More police allegations
Investigate has published documents which appear to reveal further serious issues with former Dunedin police, including a transcript of a tape recording of officers ” justifying a decision by other police officers to lie to an official inquiry in order to protect their own interests”.
10 MBs of scanned pdfs are available online.
The SST reported that the latest allegations have been referred to the Police Complaints Authority. I hope they actually bother to investigate these ones, unlike the last set.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
June 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Interesting stuff! Interesting too, that NO-ONE has yet taken legal action against Wishart for the contents of his last expose. Come to think of it, neither has David Benson-Pope.
Like you DPF, i hope that the PCA does actually conduct a bona-fide investigation, but I doubt that it will happen anytime soon. Which begs the question – if Wishart has all the evidence he purports to, why will no-one investigate (pardon the pun!) it? Unfortunately for the police, shit sticks, and serious allegations (whether they have basis in fact or not) being perceived to be swept under the carpet because of the person who reports them merely adds to the perception that the police force has a dirty secret it wants kept hidden.
June 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Everybody is quick on the condemnation of Ian Wishart and his Investigate Magazine and in all honesty I can publicly state (witness was partner) that a Senior Sergeant from NZ police said, “ that police regularly lie to save each others hides and that’s the way things are.”
Is this behaviour acceptable from New Zealand Police? Who is accountable and I do not expect the PCA – Hon Lowell Goddard to be any different from Ian Borrin? The PCA is a toothless tiger.
June 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I too hope that the PCA does a full investigation.
It has been weeks since we saw a good whitewash.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
It is a huge worry D4J that the PCA seem to not have the strength to handle these or the ethical prowess, and one that we seriously considered before starting to prepare our complaint. The fact of the matter is that incompetence and dishonesty must not be tolerated at any cost.
We have hired a professional to complete our complaint given that the police ignored the DNA evidence, and failed to confront the false accuser with evidence and alibis that clearly disputed her fabrications/delusions thereby allowing her to get away with her crimes.
I would hope those that fail to get satisfaction through the complainst process will head to the media with their accounts something we are prepared to do.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The Police and Police Copmplaints Authority are ignoring Dame Margarets Bazley’s recommendations as you can see.
The Hon Justice Goddard closed the file on this complaint in February this year. No public announcement. Cover-up?
27 10 2006: Copy to the Governor-General, Transparency International NZ, Rt Hon Helen Clark, Hon Dr Don Brash, Auditor-General and Media
Police Complaints Authority
PO Box 5025
Wellington
Dear Sir
The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill
This corrupt piece of legislation, now a legacy of shame for all New Zealanders should never have occurred.
It is a memorial to the corrupt Senior New Zealand Police for the reasons given below:
The role of the police in their investigation into the Electoral Commission Complaint of over expenditure of Election expenses has been the opposite of the “comprehensive investigation” that they claimed in their report.
Firstly
You must consider how the police’s “comprehensive investigation” could be regarded as a “comprehensive investigation” when the critical time line relevant to such an investigation as per an Act of Parliament, was either negligently or purposefully ignored, thus resulting in the investigation being worthless, meaningless and a total waste of taxpayers money.
Secondly
You must consider how the standard of investigative work by police in this matter portrays any understanding of responsibility and accountability on their part. At best, it displays a preconceived and determined effort to torpedo a legitimate complaint. At worst, it displays simply that the police have acted “negligently”, “ corruptly”, “negligently” and “ corruptly”, or “deliberately corruptly”.
Enclosed documents are prima facie evidence that police “deliberately corrupted” the report of the investigation into the Electoral Committee Complaint that was lodged with them. Some of the evidence is contained on the Streamline disc “Electoral Advertising 23/06/06” forwarded by the Office of the Commissioner under the Official Information Act 1982, after a request from the Ombudsman.
The following is a part list of my allegations and copy is enclosed
1. 10 02 2006 to Acting Police Commissioner Steve Long: Misappropriation of Helen Clark’s leader’s funds. (Buried!)
2. 19 07 2006 to Police Commissioner Howard Broad: allegations that Phillip Taito Field was in breach of the Crimes Act 1961. (Unacknowledged)
3. 16 08 2005 to Wanganui Police. “Perverting the Course of Justice” No acknowledgement.
Police Complaints Authority: Copies of the Docs 1-14 listed in this complaint can be obtained from the Wanganui Police.
4. 19 10 2006 Police Commissioner Howard Broad. Allegations of breaches of the Crimes Act 1961
This letter was responded to by Dr A R Jack on 25 October 2006. Copy is attached to this letter. In my view it is indicative of “Corrupt Practice”. The main person who is accused of “corrupt practice”, as I see it, is asked to resolve my allegations?
My allegations of corruption and breaches of s. 116 Crimes Act 1961: Conspiring to defeat justice—Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice: are laid against Police Commissioner Howard Broad and those in the Office of the Commissioner who conspired to “bury” my complaints of: Misappropriation of Helen Clark’s leader’s funds. Included also are those who have knowledge of my allegations and have not responded.
The actions of the police in burying and continuing to bury my allegations, have led to the giving of the Royal Assent to legislation that is essentially a corrupt document. This brings her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 into disrepute.
The document 05 10 2006 to the Auditor-General presents the conspiracy attributed to Police in their dealing with the Electoral Committee complaint……….
Frank
June 18th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Frank, are you trying to be phil u’s foil?
June 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I wonder whether anyone has got the guts to ask a question in Parliament?
1/Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of police?
2/ Is the Prime Minister aware that there are serious allegations of corruption in the Dunedin police?
3/Does this mean that the messenger should be immediately shot to neutralise this further embarrassment to her Govt?
4/Could the Prime Minister confirm that this is further allegations against the Police having fairly successfully glossed over the last allegations even though they have now been referred to the Police Complaints Authority?
4/Will the Prime Minister be reviewing the instructions she is passing on to Senior Police management in relation to fabricated set up allegations that they are using against Taito Philip Field following the obvious and extensive corrupt set ups that have been exposed in Dunedin.
5/ Can the Prime Minister confirm that the latest scandal involving the Minister of Police will now be known as “King-gate” and therefore it shouldn’t be pursued or prosecuted as it clearly qualifies for exemption under the “gate clause” like Painter-gate, Corn-gate, Speeding-gate,Doone-gate, Pledge-gate etc etc .
6/Could the Prime Minister also confirm that the “gate clause” exemption specifically excludes anyone who dares to question or disagree with her agenda such as “Investigate” , “Taitogate”, “Smackgate” “Stolenemailgate”, “Tractorupstepsgate”,
“Exclusivebrethrengate”,”Smithcontemptgate”and if so could she confirm the likely timing of such prosecutions?
7/ Could the Prime Minister confirm whether these prosecutions can be processed very quickly to prevent them lingering around and causing poll droop around election times.
June 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I wonder whether anyone has got the guts to ask a question in Parliament?
1/Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of police?
2/ Is the Prime Minister aware that there are serious allegations of corruption in the Dunedin police?
3/Does this mean that the messenger should be immediately shot to neutralise this further embarrassment to her Govt?
4/Could the Prime Minister confirm that this is further allegations against the Police having fairly successfully glossed over the last allegations even though they have now been referred to the Police Complaints Authority?
4/Will the Prime Minister be reviewing the instructions she is passing on to Senior Police management in relation to fabricated set up allegations that they are using against Taito Philip Field following the obvious and extensive corrupt set ups that have been exposed in Dunedin.
5/ Can the Prime Minister confirm that the latest scandal involving the Minister of Police will now be known as “King-gate” and therefore it shouldn’t be pursued or prosecuted as it clearly qualifies for exemption under the “gate clause” like Painter-gate, Corn-gate, Speeding-gate,Doone-gate, Pledge-gate etc etc .
6/Could the Prime Minister also confirm that the “gate clause” exemption specifically excludes anyone who dares to question or disagree with her agenda such as “Investigate” , “Taitogate”, “Smackgate” “Stolenemailgate”, “Tractorupstepsgate”,
“Exclusivebrethrengate”,”Smithcontemptgate”and if so could she confirm the likely timing of such prosecutions?
7/ Could the Prime Minister confirm whether these prosecutions can be processed very quickly to prevent them lingering around and causing poll droop around election times.
June 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Calculus, no one has the guts to ask a question in Parliament so will the Minister of Justice do?
20 05 2007
Hon Mark Burton
Minister of Justice
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Dear Minister
Thank you for your response to my email and attachments 15 May 2007, sent to some Members of Parliament, media etc. Quite a number of proposed recipients did not receive the attachments and that has been rectified today.
Part of your Ministry’s mission statement is:” A fairer, more credible and more effective justice system, being a system in which people’s interactions are underpinned by the rule of law and justice services are more equitable, credible and accessible”.
You recently stated: “An extraordinary statement from a group who was exposed as attempting to subvert the last election shows the need for electoral finance reform before the next election”.
Additionally you stated: …”the electoral funding laws were found to be wanting at the last election. The government intends to address this and in so doing strengthen the public’s confidence in the electoral system”. (F 20 05 2007. To do this we must have a transparent justice system.)
You are now aware that on 27 February 2007, The Hon Justice Goddard, Police Complaints Authority closed the file on complaints lodged in October and November of last year against Police Commissioner Howard Broad and persons in the Office of the Commissioner.
The allegations were of a very serious nature viz: Perverting and preventing the course of justice.
You are now aware that this decision of The Hon Justice Goddard is contaminated by the fact that she condoned her action as set down in this extract from my letter 16 04 2007:
“In the execution of your duties you clearly confirm that it is right and proper for you to confer with, enquire of, and take the advice of one of the persons complained to be in breach of the Crimes Act 1961, to close the file under the Act, without providing clear reasons to justify your actions
This in my view sets a new low for justice in this country, but it is par for the course. However I leave the following thought with you:
Crimes Act 1961
Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice (s 99 to s [122)
Misleading justice
116 Conspiring to defeat justice”
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice
24 Powers of Authority in relation to investigations
(3) Every such examination by the Authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 108 of the Crimes Act 1961 (which relates to perjury).
27 Procedure after investigation by Authority
(1) Where the Authority itself undertakes an investigation under this Act it shall form an opinion on whether or not any decision, recommendation, act, omission, conduct, policy, practice, or procedure which was the subject-matter of the investigation was contrary to law, unreasonable, unjustified, unfair, or undesirable.
(2) The Authority shall convey its opinion, with reasons, to the Commissioner, and may make such recommendations as it thinks fit, including a recommendation that disciplinary or criminal proceedings be considered or instituted against any member of the Police.
I have no knowledge whether; 27 Procedure after investigation by Authority was carried out as this knowledge is withheld from me and the public of New Zealand by:
So there is no transparency in the relationship between Police and the Police Complaints Authority.
This ensures that matters of “Public Interest” never surface. The file is closed on them. They are effectively “Buried”. “Corruption” rears its ugly head.
I allege Minister, that the Hon Justice Goddard, Police Complaints Authority has breached the following section of the Crimes Act 1982
116 Conspiring to defeat justice
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice
You need to commission a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the actions of the Police and Police Complaints Authority.
Frank
June 18th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I wonder if the police in Dunedin have anything on DBP that they may use to keep things quiet?
June 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Frank – less posting of your letters please. They take up too much space. You could post them all onto your own blog and then just put links to them in the comments here when you think they are relevant.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
David. Message received. Thanks for the tip. I realise I have transgressed your hospitality and apologise.
Your Kiwiblog will bring some integrity into our political system and hopefully engineer a Royal Commission of Inquiry, with a wide field of reference.
Frank
June 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“Your Kiwiblog will bring some integrity into our political system ”
I agree Frank and well done David Farrar for talking about subjects the pollies would rather not talk about .
June 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
The problem Labour have now is How much more has Investigate got that hasn’t been published yet!
Lets face it, is there anyone who seriously believes the type of stuff that apparently went on in Dunedin never happened in Rotorua, Christchurch, Hamilton etc etc. Wishart might still have a few more ‘Dunedin’s’ up his sleeve. I think it’s folly to try to ignore what might turn out to be very damaging and especially damaging because it was never fully investigated.
This is the difference between politics in NZ and the UK. In the UK a full powered inquiry would have been ordered if the members implicated didn’t fall on their sword’s. There is neither a formal inquiry or any resignations in NZ. We just move on. Well looks like Wishart ain’t finished here yet.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
If Commissar Broad had no knowledge of what went on in Dunedin – right under his nose, what confidence can we have that he even knows what the roll of paper in the bathroom is for. More likely he just another liar.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Does the PCA have the ability to act on this?
June 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
mebe wishart and hager be actor in public play in wellington people throw eggs,
June 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I would suggest that the Dunedin police and the Minister are engaged in a nucleur standoff with each having enough evidence to destroy the other and niether wishing to be the first to press the button.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
gd
Yep, and neither party has enough integrity to call for a royal commission of inquiry to sort it all out. This IMHO says they are both guilty.
Perhaps we had better move on because it just wouldn’t be in the public interest ….