Accountability for death of Halatau Naitoko

May 31st, 2009 at 9:55 am by David Farrar

No Right Turn has died of shock, upon finding he agrees with ACT MP David Garrett on how it is “incomprehensible” that the police officer who shot Naitoko is not facing charges.

Garrett says:

While not charging the officer concerned with manslaughter is probably justifiable, it seems incomprehensible that the officer is not facing charges under the Arms Act for failing to properly identify his target

The Herald on Sunday editorial also touches on this today.

Tags: David Garrett, Halatau Naitoko, No Right Turn, Police, RIP

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 31st, 2009 at 9:55 am and is filed under New Zealand. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

16 Responses to “Accountability for death of Halatau Naitoko”

Patrick Starr (3,673) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 10:25 am
The only conceivable explanation would be the Naitoko was hit by a ricochet, but failing that the cop should have been charged the same as anyone else.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Inventory2 (8,894) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 10:36 am
It’s an interesting issue DPF. I have also blogged about it today, linking back to your post on Electoral Act prosecutions (or the lack of them) where I expressed my view that the Police seem to have usurped the role of the Courts in deciding how the law should be interpreted. Is this really the Police’s role? And as far as the decisions on Electoral Act breaches go, is this further evidence that the Police are getting too involved in political matters?

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/05/who-should-decide.html
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Graeme Edgeler (2,979) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 10:39 am
With other homicides, the police establish who is responsible and lay charges. The courts decide whether or not the homicide was culpable – whether the person responsible is guilty of manslaughter or murder.

I’m open to evidence that that is the case, but if so, then the police are breaking the law.

This is not a quibble, but a fundamental plank in our constitutional arrangements: Parliament makes the law; the police enforce it and apprehend those who break it; the courts decide whether the police have proved their case. The police have discretion to decide not to act – if an offence is trivial, for example – and they make such decisions every day. But when somebody dies, such police discretion becomes a luxury we dare not afford.

It’s not a matter of discretion, it’s a question of whether there is a case. Commencing a prosecution when you don’t have the evidence to back one up is illegal. That, not ‘charge and be damned’ is the fundamental plank in our constitutional arrangements. Why on Earth would a major newspaper decide that commencing malicious homicide prosecutions is a good idea?

There may be concerns about the particular decision (perhaps over arms charges, rather than homicide), but these should not become an impetus for police – or anyone – to shoot first and ask questions later. If we’ve concerns about the police decision the proper action is increased independent oversight, or potentially something like grand jury investigations in such cases.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
backster (1,802) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Graeme Edgeler is exactly right. Police should never charge anyone unless they can prove every ingredient of the charge. In cases such as this the Crown Prosecutor would also have to be convinced that there is a case before a prosecution can be launched. The Police Complaints Authority inquiry might take another year or so to come to a decision, but there seems no reason why a reasonably prompt Coroner’s Inquiry should not reveal the full facts.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Patrick Starr (3,673) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 11:17 am
The only time, (perhaps there are others?) I can recall someone not being charged for shooting another is the very recent Zhuo Feng Jiang in Tokoroa, where he shot the robber in the leg with his own his rifle. (and not laying charges was interesting timing considering this)
However I cannot recall any shooting resulting in death where the police have not laid charges, regardless of whether a prosecution may be successful or not. The police have always maintained they will lay charges for any shooting resulting in death.
The way I see it is its Arms Act S53 Careless use of firearm, or restricted weapon, who causes the death of any person by carelessly using a firearm, or with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Perhaps one of our legal experts can explain?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
mudrunner (66) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 11:20 am
It is about being seen to be fair, Some arm’s length process is needed, to protect the police from newspaper trial and to protect their own reputation. There are plenty of precedents overseas, from which to pick up the best.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Glutaemus Maximus (2,207) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 11:47 am
It was the the rifle what done it Gov. Along with the accomplice, that bleedin bullet!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
stephen (4,063) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
RIP No Right Turn
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
peterwn (2,215) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
There are two issues
1. Homicide (ie murder / manslaughter) – the police quite correctly discerned that s48 of Crimes Act kicks in (self defence or defence of others) so did not lay that sort of charge. IMO Ross Meurant (contraversial ex cop) is quite wrong in saying that he should be charged – he is pretty well saying that the officer should be tormented by the whole business of court proceedings. On a more pragmatic reason against it is that clorts are clogged ans hence should not be used for such luxuries.

2. Firearms offence – at one extreme there is no excuse when deer shooting, but if there are extremely dangerous circumstances requiring a quick response the risk of some mishap may have to be accepted. So something that is ‘careless’ in a deer shooting situation may not be ‘careless’ here. No doubt the Independent Police Conduct Authority will be very thoroughly investinating this aspect.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Patrick Starr (3,673) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
peterwn. my interest in this case is because not only am I a hunter but many years ago the father of a friend of mine shot and killed an armed intruder in his house. He was charged amongst other things with manslaughter and was one of those that clogged the court system to his great cost and was eventually acquitted.
The cops maintained, and to the best of my knowledge practise the policy, that anyone causing death by firearm will be charged. Of course in the case of my friends father the cops argued that he shouldn’t have had a firearm readily available, but nevertheless the jury sympathised with him. (It was clearly against the law) but the ‘quick response’ time as you state is the same in both circumstances.
Imagine for a moment if my friends father had missed and accidentally killed an innocent person behind the intruder out on the street? – I suspect the jury would not have been so sympathetic.

The point is the police policy either applies to everyone, or it needs to be changed
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Chuck Bird (3,550) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
It’s not a matter of discretion, it’s a question of whether there is a case. Commencing a prosecution when you don’t have the evidence to back one up is illegal. That, not ‘charge and be damned’ is the fundamental plank in our constitutional arrangements.

That might be how the law should work in theory but no in rapes cases.

I spent three days listening to a pack of lies in a rape case. It took about 15 minutes to find the poor guy not guilty (30 min. max). I was so incensed at a waste of court time and my time I phoned the police prosecutor. He said it was police policy where the complaint sticks to her story to let a jury decide. I said there was clearly a prima facie case for perjury against the vindictive bitch who could not accept the relationship was over. He did not disagree about a prima facie case but said if we did that it would discourage genuine complainants from coming forward. In other words mine was not an isolated case.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Chuck Bird (3,550) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
The only time, (perhaps there are others?) I can recall someone not being charged for shooting another is the very recent Zhuo Feng Jiang in Tokoroa, where he shot the robber in the leg with his own his rifle. (and not laying charges was interesting timing considering this)

There was also a case in Panmure some years ago where a neighbour took a gun into a garage a shor a burglar who as far as I can recall was unarmed. At least he did not have a firearm. He was not charged.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
wikiriwhis business (1,301) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I’m really perplexed on this issue.

THe police themselves as an organisation are highly dubious in their arrest techniques.

Planting and destroying innocence is obvious in the Bain and Scott Watson cases, not to mention

underhandedness in the civic creche case; just to name several.

But in this situation, I’m loking at the individual officer.

I’m also highly influenced by the victims family. I really want to support their issues.

At the same time, the officer didn’t aim his weapon at the victim, the death was completely an accident.

But…. not to stand down the officer concerned after he caused a death is highly inappropiate.

I think I have to go along with Inventory2. THe police have no right interpreting the law.

Just hope someone in the media said the same thing!
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Sean (271) Says:
May 31st, 2009 at 10:53 pm
As some one who has had to defend themselves against the police in a case where an essential element of the charge was never present and so therefore a prosecution could never succeed, I have to agree that in this case either the cop gets charged or else there is some other public and accountable method of determining culpability. Otherwise, it remains the case that there is one rule for the police and one for the rest of us. As much as we might have sympathy for the job they have to do, that’s not the society based on the rule of law that I want to live in.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
MS13(1) Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I find it totally unaceptable that a person can kill another person in NZ and not face trial. Sure it was an accident, but if it were you or me we would have faced a trial. And rightly so.
Let the judge or jury decide if the officer made an error, then the public, the police officer and the victims family can move on.
This current situation can only lead to vigilante type behaviour, and thats far worse.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
joeh545(1) Says:
June 18th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
The dust seems to have long settled on to who was responsible for the death of Halatau, and it seems the Police procedure, is blameless and the death of innocent by standers is acceptable. Yet I still wonder how it was that the criminal Mc Donald in this case was allowed to travel the distance he travelled that it was the police who became the obstacle’s that stopped the ASO from bringing Mc Donald to an earlier halt. That means we the public can then assume when the police finally brought Mc donld to a halt on the motorway they had a plan of how or what was to be their next action than plan was to bring Motorway traffic to a halt. Withdraw to a safe distance and see what Mc Donald would do next. Obvious to me that he was never going to sit quietly in his stolen car and wait to be arrested. I Have to assume that it is Police procedure to wait at a distance as we have had many examples of that being the first plan. ie the death of shop owner in Alfriston, Pike River to mention two, yet in many countries when dealing with other dangerous armed car runners the first and only plan and procedure is to bring criminals car to a halt then following police cars smash criminals car with theirs stunning the criminal and preventing the crim of exiting then putting there own weapons in his face any further resistance is met with death of the crim. Our Police take shots on the run from 40meters not 15 as some of the police on your site infer. Professionals my arse, Police procedure is used as cover up when it makes as many mistakes as the operation did. You just cannot blame the public or halatau for being in the wrong, wrong place wrong time, when the Police picked the time and the place to bring McDonald to halt to allow Mc Donald to exit the car. To bring the traffic to a halt that allowed Mc Donald to mount the truck he did. and then to attack Mc Donald from an angle that had the Police shooting into that traffic they brought to a halt. It was fortunate only one was killed by the police. Of course it is easier to blame the criminal for the death of any innocent but to say the criminal was irresponsible for everything that happened that day is just stupid but if it eases your conscience so be it
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Kiwiblog