan, being briefed on the problem “at least half a dozen times”.
At the time Hawkins, who was keeping notes, recorded his concern that Allan and Webb would “fit him up”.
In March 2001, an investigation was launched by Inspector Allan into an assault allegation made against Hawkins 12 months earlier.
Allan appointed Webb to carry out the investigation - a move slammed by the judge. The allegation against Hawkins was that he had assaulted two youths being held under arrest at Taumarunui police station.
The allegation was first made in March 2000 and was known of by Allan for a year before the inquiry was launched. It was later thrown out of court because of “credibility problems”.
After Hawkins learned of the inquiry, he fell victim to a stomach ulcer, and was later diagnosed with depression and stress, with ideas of self-harming. He eventually perfed from the police force but not before Allan had told officers at a meeting that Hawkins would not be returning, that he was “surprised he was still in the country” and that “based on the evidence, it would be foolish for Mr Hawkins to defend the [court] charges”.
She found that Hawkins was constructively dismissed through “ongoing betrayal of his trust and confidence” in the police.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New police rules for protesters ‘appalling’
21 November 2007
New police instructions allowing protesters to be moved or blocked from view if they offend a VIP are a breach of freedom-of-speech rights, civil liberties lawyer Tony Ellis says.
New police general instructions were published yesterday alongside a Police Complaints Authority ruling critical of the way police handled pro-Tibetan demonstrations during the 1999 visit by Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
Mr Ellis, of Wellington, said letting police move protesters out of sight “if their behaviour is disorderly or personally offensive and humiliating to the VIP”, as stated in the police instructions, was an appalling breach of the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest.
Freedom of expression included the right to shock, horrify and offend, he said. “If the president of China is offended by somebody holding a Tibetan flag outside his hotel - well tough, that’s what political protest is about.”
Foreign or national VIPs should not have the power to have people moved on. “It is unbelievable that this should be in the police manual of best practice,” Mr Ellis said.
However, Police Minister Annette King defended the new instructions.
“If behaviour is truly offensive in the normal sense, such as exposing genitals or buttocks in a crude way during a visit by the Queen, for example, then it is appropriate for the police to take action to move such protesters on.”
The authority, which took eight years to conclude its investigation, said there was no lawful justification for police to stand on flags to stop two women protesters waving them at the Chinese president’s motorcade in Wellington in 1999.
There was also no justification for police to move about 20 protesters from outside a city hotel because Chinese officials thought their chants could be heard from inside the hotel.
The authority said it was a peaceful protest and that the noise levels at that time - about 2.30pm - did not justify intervention.
Police acknowledged this and five protesters, who were wrongly arrested for obstruction and minor assault, later received an apology and a $50,000 out-of-court payout.
Mr Ellis said the authority’s report was whitewash. It was clear police planned to curb the right to protest when their operational order promised to “make every effort to minimise the impact of protest”.
Rick Sahar, who was involved in the 1999 protest, said the report was disappointing. It had taken far too long and did not go far enough in identifying how police decided to act and on whose authority, he said.
Authority head Justice Lowell Goddard said she regretted the delay in issuing the report.
The authority had been waiting for police to incorporate recommendations of a parliamentary committee into its general instructions and manual of best practice “in a manner acceptable to the authority”.
_________________________________________-
Police treatment of Tibet protesters ‘unjustified’
20 November 2007
Police actions against protesters during the visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin eight years ago were unjustified says the Police Complaints Authority.
But there was no evidence of police acting under political direction, a report of the investigation released today by the head of the authority, Justice Lowell Goddard, found.
Complaints arose from two incidents in Wellington on September 14, 1999 involving police and protesters demonstrating against Chinese rule of Tibet.
The first incident involved two women, one with a two-year-old child, who had positioned themselves on a traffic island along the route the president’s motorcade would take.
“The women had been sitting on the traffic island for about a minute when three police officers walked over to them and asked if they were planning to wave their flags or just taking a rest,” the report said.
The women said they planned on waving their flags and were told they could not protest there, or anywhere in the immediate vicinity.
“When the president’s motorcade approached…the women got to their feet and reached for their flags, but the three police officers stood in front of them and on top of their flags.
“The women shouted `Free Tibet’ but their right to peacefully protest as they had wished had been arbitrarily curtailed,” the report said.
The second incident happened close to the then Park Royal Hotel, where the president was staying.
About 20 protesters, some with megaphones, had gathered at the corner of Featherston and Grey streets.
In anticipation of protest action police had erected a heavy mesh barricade at the intersection.
Protesters were directed by police to stand behind the barricade.
“The protest was peaceful,” the report said.
One of the protesters addressed the group using a megaphone and some were chanting “talk Tibet”.
“It appears however that Chinese officials at the hotel became seriously concerned that the noise from the protest might be heard from within the hotel,” the report said.
Without warning 15 to 20 police officers moved in between the protesters and the barricade.
“Using a megaphone, police officers advised the protesters they were in a road closure area and asked them to move.
“Understandably the protesters were reluctant.
“Police personnel then moved the protesters along using a skirmish line of some six police men and women.”
The protesters were moved about 100 metres along Featherston Street where they were out of sound and sight of the hotel.
Although some complained of excessive force being used by police, the report said there was no evidence of that on videotapes of the incident and police officers denied the use of such force.
Five of the protesters were arrested, four for obstruction and one for a minor assault on police.
The report found that the police explanation, that the road had been closed, was without legal foundation, as was a suggestion the protesters were causing an obstruction.
The report said many complainants suggested the police may have been subject to political direction to ensure the president did not see or hear protesters during his visit to New Zealand.
But it said it was clear that no political directive was give to the police.
However, it was clear Chinese officials meeting the operational commander for Wellington before the visit, had been at pains to impress upon him their wish that the president neither see nor hear protesters.
“The operational commander told the authority that although he advised the Chinese officials that he would take what steps he lawfully could to limit the president’s exposure to protests, he had also made it clear that he could not give any guarantees and that protest was permitted in New Zealand so long as it was orderly and lawful.”
The police operational order noted the president’s sensitivity to both visible and audible protest and recorded that police would “make every effort to minimise the impact of protest …”
“That undertaking, whilst ostensibly innocuous, carried with it the obvious and inherent risk of curbing or inhibiting the right of protesters to carry out a lawful and peaceful protest,” the report said.
Justice Goddard said in the report that it was not appropriate to hold any individual officer responsible for the acknowedged breaches of the protesters’ rights.
“What is absolutely clear however is that, in the circumstances, the lawful rights of the protesters should have been preserved.”
Justice Goddard said the report had awaited amendments to the New Zealand Police General Instruction relating to demonstrations and a related updated of the New Zealand Police Manual of Best Practice module for VIP Security Planning and Operations before it was issued.
The organiser of the protests was reported today as saying he was happy with authority’s report.
Friends of Tibet spokesman Thuten Kesang said police must remember protesters are allowed to be seen by their targets.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Crash driver takes on the police - and wins
November 10, 2007
This car collided with a police van on Mt Eden road.
An Auckland man whose car was hit by a speeding police van has won a five-year battle to clear his name, with police ordered to pay him $13,000.
Steve Brown was doing a u-turn on Mt Eden Rd when the van - which did not have its siren on and was described by one witness as fish-tailing just before the crash - smashed into him in May 2002.
Mr Brown was later charged with careless driving.
But the officer, who police conceded was partly to blame, was not charged with anything. Mr Brown could have admitted the charge and walked away with a fine, but chose instead to take on the police, spending thousands in hiring a lawyer and an expert crash analyst.
Mr Brown, a real estate agent, was eventually cleared after an appeal to the High Court, and last week a judge ordered police to pay $13,769.66 of his costs.
“The police expected me to just play the game and roll over,” Mr Brown told the Weekend Herald.
“Well I didn’t, and I hope this shows anybody else who is in the same position that they don’t have to either.”
The crash happened when Mr Brown pulled over to make a sharp u-turn while travelling south along Mt Eden Rd.
He made sure the way was clear in both directions, including back to a service station on the corner 85m behind him.
The police van, driven by Constable Daniel Rushton, was also travelling south at an estimated speed of up to or slightly over 80km/h to get to a burglary (the speed limit was 50km/h, and police are allowed to travel 30km/h over this under urgent driving regulations). The van’s lights were on but siren off so as not to disturb the offender.
It came around the corner, braked, and “t-boned” into Mr Brown’s car.
Mr Brown was hospitalised, suffering minor injuries.
The police visited Mr Brown’s home after their initial investigation, saying “they could not attach blame in either direction” and suggesting both parties take a “knock for knock approach”.
Mr Brown, who has a clean driving record, rejected this on principle, believing he was not in the wrong.
The police then went away and came to the conclusion that there was “no public interest in charging Brown”.
But when the case went to the legal section, this was reversed, and Mr Brown was charged with careless driving.
Mr Brown commissioned an alternative report from Chris Marks, a crash analyst of almost 40 years’ experience who acts for the police and Defence. He said the police’s finding of careless driving was erroneous.
Two Justices of the Peace found Mr Brown guilty, but the conviction was later quashed after a High Court appeal.
Mr Brown’s application for costs successfully argued that police failed to investigate properly, particularly in relation to Mr Marks’ report, but still proceeded with the prosecutions.
Mr Brown told the Weekend Herald he still had no idea why police charged him and not Constable Rushton, the driver of the van, given their own admission there was blame on both sides.
“The police got to the point of no return, and just kept digging the hole deeper and deeper.”
Mr Brown says he spent $30,000 defending the charge - against his lawyer’s recommendation.
“My lawyer told me from the beginning that I should just take the money I was going to pay him and put a piece of artwork on the wall.”
Mr Brown said he would now complain to the Police Complaints Authority.
Auckland City police were not available for comment yesterday.
LINK TO FULL STORY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Police prison guard privacy appeal fails
6 October 2007
Police have lost an appeal against paying a prison guard $5000 for breaching her privacy by telling her employer she was being investigated for alleged fraud.
Hawke’s Bay guard Carol Whatuira was charged with fraud in August 2003 after providing information to support her sister-in-law’s fraudulent insurance claim.
She complained a senior police officer humiliated her and breached her privacy when he told her boss she was about to be charged - denying her the right to tell the prison herself. Police said they doubted she would convey their view about what had happened if it was left to her.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal ordered police to pay Ms Whatuira $5000 and a further $3750 costs to reflect the “significant humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to her feelings arising out of what (the officer) did”. Police appealed against the decision to the High Court.
Justice Denis Clifford, sitting with Sue Ineson and Jacquie Grant, said the panel agreed with the tribunal’s decision that it was not necessary for the police to tell Ms Whatuira’s employer about the investigation.
Though police might have had legitimate concerns about the implications of her possible guilt as she was a prison officer, “that, at the end of the day, was an employment matter for her employer”, Justice Clifford said.
Ms Whatuira remained a prison guard and had faced no disciplinary action.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Fraudster wins payout for cop’s privacy breach
5 June 2007
Police have been ordered to pay $5000 to a prison guard after breaching her privacy by telling her employer she was being investigated for alleged fraud.
Hawke’s Bay guard Carol Whatuira complained a senior police officer humiliated her and breached her privacy when he told her boss she was to be charged - denying her the right to tell the prison herself.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal has ordered police to pay Ms Whatuira $5000 and a further $3750 costs to reflect the “significant humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to her feelings arising out of what (the officer) did”. Police have appealed against the decision to the High Court.
Ms Whatuira told the tribunal she felt sick and was upset for months after she was “totally bullied” and “backed into a corner” by Detective Senior Sergeant Bill Gregory, head of Napier CIB. She was charged with fraud in August 2003 after she provided information to support her sister-in-law’s fraudulent insurance claim.
The sister-in-law claimed she had been burgled, and when police found a television, video, stereo, and heater that she said had been stolen at her house, she said Ms Whatuira had lent them to her to replace her allegedly stolen goods.
Ms Whatuira repeated the claims to police.
Her sister-in-law was arrested and charged with making a false insurance claim. Ms Whatuira continued to deny she gave false information.
She later visited Napier police station, dressed in her guard’s uniform, to collect a computer that police had seized as part of the inquiry. There, police charged her with being a party to the false claim.
Mr Gregory noticed her sitting in her uniform and decided to intervene.
He told the tribunal he knew she was required to report her arrest to prison authorities as part of her employment contract. Though she said she wanted to tell them herself, Mr Gregory said he did not trust her to be honest to the prison because she was continuing to lie to police. He rang the prison and told the prison superintendent about the arrest and charge details.
When Ms Whatuira arrived at work on Monday morning, she said several of her colleagues knew what was going on. She was called to a meeting and placed on 48 hours’ special leave.
Later that day, Ms Whatuira admitted the fraud. She appeared in court and was granted diversion and paid $200 to a charity. The Corrections Department took no action and allowed her back to work.
Ms Whatuira complained to the privacy commissioner about Mr Gregory’s actions, and the case was referred to the tribunal.
The tribunal said Ms Whatuira should have had the opportunity to evaluate her situation after the charges were laid, seek legal advice, and to tell her employer first.
Mr Gregory removed her autonomy by calling the prison, it said.
The tribunal also noted an employee only has to tell Corrections about a criminal charge when the charge is laid in court. At the time Mr Gregory phoned the prison, Ms Whatuira had no obligation to tell it.
Though she would have been embarrassed by the charges anyway, it said Mr Gregory’s actions made her sense of humiliation and loss of dignity “significantly greater than it would otherwise have been”.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
11/5/2007
NZ police pay $100,000 to keep defamation case out of court after Gun City director took defamation action
11 May 2007
More than $100,000 (taxpayer dollars)has been shelled out by New Zealand police to keep a defamation case out of court.
Gun City director David Tipple took a defamation action against the police for remarks made by a Christchurch officer in 1999. He said the remarks of Inspector Grant Buchanan sullied his reputation.
It was revealed in March that the case had been settled but police would not say how much they had had to pay out. After a request under the Official Information Act, police say they paid $35,000 to the man who was originally seeking $800,000.
In addition, police spent more than $62,000 in legal expenses and a further $14,000 in disbursements.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Police settle in claim over false evidence
10.04.2000
WELLINGTON - The police have reached a settlement with a man who claimed $850,000 in damages after being arrested on fabricated evidence.
The High Court at Palmerston North found in 1998 that two police officers altered evidence against Dannevirke man Craig Withey, aged 29, then lied about it.
But the jury did not award Mr Withey damages.
He then went to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, and ordered a new trial.
But papers have been filed in the court discontinuing the case, and a police statement yesterday said a settlement had been reached. Its details were confidential.
Mr Withey was charged with manufacturing cannabis oil in March 1994.
The charge was based on undercover policeman Malcolm McKenzie’s identification of Mr Withey as the man he met during a drug deal at a Dannevirke house in 1993.
The charge was dropped in mid-1995, just before Mr Withey was due to stand trial.
Mr Withey claimed at the time that Mr McKenzie met another man, and said the detective changed the description of the man’s tattoos to match Mr Withey’s own.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Bain could receive a multi-million dollar payout following the quashing of his murder convictions or he may get nothing, legal experts say.
Bain, now 35, was sentenced to a 16-year, non-parole term after being convicted of the killings of his mother, father and siblings in 1995.
Pukekawa farmer Arthur Allan Thomas received $1m in 1980 for the 10 years he spent in jail for the murders of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. David Dougherty was awarded almost $900,000 in 2001 after being jailed for the abduction and rape of an 11-year-old girl. DNA evidence later proved Dougherty innocent.
Lawyer Lorraine Smith, who was involved in determining a payout of $7000 a day for a woman kept in jail longer than she should have been, said Bain was “clearly looking at money”. “He’s been incarcerated for 12 years, going on 13… he was found guilty and that’s been quashed… on very, very serious grounds.”
Cabinet has set a base sum of $100,000 for each year wrongly spent in jail, which could be increased in “exceptional circumstances”.
Auckland University law expert Scott Optican believed Bain could be in for a fight for compensation. Tough guidelines meant he was unlikely to meet the criteria for any payout.
“Basically, you require affirmative proof of innocence and in Bain’s case all the Privy Council is saying is there’s reasonable doubt so let’s have another trial… ,” Optican said. “If he goes for a retrial he might not be acquitted. On the other hand, an acquittal might help with compensation.” Stuart Grieve, QC, who was involved in determining compensation for Dougherty has said Bain could get up to $5m if he can prove his innocence.
WINNERS:
September 2000: A man wrongfully convicted of sexually abusing his son wins $570,000 after spending 14 months in jail.
September 2006: Three young Auckland women Tania Vini, Lucy Akatere and Cushla Fuataha, accept compensation ranging from $162,000 to $176,000 each after being convicted and jailed for the aggravated robbery of a 16-year-old school girl, a crime they did not commit.
Ongoing: Experts say Rex Haig could get $2m after his murder conviction was quashed last year. He was convicted of killing fisher Mark Rodrique, and sentenced to life in 1995.
Jack | June 13th, 2005 at 8:39 am
-
West Coaster wins record payout against police
Johnny Menzies
18.11.2004
A West Coast man has received a record damages payment after a High Court jury found force used by police to arrest him was not in justifiable self-defence.
Johnny Menzies, of Dunollie, near Greymouth, was awarded $35,000 in aggravated damages in the High Court in Christchurch yesterday.
A jury found Constable Terrence Hunt had struck Mr Menzies with a baton and a police torch and had kicked him - force it did not regard as justifiable self-defence.
It found Mr Hunt had subsequently fabricated evidence in order to prosecute Mr Menzies.
The jury also found Mr Menzies was imprisoned wrongfully and without reasonable cause and that he had not started the incident by reaching into a police car and grabbing Mr Hunt, as Mr Hunt had claimed.
Three other police officers named in the lawsuit, Phillip Little, Jeffrey Andrew and Simon Merry, were found not to have inflicted any deliberate injuries during the incident.
The previous highest damages award to a person in police custody is believed to be $30,000, paid to Masterton man Lee Harris in 1999 after a 1996 incident.
Mr Menzies had claimed he was threatened with arrest for no reason as he walked home from the Dunollie Hotel early on July 8, 2000. He said he was brutally assaulted by the group of police, who maliciously prosecuted him to cover their tracks.
Police had claimed Mr Menzies was the aggressor and that all his injuries were justifiable.
Mr Menzies said yesterday that he had mixed feelings about the verdicts. He was pleased by the findings against Mr Hunt but wanted all the issues raised in the trial to be taken further.
“I can’t be entirely happy about the verdict or unhappy about it either,” he said.
“It’s been four long years. I just hope that these people’s evidence gets scrutinised by a proper independent investigation.
“The police have got to start waking up. They shouldn’t be investigating themselves. The job should be done properly.”
Mr Menzies praised the West Coasters who had supported him from the public gallery during the trial.
“We’d never have got as far down the road against the powerful police organisation without the support of the West Coast people.”
Mr Menzies’ counsel, Doug Taffs, said the matter should never have got to the point of a criminal trial in the first place, and he thought it had been handled poorly.
“The verdict exonerates Johnny,” he said.
Nicholas Till, for the police, declined to comment.
The head of the West Coast police last night vowed to stand by his officers, saying they had been finally vindicated after four years of damning allegations.
Tasman District Police Commander Superintendent Grant O’Fee said claims that police instigated an organised beating of Mr Menzies had been shown to be false and could now be laid to rest.
“As far as I am concerned, the false allegations against four of my officers, accused of carrying out an organised beating, have been resolved,” he said.
“I’m very pleased that the names of these officers, who were said to have handcuffed a man and smashed his head off of a lamp-post, have been cleared.
“I stand by all of the officers, including Constable Hunt, as I have done throughout this case.
“Obviously I would have been delighted if the whole thing had gone for us, but at least now we can put it behind us.”
Mr O’Fee said police officials had sought legal guidance on what action they would now take.
“This is an extremely complex verdict and something we will be thoroughly looking into,” he said.
“The court found that the injuries to Menzies were unjustified and we are taking legal advice in relation to that arm of the case.”
Rob Nicholl, a former top detective on the West Coast, had carried out a private investigation of the incident and passed on his misgivings to Mr O’Fee.
Mr Nicholl said he had been downhearted to find the forensic evidence contradicted Mr Hunt’s account and that the police examination of the scene was seriously deficient.
“I was more disappointed than surprised,” he said. “I gave 26 bloody years of my life to the police. A full and fair investigation was required and they never had one.”
Mr Nicholl called for a fully independent inquiry into the incident and how the police handled it.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FINDING.
“It found Mr Hunt had subsequently fabricated evidence in order to prosecute Mr Menzies.”
LINK
Jack | June 15th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
-
Police stand by constable’s bravery award
18.11.2004
Police say they have no intention of revoking a bravery commendation awarded to an officer now found to have used excessive force in arresting a man.
Constable Terrence Hunt was yesterday found to have used excessive force in arresting West Coast man Johnny Menzies, and having subsequently fabricated evidence in order to prosecute him.
Mr Hunt was awarded a superintendent’s commendation for his role in the arrest.
Tasman district police commander Superintendent Grant O’Fee said in spite of yesterday’s finding he stood by that acknowledgment.
“I gave him a commendation for showing resolve in the face of an extremely difficult situation. I gave it to him because I felt that it was deserved then, as I do now. I certainly won’t be revoking it.”
Mr O’Fee had been told by one of his most respected former detectives that Mr Hunt’s account did not tally with the evidence.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Authority clears police over scuffle
05 October 2005
By SEAN SCANLON
The Police Complaints Authority has cleared four officers involved in a scuffle with a West Coast man who sued the police for using unjustifiable force.
West Coast coalminer Johnny Menzies was awarded $35,000 last year by a jury that found unjustifiable force was used by one officer when Menzies was arrested in Dunollie, near Greymouth, in July 2000.
Menzies last night described the authority’s investigation, which had to wait until all legal action was finished, as “sloppy”. The Police Association welcomed the report.
Menzies was originally charged with assaulting the officers but was acquitted after saying he was the victim. He then began a High Court civil action against the police.
A High Court jury found Constable Terrence Hunt had struck Menzies with a baton and a police torch and had kicked him – force it did not regard as justifiable self-defence.
The three other officers involved were found not to have inflicted any deliberate injuries on Menzies.
Judge Ian Borrin, of the Police Complaints Authority, said yesterday that he could not uphold the complaints against the four officers. He had considered the evidence presented to the court.
Menzies complained that officers Phillip Little, Simon Merry and Jeffrey Andrews had used excessive force, handcuffing him and smashing his head into a concrete pole.
Borrin said: “I find that while they used force to arrest and handcuff Menzies, whom they had found struggling with Hunt on their arrival at the scene, I am unable to uphold the complaint of assault or the use of excessive force against any of those officers.
“The weight of evidence in my view indicates that Menzies’ impact with the pole occurred in an accidental, rather than deliberate, manner when he was tackled by Little when he arrived at the scene.”
Borrin said most of Menzies’ injuries were sustained during his struggle with Hunt before the other officers arrived.
There was “sharp conflict” between the accounts of Hunt and Menzies on the events leading to their struggle and the ruckus itself.
“In the absence of independent evidence to establish which of the conflicting accounts given by Menzies and Hunt should be preferred, I find that I am unable to uphold the complaint,” Borrin said.
“I do, however, emphasise that this does not mean that I disbelieve the account of Menzies on one hand, or of Hunt on the other. It means no more than that the authority has not been able to resolve the differences between the parties on this critical aspect of the incident.”
Menzies said the authority’s investigation was “shocking”.
“They have just picked the plums out of it to suit them. It has been a one-sided affair,” he said.
“I never had any confidence in this inquiry. It’s not very good for the authority to do a sloppy job like this.”
Menzies said “somewhere along the line” the Government should look at the authority’s usefulness.
Canterbury and Tasman Police Association director Craig Prior said the decision vindicated what the officers had said since 2000.
The four were just doing their duty. If Menzies had listened to police instructions, the event could have been avoided, he said.
Jack | June 15th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
-
$480,000 compo to police addicts
29.05.2003
Five former undercover police officers have been paid about $480,000 to settle their long-running claim against the police department for stress and drug addiction.
Individual payments in the settlement, negotiated by the Police Association, vary.
A further 19 former undercover police officers have cases outstanding.
All the officers claimed they suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and became addicted to cannabis and other drugs as a result of working undercover.
They claimed it also affected their career prospects.
Their dispute began in the early 1990s but is yet to be aired in open court.
The Police Association and the Crown Law Office have each spent nearly $800,000 in legal fees on the cases.
The association had pushed for the officers to settle, saying each case would require a five-week trial.
But group spokesman Frank Miessen said the five officers who accepted settlements had sold themselves short.
Mr Miessen said the remaining officers were determined to have their cases heard in court.
Four of the officers with cases pending began proceedings on Tuesday to have their Police Association-appointed lawyers removed.
Lawyer and former association secretary Dr Rob Moodie, who became a facilitator for the group late last year, said the settlement for five officers should be seen as a catalyst to get the outstanding cases dealt with.
Dr Moodie wants the officers to receive a war pension, which police officers were entitled to until a legislative change in the early 1990s.
He also wants the undercover programme reviewed.
“This is a case that’s gone completely off the rails,” he said.
“Every New Zealander has an obligation to them. The Government needs to look at their cases, realise many of them will never work again and help get the stress out of their lives.
“Over the years, the Crown has become a litigation bully.”
Association president Greg O’Connor said the settlement “was about allowing people to move on and get closure on a difficult and demanding period of their lives”.
Anonymous | June 16th, 2005 at 10:32 am
-
The murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe in their Pukekawa farmhouse 30 years ago still plays on the minds of those close to the events.
Locals still raise the case with Bruce Hutton, the former detective inspector who led the investigation.
It was on the afternoon of June 22, 1970, that Jeanette’s father, the late Len Demler, found the couple’s lounge spattered in blood.
Their daughter Rochelle was alive, soiled and alone in her cot. Her parents were gone, believed gunned down as they ate their evening meal five days earlier. The dried blood in the lounge had drag marks through it and over the front steps.
In what is thought to be his only press interview Mr Demler told a Herald reporter on June 22: “I thought it was strange when people kept ringing them up and they were not there.
“I was outside the house when Rochelle must have heard me. She started chattering.
“I couldn’t get anyone to answer the door so I went in. Rochelle was in her cot in her sunroom where she always sleeps. There were dinner dishes on the table.”
No one knew for sure what had happened or why. Rochelle at 18 months could not say.
The discovery by Mr Demler, himself a suspect for a time, saw police searches of the Crewe farm, neighbouring properties and the nearby Waikato River. Months later the Crewes’ weighted bodies were hauled from separate river sites near Tuakau.
The murders and the arrest, trials and imprisonment of Arthur Allan Thomas - as well as the activities of the committee of family, friends and supporters who campaigned tirelessly and, eventually, successfully for his freedom and pardon - attracted controversy. The case spawned films, television programmes, books and articles for years.
Mr Hutton believes the investigation he and colleagues conducted was thorough and proper. He retired from the police 24 years ago but is occasionally updated on possible developments.
“Certainly no new evidence that has come to light has changed my opinion of it,” he said.
He still feels stung by claims that police planted evidence in the murder case and a Royal Commission of Inquiry’s refusal to accept certain expert opinion on the issue.
The major finding of the commission, chaired by Australian judge Mr Justice Taylor, was that Inspector Hutton and the late Detective Len Johnston manufactured evidence against Mr Thomas by planting a shellcase at the Crewe property.
It said Mr Hutton knew that another vital shellcase exhibited was substituted and that defence lawyers were not told of certain evidence.
The Solicitor-General at the time examined the findings of the commission, and nine months later decided that no action should be taken.
“It brought home to me that the finding that cartridges had been planted was totally erroneous,” Mr Hutton told the Weekend Herald.
“Judge Taylor’s findings were totally governed by interference by [the Prime Minister the late Sir Robert] Muldoon during the hearing.
Mr Hutton believes the reason Sir Robert conferred privately with the judge was to ensure that the commission’s findings supported the pardon and to divert attention away from the economy. “That was interference by a Prime Minister during the judicial process.
“We were convinced that Judge Taylor mistakenly believed he was dealing with Australian police, who were known to be corrupt. He likened us to them.
“I dealt with a large number of homicides while I was in the police [23 years]. Here was an allegation made against me, the late Detective Len Johnston and others. He [Johnston] was dead by then and unable to defend himself. There were no under-handed practices in any homicides and serious crimes in my time with the police.”
Mr Thomas, then a neighbour of the Crewes, was convicted for the murders by two juries. Two Appeal Court hearings upheld the verdict.
In 1979, after nine years in jail, he was granted a royal pardon and more than $900,000 in compensation.
Now farming at Orini in the Waikato, Mr Thomas said: “I still have terrible dreams about it. I wake up and see where I am and I’m thankful that I have my freedom.”
When Mr Demler died, aged 82, in 1992 Mr Thomas claimed that he (Demler) knew what had happened. “He never helped with the search [for the bodies]. He wouldn’t do it, and I couldn’t understand - he was a neighbour to the Crewe farm.”
In 1993, David Yallop, whose 1978 book, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, had a strong influence on the pardoning of Mr Thomas, said he thought Mr Demler had killed the Crewes.
Mr Demler’s first wife, Maisie, had bailed him out when he faced a fine for tax evasion and in return received half the Demler farm.
When Mrs Demler died her husband had expected to get the farm back, but it was left to Jeanette Crewe.
——————————————–
Author: I know who killed the Crewes Post a reply
06 July 2006
By SUE HAWKINS
Taupo author Chris Birt says not only does he know who killed Jeanette and Harvey Crewe, but just as importantly, who fed their baby daughter at Pukekawa 35 years ago.
For more than three decades Birt has been investigating the murders, and the 2001 publication of his book, The Final Chapter, has now produced more witnesses and evidence to confirm those beliefs.
Arthur Allan Thomas was twice wrongly convicted of the murders and served nearly 10 years in jail.
He was pardoned in 1979 and paid $1 million in compensation.
Birt says Jeanette Crewe’s father Len Demler, who died in 1992, was the killer and the motive was over his wife’s will which favoured Jeanette.
Last week Chris Birt travelled to Wellington, handing over to New Zealand police his own sworn affidavit and the information which he has collected.
It has come from both new and former witnesses and even from official police files, all indicating who the woman is who fed baby Rochelle.
“Now I’m waiting to hear back from the police, “said Birt from his Taupo home at the weekend.
“It’s my hope the police will now make inquiries which it appears were not made at the time.”
He says any investigation will need to canvass why the woman, whose identity was known to the murder squad, was not questioned immediately after the murders.
There is also the question of why before the 1980 Thomas Royal Commission, police were directed by the then commissioner, that the woman was not to be interviewed.
“It would be a brave officer who would overrule a directive from the commissioner,” says Birt.
Birt came to know the Thomas family quite well over the years and particularly Arthur’s father, the late Allan Thomas.
He produced his book in an effort to help set the record straight and to dispel any residual beliefs that Arthur Allan Thomas had had some involvement.
Birt says he told the dying father that he would do his best to clear up the loose ends.
“I told him two years ago, that if it was possible, that’s what I’d do,” he says.
Birt says showing who really did feed Rochelle is crucial to ending the mystery which surrounds the Crewe murders.
Jack | July 19th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
-
23 July 2005
Mocked by boy racers and ridiculed by the townsfolk he once ticketed, a policeman has won $15,000 for humiliation and misery after being unfairly sacked.
Oamaru constable Charles Ryan said he was “absolutely gutted” after he was dismissed by Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White in 2002 after pleading guilty to charges of neglect of duty and misconduct, despite 16 years of loyal service. He had already won his job back, and this week the Employment Court added compensation.
Everyone in the small town knew he had not left the police force voluntarily. The boy racers made fun of him, saying he could not get a job at the freezing works because he was a sacked police officer. Mr Ryan could only get casual labouring work.
The charges arose from Mr Ryan’s handling of a minor accident. His brother’s partner was the driver of a car that slid on loose gravel near roadworks. Mr Ryan was accused of failing to tell his supervisor that he had a family connection with the woman driver. He was charged with misconduct for falsely denying that he had told State Insurance that Works Infrastructure was at fault for the crash.
Though some facts were disputed, Mr Ryan pleaded guilty. Police decided a hearing was not required. Mr White later rejected Mr Ryan’s application to change his plea to not guilty and to allow the matter to go to a hearing. He believed Mr Ryan had been treated fairly.
Jack | July 23rd, 2005 at 9:07 am
-
Police pay up for private poaching case prosecution
03 May 2001
Police have paid “substantial” costs incurred by a Napier hunting guide for his private prosecution of a security guard deer poacher.
Police dropped poaching charges against the poacher’s mate ?a Whakatane police sergeant also caught red-handed.
The case, reported in The Dominion seven months ago, led to Whakatane policeman Stephen Tresidder being referred to the Police Complaints Authority after a judge said he did not believe evidence Tresidder gave on oath.
Tressider and his mate, Whakatane security guard Michael Joseph Lourie, were pursued well past the boundary fences of Ngamatea, the huge high country Hawke’s Bay’s station where they were caught on hunting guide Bruce Bates’s video camera during a winter poaching trip in 1999.
Mr Bates and a Napier barrister had tracked the two poachers to their hideout by following their footsteps in the snow.
Mr Bates tried to get police to prosecute Tresidder and Lourie for telling lies about who they were, and where they lived, and for illegal hunting.
But because of stonewalling by Tresidder, who refused to tell Rotorua’s top detective who his hunting companion was till the last minute; ignorance of the law by senior police who were investigating the poaching; and an arrangement between Tresidder and the top detective, police dropped the case.
Tresidder persuaded police to drop the more serious charge of illegal hunting if he pleaded guilty ?which he did ?to the charge of giving a false name and address.
Police mistakenly believed that the law did not allow them to prosecute Lourie because six months had lapsed since the offending took place.
They were wrong and Mr Bates asked Napier lawyer Leo Lafferty to prosecute.
Mr Lafferty initially intended to prosecute both men.
But because of the arrangement made between Tresidder and Detective Inspector Graham Bell (Ten/7 TV star) of the Rotorua CIB, the court ruled that Mr Lafferty could not continue with his intended poaching charge against Tresidder.
Instead, he pursued Lourie and the case was heard before Judge Grant Fraser in Taihape District Court in July last year.
Tresidder gave evidence for his friend during the hearing but six times Judge Fraser said Tresidder was not a credible witness.
The judge said both men were without doubt hunting on Ngamatea. He found Lourie guilty of both offences and fined him $350 for each offence.
Mr Lafferty confirmed yesterday that after months of negotiation the legal section at police headquarters had agreed to pay the “substantial” costs involved in investigating and taking the prosecution.
He said police agreed to pay for the costs incurred by the investigation into Tresidder’s offending in spite of his taking no prosecution against Tresidder because of the police arrangement.
Tresidder was referred to the Police Complaints Authority after a story in The Dominion in December last year about unlicensed car dealing by Whakatane policeman Peter Sandle and the town’s police prosecutor Mark van der Kley.
Tresidder helped promote the Whakatane “Cops for Cars” business by finding buyers for the imported vehicles.
The Police Complaints Authority, Judge Ian Borrin, said investigations into Sandle and Tresidder were not yet completed. He was unable to say when inquiries would be completed.
Mr Bates said he was delighted police had agreed to pay his costs.
Anonymous | September 18th, 2005 at 9:23 am
-
18 June 2001
Mrs S M Van Der Lubbe
1/22 Trigg Avenue
ROTORUA
Dear Mrs Van Der Lubbe
Thank you for your letter of 15 June enclosing copies of Mr Justice Heron’s judgement and the newspaper report of the proceedings.
I have considered all the facts and agree that you are entitled to have your legal costs reimbursed on an ex gratia basis.
I have ordered our Accounts Department to have the cheque drawn and it should be posted to you next Tuesday.
I have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the conviction is properly recorded.
Yours sincerely
D B Kerr
National Manager
Legal Services.
Anonymous | September 18th, 2005 at 9:24 am
-
Losing testicle is worth $10,000, judge rules
12.11.05
By Nicola Boyes
A man who lost his left testicle after police kicked him between the legs during an arrest has been awarded $10,000 in damages.
The decision given by Judge Josephine Bouchier in the Auckland District Court went against four South Auckland policemen involved in arresting the man in August 2000.
Constables Rupert Friend, Aaron George, Michael Carter and Stephen Bass, who are all still in the force, worked at the Papakura police station at the time.
Judge Bouchier said it was difficult to tell if the constables were lying when they said Paul Pure had not been kicked between the legs during the arrest or had simply turned a blind eye to him lying on the ground outside his estranged wife’s home.
Medical evidence given in court showed that when Mr Pure’s left testicle was removed in September that year, a clot found in it was said to have been caused by trauma consistent with some sort of force or blow.
Mr Pure had drunk vodka with his wife, Grace, that night at his home. When she left for her own home and did not return, he went to her house and became abusive and threatening. She called police from the next-door neighbours’ house.
Mr Pure was pepper-sprayed in the kitchen of her home, brought to the floor and handcuffed by the constables, then taken outside and put on the ground. It was while outside that one of the officers kicked him between the legs.
Mrs Pure alleged that she heard a plainclothes officer who had turned up say, “This is how you do it.”
Mr Pure alleged the officers failed to get him proper medical attention when he discovered his left testicle had swollen to twice its size.
Judge Bouchier awarded Mr Pure $7500 for battery and $2500 for the affront to his person. The Attorney-General was the fifth defendant, so the Government will pay the money.
Earlier this week, Mrs Pure told the Herald that her husband was no angel but did not deserve to be treated that way.
“They [the police] are like a gang. You call them for help but it’s like calling a gang.”
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said it was important to remember it was a civil case, involving a different standard of proof than a criminal case.
The four constables have been through a police complaints investigation, but the findings have not been made public.
——————-
A man who lost a testicle after he was assaulted by Police says a Police Complaints Authority report on the incident is a whitewash.
Paul Pure won a civil case with a judge ruling that he was kicked in the groin by an officer during his arrest in August 2000.
Pure’s lawyer Jeremy Sutton says his client still feels aggrieved no police officer has been held accountable for the injuries he suffered.
It’s taken more than five years for the Police Complaints Authority to rule on the case, finding there was no evidence of misconduct.
Mr Sutton says it shows the body is slow, poorly resourced, ineffective and lacking in independence.
He says although the system won’t encourage those who want some remedies from the police his client will be pursuing the matter with the Authority or the Justice Minister.
Jean Edwards, Radio New Zealand.
Jack | November 12th, 2005 at 5:53 am
-
Police officer paid more than $800,000
14.12.05 1.00pm
A police officer was paid more than $800,000 in the last financial year.
Questions about the identity of the officer are being asked by National law and order spokesman Simon Power who said the police annual report for the past financial year showed one officer was paid in the $800,000-$810,000 range.
He had put in written questions to Police Minister Annette King but she had refused to identify the person, he said.
Police spokesman Jon Neilson said the payment was the result of a personal grievance case dealt with in the courts, but police would not identify the person involved.
The terms of the settlement were confidential, Mr Neilson said.
“It’s a privacy issue around the person involved in terms of settlement of the payment.”
It is though the person may be reinstated superintendent Alec Waugh, but Mr Neilson would neither confirm nor deny that.
Mr Waugh resigned as Wanganui police district commander after being charged with expenses fraud, but he was later cleared by the High Court and won reinstatement to the police and backpay after a long Employment Court personal grievance case.
Today his lawyer Rob Moodie said, the police knew “damn well it’s the Waugh case”.
“There’s no other case that would have produced that result. But it wasn’t something that just arose out of a personal grievance. I will not have the Waugh case written off in that way,” he said.
He would not confirm Mr Waugh had been paid out an amount in the range from $800,000 to $810,000, saying only that he was prepared to confirm Mr Waugh “was paid out a sum…”
Mr Power said he was not prepared to speculate who it was that had been paid the money.
“If it is the money that was paid to Alec Waugh they should just say that,” he said.
“My view is it’s a disclosure issue more than anything else, in the sense that there’s no good reason why the minister wouldn’t tell the public who it is that received that sum of money, and yet she’s refusing to.”
The most recent information showed Commissioner Rob Robinson paid around $440,000, “so unless he’s doubled his salary in the past year, someone is getting a bucket-load more than him,” Mr Power said.
“This mystery person was last year paid more than the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Secretary to the Treasury, making him or her New Zealand’s highest paid public servant by a considerable margin.”
Jack | December 14th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
-
Court throws out bid for retrial
23.12.05
A man who won $10,000 compensation from police after proving he was wrongfully imprisoned over the killing of his pig has had his bid for a re-trial to hear his claims of a “grand conspiracy” rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Alwyn Keith Caie won his case in the High Court at Auckland in December 2000 after a 12-day hearing.
He was arrested on October 6, 1998, after police suspected he had breached the Arms Act. He was remanded in custody for 20 hours.
Justice Robert Fisher found police breached the Crimes Act and the Bill of Rights because they failed to give Mr Caie adequate reasons for his arrest.
Mr Caie told the Court of Appeal he wanted a rehearing to investigate a conspiracy involving numerous members of police, the legal profession - including his own former counsel whom he fell out with at trial - and the judiciary.
Mr Caie’s submission to the Court of Appeal was a 600-page document titled Blue Filth and Corruption: They Must Be Stopped.
It featured the picture of a posse of cowboys on horseback outside the High Court at Auckland on its cover.
In a reserved decision released yesterday, Justices Robert Chambers, Lowell Goddard and Rodney Hansen said Mr Caie - who appeared for himself - had “entirely misunderstood” the nature of the Court of Appeal. “Lowell Goddard” the current PCA
“Even if we thought it appropriate, this court has no jurisdiction to order the sort of wide-ranging inquiry into perjury and corruption that Mr Caie seeks.
“His entire appeal has miscued. In truth, the appeal raises scarcely any justiciable issues.”
Mr Caie could not challenge Justice Fisher’s ruling because it was in his favour, the Court of Appeal said, and ordered him to pay costs of $4000.
Jack | December 23rd, 2005 at 6:09 am
-
Wrongly jailed teens lose appeal
Wrongly jailed teens lose appeal (2.02)
Jan 9, 2006
Three Auckland teenagers wrongly jailed for a vicious attack six years ago have lost a bid to get more compensation from the government.
Lucy Akatere, Tania Vini, and Krishla Fuataha appealed the $130,000 they were offered for the time they spent behind bars. And now they could end up losing money instead.
Fuataha says she tries to block out the memories of her time in Mt Eden Prison as a 15-year-old and instead has a happier focus on her six-week-old baby.
“He brings a lot of happiness to my life he has changed me. I used to be hard out naughty… drugs, alcohol… since he has come into my life I’ve gone the other way … It’s a miracle,” she says.
Fuataha and her two friends made the headlines in 2000 when they were jailed for what a judge described as a sadistic slashing.
Police said the three had set upon a 16-year-old at an Auckland shopping centre and robbed her of $10.
The teenagers were freed seven months later after a witness admitted she lied. They were also found to have been nowhere near the attack.
The trio challenged the government’s compensation offer of more than $130,000 each after legal advice claimed they were entitled to significantly more.
On Monday they learned not only has the court rejected their bid for more compensation, the government has every right to seek legal costs from them.
Fuataha and her friends fear that would see them lose at least some of their money.
A spokesperson for Justice Minister Mark Burton says he is yet to see the judgement and make a decision on whether to pursue costs.
Jack | January 10th, 2006 at 5:30 am
-
Child sex abuser awarded $25,000
21.03.06
A convicted paedophile has been awarded $25,000 damages for invasion of his privacy after police alerted people in his neighbourhood to his presence.
Barry Brown - who has convictions for sexual offences dating back to 1982 - sued police in Wellington District Court for $80,000.
He was identified in 2001 after he was released from a five-year sentence for kidnapping and indecently assaulting a 5-year-old boy.
Police circulated leaflets including his photograph, physical description and information about his criminal past to residents of Strathmore, Wellington.
Mr Brown’s lawyer, Dale La Hood, yesterday issued a statement on behalf of his client, who, he said, was pleased with the decision in which his right to privacy was upheld.
“The aftermath of the leaflet drop resulted in great hardship to him both physically and mentally,” Mr La Hood said.
“To this day he is recognised and abused on the streets by strangers.”
Last September, the police officer who outed Mr Brown, Inspector Peter Cowan, told the Wellington District Court he did so because a visit to the man’s flat caused him grave concern.
“I was very concerned that his location was totally inappropriate, and I could not understand why he had been put there.”
Nearby there were schools, playgrounds, a playcentre and reasonably dense shrub.
Mr Cowan said it would have been catastrophic if Mr Brown had reoffended, and police would have been criticised if they had not notified the community.
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar described the decision as “absolutely crazy”.
“But it doesn’t surprise me. We’re giving compensation to criminals so we may as well to sex offenders too.
“I hope police don’t become too disheartened by this. If the safety of the community is the most important aspect of law and order, that’s absolute rubbish if police are getting prosecuted for doing things like that.
“There’s definitely a law change that needs to be made to give police the right to out sex offenders, and I still encourage them to do that.”
Mr La Hood said that although Mr Brown was pleased that his hardship had been recognised by an award of compensation, the case was not just about money - it was about making those responsible realise that this was not the right way to approach the difficult issue of the release of sex offenders into the community.
“It can only be hoped that the public take the right message from this decision, namely that the law is there to protect everyone, not just those whom the majority consider to be deserving of its protection.
“Whilst Mr Brown must accept that he has created victims in his past, in this case he was the victim.”
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said last night he supported Mr Cowan’s actions.
“There are dangerous people out there.
“If the people of Kilbirnie hadn’t been warned and been offended against, I wonder if they would have had something to say, and the police would have come under considerable criticism.”
Jack | March 23rd, 2006 at 7:26 am
-
Bullying claims may follow newly promoted senior cop
30.04.06
By Catherine Woulfe
A senior police officer embroiled in longstanding workplace bullying claims has been promoted to one of the country’s top jobs.
Two years ago, three former police officers were paid thousands of dollars to drop personal grievance claims involving Steve Mastrovich, who has been acting area commander of the Ruapehu police district for 15 months.
A fortnight ago his appointment became permanent.
The officers were interviewed as part of an internal police investigation in 2002 into the Taumaranui station and allegations of sexism, bullying, misconduct and poor leadership.
A separate report written in late 2002 by psychologist Ellen Duckworth found Mr Mastrovich, former inspector Don Allen, retired Detective Sergeant Derek Webb and Sergeant Paul Francis were the main focus of their colleagues’ criticism.
At the time Mr Mastrovich was a senior sergeant.
“Operation Plateau” was critical of the way the station was run, and concluded that poor practices were allowed to occur.
The investigation also raised concerns that a picture of Rotorua murder victim Beverly Bouma was bandied about the police cafeteria.
Police bosses said despite the findings, the Taumaranui station was one of the best performing in the country.
Mr Mastrovich would not speak with the Herald on Sunday, but his boss district commander superintendent Mark Lammas said he was “a very capable officer … doing a brilliant job”.
He was not aware of any specific complaints towards Mr Mastrovich but confirmed three former officers had been paid to drop personal grievance claims.
“Three staff took personal grievances that have been resolved - each of them received a payment.”
Since then, the station had been performing well and was a happy place to work, he said.
“Ruapehu is one of the top policing areas in the country. Yes, it had some unhappy times in the late 1990s, early 2000s, but that is all behind them.”
However, that may not be entirely the end of the matter.
Some of the bullying claims are set to receive a fresh hearing as part of two Employment Court cases taken by two former police officers.
Andrew Harland and Craig Hawkins are preparing Employment Court cases in which they level criticism at their former bosses, including Mr Mastrovich.
In July 2003, Mr Harland was offered $50,000 to resign and drop his personal grievance.
He refused to accept the payment.
He was later dismissed after two psychiatric reports found him unable to continue work.
Mr Harland has challenged the contents of those reports.
Mr Hawkins would not comment about the looming court case, worried that it could affect his chances.
But the pair said they were sad their careers had been destroyed. They both said they wanted to return to the force.
Jack | May 1st, 2006 at 7:22 am
-
$5000 payout for former beat police
22 July 2006
By YVONNE MARTIN
Two police officers who believe they were forced out of jobs at beat section following a covert criminal investigation have won personal grievance cases against their employer.
Gina Cameron and Vaughan Kyne transferred from the police kiosk in Cathedral Square in October 2004 after their squad was investigated over suspicions they were drinking confiscated alcohol.
The two have since married and remain serving officers in Christchurch.
Each has been awarded $2500 after the Employment Relations Authority ruled they were disadvantaged by an unjustified action by the police. Costs were reserved.
The officers had sought $10,000 each for stress, humiliation, loss of dignity and hurt feelings.
Employment advocate Ian Thompson said the outcome was satisfactory. His clients did not want to comment further.
Another two officers are expected to pursue personal grievances along the same lines.
Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Sandra Manderson has defended the decision to investigate beat section members.
These uniformed officers patrol the inner-city and police liquor bans, but found their own drinking habits under tight scrutiny.
In mid-January 2004 police bosses received an internal complaint that beat section officers were drinking alcohol seized from the public, in breach of the liquor ban.
Manderson launched an investigation into the alleged criminal offending and the adequacy of procedures for dealing with confiscated liquor.
In February that year, without warning staff, two senior police officers searched the kiosk and seized beer, wine and spirits.
The bottles were fingerprinted and compared with prints staff had given as recruits for the purpose of eliminating police officers from a crime scene.
More bottles mysteriously left on the desk of then area controller Acting Inspector Greg Williams – soon after the search – were also fingerprinted and checked for staff prints.
Beat staff were reminded no alcohol was to be stored or consumed on the premises.
When the investigation ended in August 2004, no evidence was found to support the allegations that beat section was consuming confiscated alcohol.
Around that time police began seeking applications from officers wanting to work in beat section.
A draft policy went out to staff, requiring them to rotate around various specialist areas of policing.
Believing their jobs were in jeopardy, and not wanting to risk being allocated positions they did not want, Cameron and Kyne began looking for transfers.
By the time police bosses realised the rotational policy could not be enforced without proper consultation, the pair had already found other jobs.
In her evidence, Cameron said she felt poorly treated by the police during their investigation.
“I was not afforded the same rights as a civilian suspect can expect,” she wrote.
Rumours about the investigation flew around the police and officers became the butt of jokes about stealing alcohol.
“While most of these remarks were made in jest I found them hurtful,” said Cameron.
“To be labelled a thief was humiliating as it goes against everything that I, being a member of the New Zealand police, stand for.”
The officers said they suffered sleep deprivation, loss of concentration, depression and mood swings as a result of the upheaval.
Employment Relations Authority member James Crichton said the pair had no reasonable grounds to object to the police investigating alleged criminal offending.
He also ruled out that the police’s draft rotational policy was being introduced as a way to remove staff from beat section.
However, Crichton found the pair had been disadvantaged by the policy’s promotion, which had caused them to leave beat section for jobs they enjoyed less.
Manderson said the personal grievance was based on the argument that the allegations against beat section should have been dealt with as an employment issue, rather than a criminal investigation.
The authority had affirmed the decision to treat it as a criminal matter, she said.
Police officers were no different from any other members of the public, said Manderson.
“When allegations of criminal offending by police officers were reported they would always be thoroughly investigated,” she said.
“It is vital that the strong integrity and ethics of the New Zealand police be rigorously maintained so that the public’s faith in the police remains.”
Jack | July 22nd, 2006 at 9:25 am
-
I just wanted apology, says police dog victim
06 August 2006
By MARY JANE BOLAND
An innocent man bitten by a police dog says he would not have taken a $40,000 lawsuit to the Court of Appeal if police had simply apologised.
West Aucklander Matini Vaihu has just been given permission to take his claim back to court. The case revolves around whether a police dog’s actions can be separated from that of a handler.
Four years ago, Vaihu had an artery in his left arm severed and he lost two litres of blood after being bitten by police dog “Willis” in New Lynn, Auckland. Police had suspected the then 25-year-old of being involved in kicking signs over at a local petrol station.
Vaihu was in fact vomiting in a nearby carpark after suffering stomach cramps induced by pills taken for his kidney problems. He was on dialysis at the time.
“I’m sick of it,” Vaihu said yesterday. “I never cared about the money. I cared about the officer - if he came to the hospital and said he was wrong, I would have done nothing about it.”
Vaihu said he could hear the police dog’s breath while vomiting in the carpark. He had pulled over while on his way home from his girlfriend’s house.
“I turned around to get into my car and the dog jumped from the other side, right towards my groin. I pushed it away and he grabbed my arm and took pieces out of my arm.”
Vaihu’s left arm was already weakened because it was where he had a shunt inserted for his regular dialysis sessions. He says it took about 20 seconds before the dog’s handler, Constable Chris Taylor, arrived. As soon as he realised it was a police dog, Vaihu said he laid down on the ground. While he tried to explain why he was vomiting in the carpark, Taylor told him he was under arrest
“I tried to explain my condition but it took a long time for them to ask for an ambulance to the hospital.”
A St John’s report says Vaihu was lying in a pool of blood when ambulance officers arrived. He spent four days in hospital having his arm treated.
Vaihu now reckons his legal aid bill has exceeded $20,000 but he is determined that police should apologise for their actions and should understand the implications of dogs being allowed to attack. He says the compensation is a secondary issue.
A district court ruling found in favour of Vaihu and awarded him $10,000 with Judge Charles Blackie saying the attack was cruel, degrading and unjustified.
“He was found to be bleeding profusely and police realised he was an innocent member of the public.”
The attorney-general successfully appealed that decision but in a recent High Court decision, Justice Mark Cooper has said the Court of Appeal should decide the case and weigh up whether a dog’s actions could be separated from those of a handler.
In court, Vaihu’s lawyer Jeremy Sutton argued the case should go to the Court of Appeal and that establishing whether the handler intended his dog to harm Vaihu was not necessary. The Crown argued intent was relevant. An appeal hearing is likely next year.
“I tried to explain my condition but it took a long time for them to ask for an ambulance to the hospital.”
The arrogant bastards won’t listen, they think that everyone’s a liar like themselves. “Tell it to the judge” the say.
Jack | August 6th, 2006 at 7:14 am
-
Allegations take toll on police
Oct 19, 2002
Unfounded corruption allegations have taken their toll on the police force in Greymouth.
West Coast police are still dealing with the fallout of a 10 month long investigation into corruption allegations.
An inquiry has cleared officers of any wrongdoing but several have taken stress leave and others are considering quitting the force.
Officers and their families have had to cope with abuse and accusations their boss says has led many to consider leaving the force.
“It’s a hard enough job to do at the best of times without this extra cloud over them,” says area commander Vern Morris.
The inquiry cleared officers of allegations of moonlighting, covering up incidents and wiping tickets for mates.
“Some very good officers involved are now questioning whether the stress on their families stress on themselves is worth it,” says senior sergeant John Canning of the Police Association.
Staff say they have been trying to maintain law and order - while their own integrity has been under question.
“Initially it might be funny… After six to seven months it becomes annoying.
“The wives go to supermarkets and get comments thrown at them… And of course the impact on kids at school, its made for a very stressful environment,” says Canning.
West Coast cops have been investigated before - and found wanting
Police were found to have falsified timesheets and trumped up a firearms charge against West Coast deer farmer Bill Perry, who was compensated over the affair.
“They thought they were above the law alright… They thought they were invincible… They’d become ten feet tall and bullet proof,” says Perry.
Now even he concedes times are changing.
“The new area commander’s certainly making all the right statements and has made a number of changes already that are appropriate to be made,” he says.
Police spent hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating the allegations and are now considering disciplinary action against the two officers who made them.
Jack | August 15th, 2006 at 7:09 am
-
Rex Haig’s murder conviction quashed
Aug 23, 2006
The Court of Appeal has unanimously quashed the murder conviction for Rex Haig.
Haig served a life sentence after being convicted in November 1995 of killing Mark Roderique, a member of his fishing crew.
Roderique disappeared in 1994 and his body has never been found. In 1995 Haig’s nephew, David Hogan, and another crew member, Tony Sewell, gave evidence which resulted in Haig’s conviction and imprisonment.
Haig has always maintained his innocence.
He spent 10 years in prison, appealed his conviction and lost, a petition to the government for mercy was rejected and his part in a brutal prison siege to try to draw attention to his case condemned him even further.
In June Haig’s case went back to the Court of Appeal for a second time.
Haig’s lawyers claimed police attempted to fit facts around their theory of the killing and ignored evidence which did not match it.
Jack | August 23rd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
-
27 Aug 2006
Rex Haig
David Hogan wants a chance to challenge allegations he is a double killer.
The 31-year-old Nelson man is furious the Court of Appeal has quashed Rex Haig’s murder conviction, saying the decision implies he’s killed two men.
“I want to go to court on this to clear my name,” Hogan told the Sunday Star-Times. “I didn’t get a fair say, I didn’t get a say. I’m spewing that the judges didn’t call me into court, at least to defend my case. I’m still hanging in limbo.
“If Rex is cleared, it makes it seem I’m guilty as sin.”
Haig, the ex-husband of Hogan’s aunt, was convicted in November 1995 of murdering Riverton fisherman Mark Roderique on Haig’s fishing boat, the Antares, in 1994. Hogan has emphatically denied committing or confessing to the murders, saying he told the truth at Haig’s trial.
He questioned the credibility of the witnesses Haig used at the appeal, saying many of the people had criminal backgrounds or mental health problems. Two were his ex-girlfriends.
“I don’t think the judges looked into it enough. They should have been put on the stand and cross-examined. Instead, the judges made a decision based on what Rex gave them… can anyone write something and it’s considered fact?”
Hogan, who received immunity from prosecution and $13,000 to testify against Haig, is not protected if he has lied, raising the possibility he could still face charges in relation to the case.
“I don’t give a damn about the immunity business. I would have rather been charged with murder and the jury would have sorted it out,” Hogan said.
Detective Senior Sergeant Brian Hewett, who headed the Roderique murder investigation, phoned Hogan the day the appeal court decision was released. He told Hogan the police had no plans to prosecute him and still backed
him.
Hogan said the court’s decision was having a huge impact on his life.
“The opinion is now that I’ve done it. Call that justice? I haven’t even been charged with anything.
“I want to have a life but I haven’t had one yet.” Haig is expected to seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment, with some legal experts predicting he could get as much as $2 million.
But Haig’s seven-year prison sentence for taking six prison guards hostage in 1997, in a successful bid to force a review of his case, could impact on the payout.
The Prisoners and Victims Claims Act, which enables victims to claim any compensation the prisoner receives, means prison guards could potentially counter-claim for any compensation Haig received.
Jack | August 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
-
$30,000 for teacher discharged on rape
19 September 2006
A judge who says “significant resourcing problems” contributed to a haphazard police investigation of a teacher accused of rape, has awarded the teacher $30,000 towards his legal costs.
In a judgment issued from Wellington District Court yesterday, Judge Bruce Davidson said police and the Justice Ministry should each pay the man $15,000.
The award is $16,502 less than the cost of defending the teacher. The Dominion Post understands a professional organisation had paid the bill.
The teacher’s name and the school at which he taught were suppressed.
In June, Judge Davidson discharged the man on all charges – two of rape, two of assaulting a child, and one of indecent assault – without the jury having to deliberate. The discharges amount to an acquittal.
At the end of the evidence he said that a conviction would have been impossible and wrong.
The teacher had asked for $46,502, his costs in defending the case.
Judge Davidson said he was left with a strong sense that police did not have any overall investigation plan. Obvious lines of inquiry were not undertaken.
The teacher proved his innocence by producing four vital pieces of evidence. He said defence lawyer Paul Paino could not be criticised for not giving the evidence to police.
A difficult decision had to be made if there was a risk that police could modify their case to explain deficiencies.
The teacher was arrested prematurely, so that “the battle lines of litigation” were drawn. If he had not been arrested, but interviewed, there was a strong possibility he would have produced the evidence he had and might not have been charged, Judge Davidson said. He found the police investigation was negligent “in part”, and even
material known to police should have caused enough alarm to make them proceed with significant caution.
However, it was not the type of exceptional case where bad faith or gross negligence existed, or that the prosecution should never have been brought, justifying an award to cover all the teacher’s costs.
Jack | September 19th, 2006 at 7:03 am
-
Primary school teacher accused of rape wins $30,000
Wednesday September 20, 2006
By Stuart Dye
Police investigating a rape claim against a primary school teacher were “haphazard”, failed to take obvious lines of inquiry, made a premature arrest and were negligent, a judge has
