33 THE ONES THAT GOT AWAY
“Let me tell you how it worked with men and in the police in those days. (1980s) There was a saying at the time, usually said with a bit of a slur because it came out when people had had a few drinks. ‘He’s a good bastard,’ they’d say. What it meant was that he could do no wrong. Even if he smacked a prisoner or made something up on a statement, it almost enhanced his status. Of course if you wanted to be one of the blokes, you had to subscribe to that ethos.” Rob Moodie former Police Association secretary.
____________________________________________________________________
Cop cleared of rape may lose job
August 12, 2008
A senior policeman acquitted by a jury of raping a young girl may yet lose his job as he faces a charge of misconduct within the police.
The officer, whose name is suppressed, originally faced three charges of raping the 13-year-old girl when he went on trial in the High Court at Christchurch in April.
Two of the charges were dropped during the trial, before the jury found the man not guilty of the remaining charge.
During the trial, evidence was presented about the policeman - a friend of the girl’s family - allowing the girl to sleep in his bed and sending dozens of text messages in a day.
At the conclusion of the trial, Justice Graham Panckhurst said the nature of the evidence gave him pause before granting name suppression to the officer.
“I shall not go into the detail of that evidence.
“It is sufficient to say that some of the conduct in which the accused had been involved did impress me as being a matter of legitimate public interest, particularly for someone who is a serving police officer.”
Neil Banks told the Herald that as the result of an internal police investigation, the officer was to face a misconduct charge, to be heard by a tribunal.
This tribunal, usually comprised of Queen’s Counsel, would then make a finding to be passed on to the Commissioner of Police.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PNHQ gets it wrong again!
Officers’ police future remains unclear
June 25, 2008
Four police officers acquitted of assault charges against a Whakatane man say they are looking to return to active duty in the police.
Sergeants Keith Parsons and Erle Busby, Senior Constable Bruce Laing and Constable John Mills were found not guilty of assaulting Rawiri Falwasser at the Whakatane police station on Labour Day 2006.
Outside the Tauranga District Court Susan Hughes QC, who spoke on behalf of the four officers, said they were happy with the verdict.
“We’re indeed delighted that justice has been done today and all four of them are very grateful for the considered efforts of the jury,” Ms Hughes said.
There were angry scenes in the courtroom as the jury read out the not guilty verdicts, with Mr Falwasser’s brother yelling “murderers” and “pigs” as he left the courtroom.
The four policemen say they want to return to work “as soon as possible”, but in a statement following their acquittals, Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope said there “would need to be consideration of employment processes” regarding their future.
The four faced nine charges between them and all of them face assault with a weapon.
Judge Patrick Treston, at Tauranga District Court, finished summing up the case this morning.
“Effectively there are nine trials going on at the same time,” Judge Treston told the jury.
He said the jury would need to consider the evidence in relation to each charge and each defendant separately.
Judge Treston outlined the defence of self defence and defence of another person. He said the jury had to take into account what they believed the defendants were thinking at the time and whether they were in fact acting in self defence or defence of another.
Judge Treston said if they believed that was the case then they would then have to decide if it was a reasonable use of force.
He said there had to be a balance between the threat and the force used.
“I say that because you can’t use a sledge hammer to crack a nut,” Judge Treston said.
During the trial, the jury heard that the police officers had a good reputation.
The judge said good character was not a defence but should be taken into consideration to determine their credibility.
Yesterday the Crown said that the officers had no justification for repeatedly using pepper spray and batons on a prisoner in a cell.
But the defence said the officers were doing their duty by following a tactical plan to subdue a violent and psychotic individual.
Crown and defence lawyers gave their closing addresses yesterday.
Prosecutor Fletcher Pilditch told the jury that the case was “an instance when a fellow citizen was deprived of his liberty”.
Mr Pilditch said police had the right to use force, but the issue in this case was whether the force was reasonable and necessary.
He said police could use reasonable force to search, fingerprint or photograph a prisoner, or for self-defence, but in this case, Falwasser was not violent and had made no threats of violence.
There was no dispute his behaviour was erratic and bizarre, but he was suffering from a psychotic episode and did eventually respond to calm, patient requests to be fingerprinted and photographed.
Mr Pilditch said instead of hitting Falwasser across the head and arms with batons, and pepper-spraying him inside the locked cell for 10 minutes, the police officers could have used other methods, such as calling a police negotiator.
But Parsons’ lawyer, Susan Hughes, QC, said the officers had been endeavouring to negotiate with Falwasser, who had refused to be fingerprinted or photographed for more than an hour-and-a-half.
She said the incident involving Parsons had lasted no more than 35 seconds, and he had hit Mr Falwasser on the head and deployed his pepper spray only after Mr Falwasser advanced on him.
Parsons had explored various options for dealing with Falwasser, including calling mental health professionals to assess him, and was a conscientious officer dealing with an explosive prisoner, Ms Hughes said.
The alleged assault was captured on video surveillance but Busby’s lawyer, Rachael Adams, and Mills’ lawyer, Richard Earwaker, said the footage needed to be viewed in context.
Mr Earwaker said all the officers knew about the camera, and Mills had said he was thankful for its presence “because it was there to protect him from false allegations”.
Falwasser had a head injury after being hit with a baton, and had punched at officers when they tried to subdue him with shields.
Mr Earwaker said the officers had limited tactical options left at this point because “talking hadn’t worked”, and Parsons had approved Mills’ plan to pepper spray through the cell vents.
Pepper spray did not cause injury and only three of his shots had connected, despite the Crown counting that Mills sprayed 23 times.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Policeman cleared of rape
April 18, 2008
Suppression has been lifted on the occupation of a serving police officer who was acquitted after an eight-day sexual violation trial in the High Court at Christchurch on Wednesday.
Justice Graham Panckhurst heard submissions from Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway and defence counsel Bryan Green before lifting the order, which had been in place since the 43-year-old was first charged.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Police right to lay charges over PM’s motorcade - PCA
November 28, 2007
It was appropriate for police to lay charges after the Prime Minister’s motorcade sped between Waimate and Christchurch on July 17 2004, a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) report released today says.
“I am satisfied that, following a thorough investigation and expert independent legal advice on the potential criminal liability of the various parties, it was appropriate for the police to lay the charges they did,” PCA head Justice Lowell Goddard said.
Charges were laid against five police officers and one civilian and in the course of a lengthy defended hearing and ensuing appeals all charges were disposed of without conviction.
Justice Goddard said she shared the view that the defendants felt that they were doing no more than their duty.
But the justification for the belief of urgency had not been properly established.
“As a result of inadequate control throughout, an unacceptable standard of driving ensued which led to numerous complaints,” she said.
Complaints were laid by 16 members of the public about dangerous driving by the motorcade. Motorists were irate when they found out it was rushing to Christchurch to catch a flight to Wellington for an All Blacks rugby test match against Australia.
Justice Goddard said that with one minor exception the complaints received by police were handled in an acceptable manner.
The minor exception was a telephone complaint to the Southern Communications Centre on the day of the incident.
“The communicator’s response did not met the required standard,” the report said.
This was addressed by a performance review and remedial training.
Police did consider whether there was any culpability on the part of the Prime Minister Helen Clark and then cabinet minister Jim Sutton who accompanied her in the motorcade. Both provided statements.
“Police accepted independent advice, that other than the six individuals who were found to have cases to answer, there was no evidence upon which charges could be properly bought against any other person in the motorcade.”
The report praised a review of Diplomatic Protection Squad standard operating procedures and urgent duty driving policy since the incident.
____________________________________________________________________
Police criticised over Waitara death
Aug 3, 2007
Seven years after police gunned down Waitara man Steven Wallace, the long awaited coroner’s report has come out with some damning conclusions.
The Hamilton coroner’s report criticises the actions of the two officers who confronted Wallace as he went on an early morning rampage in the small Taranaki town.
Police were called to Waitara on the morning of April 30, 2000, as Wallace smashed more than 60 shop windows with a golf club and baseball bat. When police arrived he turned on them and he didn’t stop when police fired warning shots. It was then that Senior Constable Keith Abbot fired in self defence.
Wallace died shortly after.
The coroner decided to conduct an inquest into the death, but ruled that it should only look at police policy and procedure and first aid care for Wallace.
Gordon Matenga’s report has pointed to police flaws but the lawyer who represents them says that is rubbish.
“The criticisms are redundant and…don’t reflect the reality of what confronted them that morning,” Susan Hughes QC says.
Matenga says the three officers who dealt with the incident showed a lack of leadership. He says it was nothing to do with inadequate police procedure, it was simply “a performance issue”.
He also criticises a lack guidelines for police as to when dog handlers should be called in and recommends the policy be reviewed. But the coroner says it must not be forgotten that Steven Wallace was “bent on mayhem”.
Wallace’s family took a private murder prosecution against Abbott. He was found not guilty following a trial at the High Court in Wellington.
Hughes says Abbot is pleased the inquest result is finally out.
“It has been almost two years since the inquest was held, it’s been more than seven years since Steven Wallace was shot…the question is how much longer it’s actually going to take to conclude all the legal processes,” says Hughes.
The final chapter in the death will be a report from the Police Complaints Authority.
———————————————————————————————————————–
‘Milk bottle’ nickname kept from trial jury
March 10, 2007
By Patrick Gower
Former policeman Brad Shipton gave the nickname “milk bottle” to the woman he allegedly sexually violated with a bottle - but this was kept secret from the jury that acquitted him.
The nickname was ruled to be irrelevant and likely to ruin his chance of a fair trial, even though it was what led detectives to a second Rotorua woman who said she was victim of a pack sex-attack by Shipton, Clint Rickards and Bob Schollum in the 1980s.
The detectives were alerted when they saw “milk bottle” scribbled next to a five-digit phone number in a old police notebook of Shipton’s seized during their investigations of the Louise Nicholas rape allegations.
They traced the woman who said she had been in a consensual sexual relationship with the married police officer Shipton when she was 16 that turned nasty when she wouldn’t let his friend Schollum join in.
The woman, who has name suppression, described arriving at a Rotorua house and being dragged into a room where Shipton straddled her as Schollum stood on one side and Mr Rickards on the other.
She said she was violated by something that felt like a bottle, and although she couldn’t see it, thought it to be a whisky bottle they were drinking from.
The trio were acquitted of kidnapping and indecently assaulting the woman, after a trial in the High Court at Auckland nine days ago.
The Weekend Herald can reveal the reference to a milk bottle was suppressed by Justice Tony Randerson in a pre-trial ruling because it had “minimal probative value”, was a “speculative” link and would be “seriously prejudicial”.
The “milk bottle” nickname was found in a notebook from 1986, while the woman alleged the incidenthappened in the early months of 1984.
Crown prosecutor Brent Stanaway said the reference was relevant because it was what led detectives to the woman, and was circumstantial evidence Shipton was involved in a bottle incident.
He said Shipton was known to use a form of code with his phone numbers.
Shipton’s lawyer Bill Nabney argued that the reference and alleged attack were too remote in time, and that there was a distinction between a whisky and a milk bottle.
The Crown was able to refer to the notebooks in general at the trial after Shipton reneged on a deal where he would admit to having had a sexual relationship with the woman in exchange for having them suppressed.
Mr Stanaway told the jury the continued reference showed Shipton “keeping track of his liabilities” with a woman noted down as “somebody who might come out of his past”.
The juries in the latest trial and at that for the Louise Nicholas allegations were unaware that Shipton and Schollum were convicted of the pack rape of a 20-year-old woman at Mt Maunganui in 1989 after a trial in 2005. She alleged that they violated her with a police baton but they were acquitted of that charge.
Shipton, Schollum and Mr Rickards were acquitted of all 20 charges, including rape, after the Nicholas trial. Mrs Nicholas, aged 18 when the offences were said to have occurred between 1985 and 1986, also alleged that a baton was used on her.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Policeman’s pepper spray conviction quashed
Wednesday, 20 December 2006
A Masterton police officer found guilty of assaulting a man with pepper spray had his conviction quashed by a judge at the High Court in Wellington today and his name suppression lifted.
Peter Kenneth Jackson, a police dog handler from Masterton, was convicted of assault using pepper spray in a decision delivered by Wellington District Court Judge Michael Behrens three weeks after a hearing in October.
He was fined $500 plus $130 of costs.
Jackson denied assaulting Ben Viane by an unjustified use of pepper spray when arresting him on March 12 in Masterton.
Mr Viane was drunk and had allegedly used physical violence on someone at a party at another address earlier that night.
Justice John Wild said Mr Viane accepted he could not remember if he had heard Jackson tell him he was under arrest and accepted he had tried to step around Jackson. His sole intention was to get back to the address where he had been earlier, to see his girlfriend.
Jackson’s lawyer Noel Sainsbury said in written submissions his client used the pepper spray because he was dealing with a Polynesian man, bare from the waist up, believed to have strangled or dealt out physical violence to a woman at a party.
Jackson’s attempts to call out to the man and stop him were unsuccessful, then he kept walking when Jackson told him to stop. Jackson put his arm on the man to stop him, but this did not work either.
Mr Sainsbury said if Jackson had not stopped Mr Viane he would have returned to the scene of the party. Jackson was therefore protecting himself, his colleagues and Mr Viane himself by temporarily disabling Mr Viane with pepper spray.
Prosecutor Gary Turkington told the court Jackson had testified he had held his arm against Mr Viane as Mr Viane walked down a driveway and he maintained pressure until it got to a point where he felt he had to pepper spray Mr Viane.
Mr Turkington said the use of pepper spray in these circumstances was “gratuitous” accompanied by Jackson’s comment, “I’m sick of f***ing telling him.”
Mr Turkington said crown evidence was that Mr Viane was submissive. He said there was no justification for using force in this matter.
He said Jackson should have put his hand on Mr Viane’s shoulder.
Justice Wild said Jackson had already done that and been ignored and he suggested a more radical step may have been needed.
Justice Wild said Judge Behren’s found Jackson’s evidence was not credible so he put it to one side, and he had done the same, looking only at the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses.
He said Mr Viane’s evidence conflicted with the police officers and it was impossible to reconcile the two.
In delivering his decision, Justice Wild said overturning the conviction made the sentence appeal redundant. He said he would provide written reasons for his decision either today or tomorrow.
—————————
Cop’s job on line after assault conviction
27 October 2006
A Masterton policeman convicted in Wellington District Court today of assault using pepper spray wants to remain in the force.
The policeman, whose name remains suppressed, declined to comment on the conviction, or whether he would appeal.
Sponsored Links
Judge Michael Behrens did not accept an argument from the policeman’s lawyer, Noel Sainsbury, for a discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.
He convicted the policeman and fined him $500 plus $130 of costs but granted an interim name suppression until next Wednesday to allow the man time to consider his options.
Mr Sainsbury told the court that with a conviction the man’s police career would be at an end.
“I don’t accept that,” Judge Behrens said.
Police spokesman Jon Neilson said police had no comment on the man’s employment situation, which would be subject to an internal process once the external court process ended.
Mr Sainsbury said the man wanted to remain a policeman.
He would have difficulty working in a small community if his name was known. He said police played a unique role in society.
“They are not above the law,” said Judge Behrens.
He said if a charge was proved the public was entitled to know who committed the crime.
He said the offence was a grave one because in effect the accused had misused the power given to police by the law.
The policeman denied assaulting Ben Viane on March 12 in Masterton.
Judge Brehrens said Mr Viane did not lay a complaint.
The prosecution relied on evidence from two other police officers, one of which gave evidence that out of nowhere the accused sprayed Mr Viane in the face.
Judge Brehrens said the constable described Mr Viane as not aggressive and his body language as submissive and said that that evidence had been compelling.
Evidence was also given that the accused said after the spraying “you shouldn’t have any more problems with him”.
The accused had believed that Mr Viane had been involved in a strangling incident at a party at another address earlier in the night. He had not warned Mr Viane because he was too close.
Mr Viane was drunk and repeatedly said he wanted to go and see his girlfriend.
Mr Viane was taken to the police station where an antidote was administered.
—————————————————-
Officer convicted for pepper spray use
Oct 27, 2006
A Wairarapa police officer has been convicted of assault after pepper spraying a man in the face.
The police dog handler pepper-sprayed an unarmed, drunk man in the face at point blank range.
A court order means he cannot be identified, but the experienced officer claims he was just doing his job when he sprayed his victim, Masterton man Ben Viane.
The assault happened in March when Viane had been suspected of assault at a party. The officer claimed he used the blinding spray after Viane resisted arrest.
He then turned to two other officers and said “you shouldn’t have any problems with him. I’m sick of telling him.”
The two officers testified against their colleague, saying there had been no struggle, no danger and no warning.
The conviction comes as police trial taser stun guns to deal with violent offenders.
“If we can’t trust the police to use pepper spray, how can we trust them with tasers or more general access to firearms,” says Green MP Keith Locke.
A spokeswoman for police headquarters said the officer will now have to go through an internal disciplinary process to determine whether he will keep his job.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Cop Not Guilty Of Firearm Charge
Allan Windrum
Wednesday December 20, 2006
An Auckland police officer who fired a pistol during a swoop on a dangerous criminal has been acquitted of a firearms charge.
A jury in Auckland District Court took about two hours to find Constable Allan Windrum not guilty of careless use of a weapon during the June 2004 police swoop on Zeke Lowe in suburban Remuera.
The Crown alleged Windrum fired a Glock pistol at Lowe, a P addict police were treating as armed and dangerous. It argued Windrum was careless when he fired a shot as his colleague Constable David Mayes was struggling with Lowe inside a Toyota.
But the jury agreed with Windrum’s lawyer Richard Earwaker that there was reasonable doubt as to whether his client’s use of the weapon was careless in the circumstances.
Mr Earwaker also argued that Mr Mayes was not in the car when Windrum fired his pistol.
He said Windrum was delighted with the verdict.
“He’s very relieved and he’s going to enjoy Christmas much more now that this is over with,” he told NZPA.
Windrum had not been stood down by police following the charge. He has spent much of the intervening period doing traffic work, which Mr Earwaker said he had enjoyed.
“It’s always tough on police officers who are always in the eye of the public. This has been a long process but Allan is pleased it has been resolved.”
Mr Earwaker did not wish to comment when asked whether the case should have been brought to trial.
Windrum was charged after the incident on June 16, 2004, when Lowe was captured.
Lowe had been on the run from police for three months when the June 16 incident involving Windrum occurred. He was being treated as armed and dangerous as he had taken a firearm during a burglary beforehand, and was possibly irrational due to a methamphetamine addiction.
After a car which Lowe was travelling in had been pulled over, Windrum had pointed his pistol at Lowe from beside the driver’s door and tried to arrest him, after which Lowe had reversed the car with the door open to knock Windrum over, Mr Earwaker told the jury.
He said Windrum fired a shot at Lowe through the rear windscreen shortly afterwards, a shot which did not hit anybody else, as all other options other than lethal force were gone and he was fearful Lowe would get away and be a serious threat to fellow officers and Remuera residents.
The Crown had argued that Mr Mayes was in the car at the time the pistol was fired and had Lowe in a headlock. Mr Earwaker said Mr Mayes had yet to get into the car at this time .
Windrum did not fire a second shot because the rear windscreen shattered and he could not see Lowe. He then went towards the front, pepper-sprayed Lowe and later helped Mr Mayes and fellow constable Lisa Magnusson arrest him.
Crown prosecutor Chris Morris did not wish to comment after the verdict.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Drink-drive charge dismissed against police woman
14.06.05 1.00pm
A police officer who admitted driving home over the limit from the police station social club has had a drink-driving charge against her dismissed.
Sharee Leith Winsloe, 27, admitted drinking four glasses of wine and two kahluas before driving home in Invercargill on July 30 last year.
But Judge Noel Walsh dismissed the case because fellow police officers who went to the crash scene did not follow proper procedures.
Winsloe failed a breath-screening test after she crashed at an intersection about midnight and a subsequent blood specimen taken from her returned an excess blood alcohol reading of 105mg. The legal limit is 80mg.
Winsloe used her cellphone to report the accident to the police communications centre and two police officers arrived at the scene. At 12.41am Constable Bruce Martin asked Winsloe to undergo a breath screening test, which she failed.
Judge Walsh accepted Winsloe assumed she was going to be taken to the Invercargill police station, where she could contact a lawyer before undergoing an evidential breath test.
However, when an ambulance did not arrive, the attending officers decided to take Winsloe to Southland Hospital.
Judge Walsh said: “I find, as a fact, that Ms Winsloe assumed she was simply going to the hospital for an examination as to whether she was suffering from any injuries as a result of the accident and then she was going on to the Invercargill police station.”
While in hospital, Mr Martin advised Winsloe he had requested the doctor take a blood specimen from her.
Judge Walsh said in his judgement: “How could Ms Winsloe be expected to know (when she was read her rights on the way to the hospital) that in fact the police had no intention, at that time, of going on from the hospital to the police station where she would then telephone her lawyer?”
Mr Martin had told Winsloe one thing, but did another.
“In my view, in the particular circumstances of this case, there is a clear risk of unfairness or injustice flowing from (Mr Martin’s) representations,” Judge Walsh said.
He found Winsloe’s rights were unfairly infringed and the blood specimen taken from her was inadmissible.
However, he said there was no question Mr Martin had acted professionally and with integrity and there was no intentional “bad faith”.
Winsloe had earlier admitted a careless driving charge and is remanded to appear again on Thursday.
Police relieving area commander Inspector Barry Taylor said yesterday he would discuss the judgment with the Crown.
