Fair enough
June 3rd, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarThe SST reports:
Lawyers have condemned a move that saw a court fooled into prosecuting an undercover cop to boost his criminal standing.
Police are defending the move because of the dangerous nature of undercover work, but a leading barrister says it is an “an abuse of process hitherto unknown” in the legal system.
Documents show the fake prosecution was signed off in 2010 by Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson, who has since died.
If the Police had done it without the co-operation of the judiciary then I would be outraged. But I have no problems with this being done, as part of Police undercover work if there so long as the Chief DCJ signed it off.
Related posts:
- 28 days for contempt of court
- Plea bargains worth considering
- New Chief Censor
- Yay for Judge Callender
June 3rd, 2012 at 11:12 am
As pointed out on the GD, the ‘leading barrister’ is actually Eb Leary, who is himself no stranger to ethical issues.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 11:14 am
This is quite unsatisfactory. it is quite inappropriate for a Judge to sign off on a prosecution process that is a sham. I simply do not accept that the work of an undercover cop needed to undermine the integrity of the Court processes to this extent. I would have refused if a Judge, and invited the Police to try something else. We already have undercover officer committing offences and I just wonder where all this work ends. The boudaries between upholding the law and actively breaking the law and undermining Court processes gets far too blurred to me.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 11:25 am
The key question for me is did the Attorney-General give his permission?
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 am
Wasn’t Leary involved in a further spot of bother recently; which kinda shat on those at the bar who had supported his return from the wilderness?
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 11:41 am
Organised crime seriously undermines the peace and stability of society.Think Mexico.
To condemn the police for thinking outside the square and doing something clever is to side with the evil doers.
Some lawyers make a good living out of crime. How do the rest of us fare in the face of increasingly sophisticated and vicious crime?
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Nothing new about this of course other than Leary protesting too much.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
The safety and credibility of an undercover agent to my mind over-rides the pompous outrage and self interest of habitual serious offenders and their legal mouthpieces.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 2:36 pm
The work of undercover cops DOES NOT override the integrity of our judicial processes. Their work while useful is not THAT useful. THis is on the slippery state where the rule of law is completely undermined, where does it all end. Try something else Backster. Next they will be wanting confessions obtained through water boarding to be secretly admitted as evidence.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Stuff uses the word ‘outrage’ in it’s headline. No wonder Fairfax is heading for the crapper.
If this is all NZers have to be outraged about then they must be living in utopia.
Please try to put aside a little outrage for the child killers and P pedlars.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 3:45 pm
No, it is appalling.
The courts are meant to be impartial
This undermines that. It was wrong.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Of course it’s right to do this. I suspect it’s not the first time either.
Vote:Don’t get too high and mighty about integrity of the judicial process. This is a balanced, pragmatic, judicial process at work.
Think of the downside, at the minimum perhaps a dead undercover police officer, if he is compromised and at worst a lot of others.
June 3rd, 2012 at 3:57 pm
TVB would prefer the undercover cop to be dead.
I’ve got no problem in trying to bring down the drug lords.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Mud,
No. Police investigate.Courts adjudge.
They must be seperate.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Yep, Eb Leary was associated with the Mr Asia business. But that is a sepderate issue for which he received an appropriate legal sanction.
I agree with FES.
DAVID…. you have NOT thought this through.
It cuts to the core of confidence in an impartial judicial system
I know they may have intended well, but that does not alter the point that the Court was deceived AND a highly placed Judicial Officer was a party to that deception.
Quite appalling!
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Maybe this sort of BS wouldn’t even be necessary if drugs were legalised as they should be in a society claiming to be free and civilised?
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 4:28 pm
The Scorned
Of one thing we may be certain……leaving recreational drug supply in the hands of criminals generates vast sums of loose cash which will always be a threat to the integrity of our justice system.
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Its not ok to rort the judicial system to support whatever the moral panic du jour is – in this case i’m guessing its drugs. If you need to be that sneaky to catch em rather than using traditional investigative techniques to me that suggests something wrong with the ‘crime’. If the crime was actually harming others, the criminals would be caught the old fashioned way i.e. someone laying a complaint. Its a slippery slope…
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 8:40 pm
This undermines the whole Judiciary and the judicial process in New Zealand…completely.. utterly…and totally. The NZ public has already long lost faith with NZ Courts. What on earth are these Judges thinking..??
Vote:June 3rd, 2012 at 10:11 pm
wreak1080 there is always another way that does not have the rule of law being undermined. As I said the work of undercover cops is useful but NOT that useful investigating the drug trade. It is one tool of investigation but there are other tools that do not undermine the integrity of the judicial system This was a bad call of the Learned Judge.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 6:25 am
So finally the pieces fall together – Tama Iti must have been undercover all this time – that would explain his sentencing.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
I would go so far as to suggest that it was completely illegal. There is no provision for this in the law at all, as far as I know.
Moreover, was there an Information sworn in the matter, in order for it to come to Court? If there was, then was it sworn falsely, and thus an offence of perjury committed?
And did the District Court then sit on judgment in the subsequent cases in which it had assisted in the investigation?
No, this is really not good at all.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
@F E Smith
I agree with all that you’re saying. Sadly, the fact that many otherwise intelligent people can’t see what’s wrong with this scenario is indicative of the fact that the proper role of the courts is no longer understood; instead they are seen as part of the machinery that catches, finds guilty and locks away the irredeemably bad.
That in turn leads to a view of not guilty verdicts as a system failure rather than the opposite – evidence the system is working as intended. And of the belief that the ends justify the means, because by definition anyone targeted by police is up to no good. Etc.
This of course is a view long pedalled by politicians on both sides of the divide, with the notable exception of people like Nandor Tanczos, in order to win votes. We tend to become inured to the posturing of politicians, but this is an example of why we should not… because it slowly erodes public understanding of the fundamental pillars of our democracy.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION
If you’re ok with that then you’d also be ok with cops planting cartridge cases and DNA samples.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Rex
I would go further & opine that it is doubtful if the “public understanding of the fundamental pillars of our democracy” could sink much lower. The law is written in such a way that it is only interpretable by professionals such as ‘F E Smith’ & the outcome of a court case, at least to the lay person, can be compared to Saturday night’s Lotto draw.
Add in the chance that a conviction may be staged & we are getting dangerously close to the system being held in utter contempt by the man in the street.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
OK FES
And even though you are( ” just” ) a defence lawyer you are aware and from colleagues lots of things happen that are not made public, you are sounding a tad hysterical today
And down off the high horse, the person swearing the information was not necessarily in the frame, they are usually all sworn by a Senior Constable of my vintage at the Court who swears several hundred at once and I do believe from reading the article yesterday the Attorney General was consulted ( I think).
And if you have even just read the article in the paper yesterday the police did nothing without the Courts approval, if the Court had said no this would not have happened this way.
So once again I can say, bloody Courts bring the police into disrepute
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Sorry, PaulEB, but it was a joint effort with this one!
And the officer swearing the information should be aware of what he is swearing to. It still counts as perjury, even if it careless.
With regards the rest, the Courts and the Police can only do what the law allows them to do. That was the point of the SC decision in the Urewera case. It may have been imaginative, but I cannot see how it could be lawful, even with Russell Johnson’s approval. And I saw that it needs the A-Gs approval, but I didn’t see that they got it. Although I don’t think they would need it for a fake prosecution.
I am very committed to the principles of law, and of the criminal justice system, being upheld. I do not subscribe to the idea that the end justifies the means, even at a relatively low level.
While this seems innocuous, to some, it is a real worry when the courts begin to allow their processes to be used in favour of their biggest litigant.
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
“I am very committed to the principles of law, and of the criminal justice system, being upheld.”
Specially the bit that says the poor old taxpayer will get to foot your bill FESter.
How is your legal aid income for this financial year by the way?
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
FES
It won’t have been just off CDCJ Johnsons own bat that this was approved -
Anyway ,having a scoundrel like E.P. Leary quoted in the story takes away the gravitas of the entire deal.
Tui Billboard – Eb and ethics, yea right!
Vote:June 4th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
The same Eb Leary whose legal chambers were recently used as a depository for a drug dealers money, shortly after he had convinced a whose who of the legal fraternity that he was a ‘reformed’ character…
It’s beyond ridiculous that hes allowed to practice, let alone comment on legal ethics.
Vote: