Kiwiblog

The Herald talks about respect for the Police:

Mr O’Connor’s approach is even more problematic. He says a lack of guilty verdicts in the District Court had shown society and criminals that insulting the police is acceptable. It has also made the police reluctant to charge people for low-level offending using the legal provisions. “Cases show that it’s something police are expected to put up with, but it shouldn’t be,” says Mr O’Connor. His response is essentially a zero-tolerance policy that would see people shouting obscenities at the police convicted for insulting behaviour.

This raises several problems. The first is that the courts are merely reflecting societal mores in their approach to such offending. Obscenities do not have the same impact as they did, say, 30 years ago. Nor are the police alone in feeling that respect for their authority has dwindled. The teaching profession, for example, suffers from the same ailment. When it applies a zero tolerance approach, it means large-scale suspensions and expulsions.

That is as misguided as a policy that would burden overloaded courts further with low-level offences against the police for little gain. Zero tolerance does not work because its inflexibility leaves no room to deal with an out-of-character indiscretion or suchlike. Its approach to minor misdeeds is also far more likely to create a climate of fear than engender respect.

I think there is some linkage between the fact that people can now call the Police c**ts to their face, and that some of those people then also go on to assault them.

The Press focuses on irrigation:

The selection of two irrigation schemes among the four winners of a competition to find projects with a long-term potential capacity to make a significant contribution to the Canterbury economy demonstrates the significance of the appropriate use of its water resource to the region.

The fact that both schemes are extremely contentious shows also how arguments over the use of the resource are unlikely to be quickly resolved.

But if the judges are right, that these schemes are among a handful in Canterbury with the capacity to generate $100 million of revenue for Canterbury within five years and $1 billion or more in revenue within 10 years, it is obviously very important that the decisions that are reached on these projects are the right ones.

There is precious little else on the economic horizon with such potential.

I should get more excited about water issues in Canterbury as I know they are important, but frankly I don’t.

The Dominion Post looks at science funding:

In short, the Government appears to have heeded OECD criticism in 2007 that the public science system was unduly fragmented, as well as Sir Peter’s advice.

Science might be finally emerging from the shadows, its non-sexy status having long been reinforced by an often scientifically ignorant public, suspicious of the work many scientists do – take, for example, widespread distrust of genetic engineering, despite the public good it might do.

Thus, science is so often in the headlines for the wrong reasons.

Not last week, though. Then, two Wellington scientists were awarded the inaugural Prime Minister’s Science Prize for their research into the multimillion-dollar field of high-temperature superconductivity.

Both work for Industrial Research.Its chief, Shaun Coffey, says public-sector investment in the scientists’ endeavour has not only been repaid in terms of their work’s contribution to the economy, it has also positioned New Zealand “at the forefront of a new industry that is set to revolutionise the way electricity is used and distributed”. He knows the challenges ahead, however.

All eyes will be on the budget, as it has been made clear this is one of the few areas to get extra funding:

The ODT looks at the proposed tertiary education reforms:

Recent Cabinet decisions relating to funding for higher education and research suggest the Government is serious about its objective of raising knowledge standards and building a solid base for public and economic benefits from progress in science.

These are not easy decisions to make from a political perspective, since if they deliver hoped-for benefits they will do so only in the longer term.

There are few votes in such policies and it is to the Government’s credit that it is not afraid to embrace long-term goals for the greater good. …

The Government is in effect offering financial incentives for institutions tied to the improving educational performance of their students, which suggests that institutions with an aspirational goal of excellence, such as Otago university, can only benefit.

NZPA report:

Police have failed to find the source of the leaked Don Brash emails.

A police review of the investigation, involving almost 200 interviews, into the publication of the leaked emails from the then-leader of the National Party has been completed and the source of the emails could not be established. …

Almost 200 interviews were conducted with parliamentary employees, including I&T, security, messengers, cleaners and contractors, along with a number of other people, to corroborate information gathered in the original investigation.

Although no suspect leads were identified, the interviews did provide evidence of unsatisfactory security on the third floor both in terms of access to the floor and offices and to individual computers. These afforded opportunities for access to a range of documents, both hard copy and electronic.

We may never know the truth. I did ask Nicky Hager, when I last saw him, to consider revealing who did it and how, after that person/s has died, as he has a duty to history to reveal.

The Police have noted there was unsatisfactory security on the third floor. I believe the most likely way it happened was someone who does not work on the third floor, got in there and swiped the e-mails. It would have taken around two minutes to stick a flash drive in a PC and copy the Outlook file over.

The Herald reports:

Police have charged a former Government minister with abusing his ex-MP perk of taxpayer-subsidised flights.

Roger McClay is to appear in the Auckland District Court next Friday to face 56 charges of obtaining or using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty would not confirm the criminal charges, citing sections of the Official Information Act that protect a person’s right to a fair trial and privacy.

Umm. What nonsense is this. If criminal charges have been laid, they are not a private matter. We have an open justice system. If Roger McClay does not have name suppression (which seems obvious) then the charges should be public.

The Herald has the background to the charges. I don’t know at this stage whether the charges are disputed or not – I imagine we will find out on Friday.

Homepaddock blogs on her stolen laptop:

Top marks to the police officer at Christchurch airport who was dealing with the case of my stolen laptop – he’s got it back.

The saga began early last month when I was careless. I put my laptop and case down while paying for parking, picked up the case when I’d finished and walked off without picking up the laptop too. When I realised what I’d done a few minutes later I returned to the pay machine to find the lap top had gone.

I reported it to a police officer who went through video footage in which he saw a bloke pick up the laptop and walk off with it. The information on how much he’d paid for parking enabled the officer to work out when he’d entered the car park so he trawled through the video from the entrance and got the car’s registration number.

He traced the driver from that to an ex-girlfriend’s address and then to two former employers but the trail went cold from there. However, he persevered, found the bloke, got him to return to the airport where he admitted he’d taken the laptop and still had it.

Now I am really impressed the officer went to such lengths, to recover one item. And some good logical thinking also. He:

1. searched the video footage of the area where the laptop was taken
2. Got the parking machine records to tell how much the offender had paid for parking
3. Deduced the likely time he entered the carpark
4. Pulled up the video from the car park entrance
5. Got the car registration number
6. Traced the car to an ex-girlfriend
7. Traced him from there to two ex-employers
8. And finally traced the offender down

I suspect many a copy may have given up, or said not much could be done. Great to see such dedication and perseverance.

Ele is also seeking feedback on whether or not the offender should be just given a warning, or charged and then given diversion.

I think it is better to have him charged, in case he offends again.

The NZ Herald reviews the tsunami alerts:

Civil Defence has done better this time. On Sunday morning, the organisation did not seem asleep on the job, as it did on the morning of the Samoan earthquake last year.

This time, the organisation could have been quicker to issue a tsunami alert on Saturday night. An hour after Chile was shaken by the magnitude 8.8 earthquake, Civil Defence was discounting the risk of tidal waves, but by midnight it was warning otherwise.

From sensors in the sea we learn the magnitude of a wave and the projected direction and distance it will travel. These are low and long volumes of water and their modest height is no indication of their destructive potential. Doubtless their coastal impact, or lack of it, depends partly on the contours of the seabed and shore that they strike, but surely more could be predicted from mid-ocean.

Why, for example, did the Chilean tsunami arrive with more force on the coast of Japan, twice as far from the epicentre as New Zealand? Plainly nowhere around the vast Pacific is immune to the wash from offshore earthquakes on its fiery perimeter.

A lot of people mistake the size of a tsunami for not being destructive. Anything that travels at 800 km/hr can be lethal – even if only 50 cm tall.

The Dom Post discusses respect for the law:

However, the growth in the number of attacks on police must be checked. In 2000, some 216 officers were attacked in the line of duty. Last year the number was 412.

When officers such as Mr Connolly attend a domestic dispute, respond to an emergency call, or step in to break up a fight, they are acting on behalf of the community. If the job becomes too dangerous, honourable, conscientious individuals will decide it is not worth the risk.

The community has to find some way to instil in the young a greater respect for the law and those who enforce it. Otherwise we will all be worse off. As Mr O’Connor has said: “An assault on police officers is more than an assault on the individual, it’s an assault on the security of society.” Parents of the lawless should bear that in mind.

And The Press also talks tsunamis:

After a powerful earthquake struck near Samoa in late September last year, and raised fears that a tsunami might hit coastal regions of New Zealand, the response of Civil Defence authorities was roundly criticised. A subsequent report found that the Ministry of Civil Defence had underperformed, especially with respect to its public information management responsibilities.

This report, and the public criticism, appear to have had a salutary effect, as shown by the far more efficient Civil Defence response during the weekend to the threat of a tsunami after the devastating Chilean earthquake. But this improved performance does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned from the latest tsunami scare.

I agree Civil Defence had much better communications this time.

And the ODT also talks tsunamis:

National civil defence alerted media, and by 7am Radio New Zealand National, as one example, was broadcasting nationwide alerts and warnings, and newspapers, such as the Otago Daily Times, had posted information on their websites.

The coordination between authorities and media outlets was much improved on that of a mere five months ago in the aftermath of the Samoan earthquake and the subsequent devastating tsunami.

So all around the consensus is an improved response.

The Herald says RNZ savings are not worth it:

Radio NZ’s budget last year was just $38.2 million, of which $34.2 million was public money. That points to the swingeing nature of the Government’s programme. While it is reasonable that all state-funded bodies should tighten their belts, it seems excessive to be waving a big stick at organisations where the potential savings are trifling.

The same penchant was, however, evident in last year’s Budget. Most controversially, cuts were made to adult night school programmes.

Again, the savings seemed hardly worth the trouble. Community education takes just 0.6 per cent of the tertiary education allocation, and the canned programmes provided value for money, if only because they gave hands-on instruction at schools that would, otherwise, not have been in use.

The Herald may be right that politically it might not be smart to take a lot of political heat, for relatively small fiscal savings. However I think it is more complex than that. If the Govt goes soft on one or two state agencies, then it is harder to keep fiscal discipline with the rest of them. State sector CEOs will find ways to live within means if they think everyone is doing so. But if you start giving into media campaigns for more funding, it incentivises other agencies to do the same. And then you end up having to borrow even more than $240 million a week.

The Press talks protecting police:

In response to the weekend violence the Government is considering introducing extra penalties for offenders who assault police officers, as is the case in Western Australia. Such a move might not deter drugged or drunken offenders from attacking officers, however.

Yet, it is still worth considering, as it would reinforce the special position the police have in our society to uphold the rule of law. It would also acknowledge the real, every-day risks faced by officers as they perform their duties.

If the Government did move to strengthen penalties it would have to be determined whether the new law would apply to off-duty officers who intervened in an incident. But because the public expects off-duty officers to respond to crimes they come across, and they would not be wearing anti-stab vests, they too should have the protection of such a law.

I favour increased penalties for assaults on Police. The Police get assaulted, basically on our behalf. They deal with the criminals and risk their lives often doing so.

The Dom Post flicks at Wellington parking wardens:

Of all the low-down, mean, sneaky tricks … While football fans were cheering the Wellington Phoenix to a nail-biting victory at Westpac Stadium on Sunday evening, parking wardens were ticketing the vehicles of 61 fans who had exceeded the maximum parking time outside the ground – because the match went into extra time, then a penalty shootout.

To its credit, Wellington City Council has waived the tickets, which threatened to turn the Phoenix’s triumph into a public relations disaster. But coming on top of other recent instances of over-zealous ticketing, the incident suggests something is amiss with parking operations. Proposals to install Big Brother-style parking surveillance cameras in Courtenay Place add weight to the theory.

The purpose of parking restrictions should be to ensure that as many people as possible can park in city and suburban streets, do their business and be on their way. It should not be to fatten the coffers of Tenix, the private company which manages Wellington parking, Parkwise, the Armourguard subsidiary to which Tenix contracts ticketing, or the council itself.

Hear hear. The incentives are all about revenue maximization, not giving parkers a fair go.

And the ODT looks at water woes in Canterbury:

Seldom has a local authority received such a slating as that just given to Canterbury’s regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), by a Government review panel.

The panel says the gap between what ECan does and what it should do is enormous and unprecedented. …

Yet some argue no change is needed.

The Dom Post reports:

The Taser is saving lives, and many criminals are simply surrendering at the sight of it, police say.

Nine people were shot with a Taser in its first year of use and some incidents were so violent, the offender could have been shot with a firearm, if the stun gun had not been available. …

Police incident reports issued to The Dominion Post reveal the extreme violence faced by police during the Taser incidents last year.

One man had just allegedly killed a man and was raging at neighbours with an axe. Another had stabbed himself with a samurai sword and was brandishing it at officers, a third attacked officers with a wheel brace and screwdriver, and another had stabbed a taxi driver in the head and fled in his stolen taxi.

In the Johnsonville case, a mentally ill man was tasered as he lunged at police with a hunting knife after a two-hour standoff.

Wellington area commander Inspector Pete Cowan said: “Potentially it was a case where a person could have been shot. It was a very, very good example of where … the Taser saved the offender’s life and potentially other members of the public and police.”

If the opponents of the taser had their way, then there would probably be some additional corpses. Offenders who are brandishing axes and swords would probably have been shot in the past.

But the opponents have done some good:

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said: “Perversely, the misinformation given out by the anti-Taser group has probably worked in the police and the public’s favour. People think the consequences of the Taser are worse than in reality they’re likely to be.”

Bring on the national roll-out.

In the SST, a story from Nicky Hager had the headline:

NZ’s cyber spies win new powers

Like many, I wondered what law change had been quietly passed into law in late 2009, without us noticing.

NEW CYBER-MONITORING measures have been quietly introduced giving police and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone’s online life.

The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts, email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand.

Oh my God. When did this happen? Actually back in 2004. Not exactly new.

And it is not giving the SIS and Police the power to monitor themselves – it gave them the power to get a warrant to get a telco or ISP intercept communications – just as they have had the power for many decades to get a warrant to have phone calls intercepted.

Now this doesn’t mean I necessarily support the 2004 law change. I’ve blogged a series of articles highlighting draconian provisions in the Search and Surveillance Bill before Parliament. Nicky’s article would have been more useful however in 2004, than in 2010.

Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet activity. It can even monitor a person’s location by detecting their mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.

Police say in the year to June 2009, there were 68 interception warrant applications granted and 157 people prosecuted as a result of those interceptions.

What would be interesting is the details of those 68 warrants – were they for all Internet activity, or just some?

The measures are the consequence of a law, the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, which gave internet and network companies until last year to install devices allowing automated access to internet and cellphone data.

Telecom, Vodafone and TelstraClear had earlier 2005 deadlines, and new cellphone provider 2degrees installed the interception equipment before launching last year.

So these “new” powers have actually been in place for four to five years, for 95% of the Internet population.

In an associated article, Hager says:

Not long ago, police and Security Intelligence Service (SIS) interception meant tapping your landline phone or bugging your kitchen. Now, under a new surveillance regime ushered in by the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, a basic interception warrant also allows them access to all your emails, internet browsing, online shopping or dating, calls, texts and location for mobile phones, and much more – all delivered almost instantaneously to the surveillance agencies.

To catch other sorts of communications, including people using overseas-based email or other services, all the local communications networks are wired up as well, to monitor messages en route overseas.

Interception equipment built permanently into every segment of the country’s communications architecture will provide the sort of pervasive spying capability we normally associate with police states.

Now Hager is right in that all telcos and ISPs have to have the capability to intercept all Internet communications by a user, if presented with a warrant. However what is not made clear in the article is that the ISPs themselves do the intercepting, and forward the data onto the appropriate authority. The article almost implies that the Police/SIS/GCSB can merely push a switch remotely, and hey presto your data flows to them.

The law gave network companies five years to install the intercept capabilities and the five years was up last year. Many network companies dragged their feet about installing the new surveillance equipment, despite government subsidy of the cost. After four years of inactivity, a consultant with police and SIS ties attended the NZ Network Operators Group conference in Dunedin last year to read them the riot act.

Dean Pemberton, who had previously set up and run “lawful interception” equipment at TelstraClear, told the roomful of network specialists what “the agencies” expected from them and said the agencies expected them to install devices that could intercept data and forward it to the agencies “on a minute by minute basis”. If companies didn’t have this gear in place, they risked a $500,000 fine and “should get a lawyer”, he said.

This part of the article is rather misleading, and I can speak from first hand knowledge as I was at that conference when Dean spoke.

The first thing people should understand is that Dean is what I call an alpha geek He is one of the guys who built the Internet in New Zealand and he attends and presents almost every year without fail to the NZNOG Conference.

In 2008 he spoke of his experiences with the Interception Act requirements, and what you had to do to comply. I doubt a single person in the room saw this as Dean “laying down the law”, let alone the implication he was speaking on behalf of the SIS or Police. Dean was doing what he normally does – sharing his experiences with the technical community.

There’s some good research in Nicky’s article about how the FBI were a prime mover in the request for NZ to have the interception capability, and it is true many NZers will be unaware of the interception capability. However the article would have been a lot more useful in 2004 when the law was being considered, or in 2005 when the big telcos implemented it.

Next I await a story about how the Post Office has been given new powers to intercept and read postcards

The DP editorial:

The shooting of 28-year-old Constable Jeremy Snow, predictably, has led to renewed calls for the police to be routinely armed. Those calls should be resisted. …

Many, notably Police Association president Greg O’Connor, believe those events mean that it is time to give police easier access to firearms.

I think the DP is simplifying the issue. I ended up discussing this with Greg O’Connor on The Panel, and Greg is not calling for all officers on patrol to be armed. What he did advocate is that generally all police cars should have arms in their boots, so they can be accessed quickly if needed.

Sadly there is probably nothing that could have stopped Constable Snow from being shot. The scum who did it opened fire with no warning.

However his two colleagues had to go in unarmed, to tend to his wounds. They saved his life. If they had access to arms in their car, they would have been safer in doing so.

Of course more access to firearms, means more training is needed.

There are other steps that should be tried before the question of routinely arming police is considered. The Taser, which is still being introduced, has the potential to provide police with a non-fatal alternative to firearms. Mr Broad has also talked of armed response vehicles with small teams of specially trained officers permanently on standby, but able to carry out routine frontline duties until they are needed.

The taser is a good choice if the offender is not armed with a gun themselves. But it is suicidal to go against an offender with a gun with a taser.

The concept of armed response vehicles on standby is laudable, but there are times when the five to ten minutes it will take to get there, will be too long.

Whale Oil has blogged the court summons he has received from the Police alleging breach of name suppression law.

He is due in court on the 5th of January. If he pleads not guilty, then it might be held over for hearing at a later date. He is seeking pro bono lawyers.

The Police have charged him over a post which they allege identifies the “musician” and for a post which they allege identifies the sportsman. In the latter case, they also allege his post identified the alleged victim.

The two charges of breaching a name suppression order are under s140(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.  The maximum fine is $1,000 per offence, but this can be for every day the breach continues (if proven).

The charge of identifying the alleged victim is under s139(1), but also has a maximum fine of $1,000.

So even if Whale is found guilty, it would just be a fine at this stage. If it later turned into an issue of contempt of court, then a jailed whale would be a possibility

The Herald reports:

An $8.20 roll of salami proved to be the downfall for the killer of Marie Jamieson and allowed police to crack one of Auckland’s most mysterious unsolved murders.

Ms Jamieson, 23, was last seen crossing a service station forecourt in Kingsland on February 10, 2001. Her naked body was found nine days later behind factory buildings in Ranui. …

But seven years passed and police were no closer to solving the case – until Joseph Reekers was convicted of theft in April last year.

The conviction for shoplifting salami from Pak’n Save in Henderson allowed them to issue a compulsion order to take DNA from Reekers.

And there is no doubt it was Reekers as he pleaded guilty.

Yesterday, in a surprise move, the 52-year-old pleaded guilty in the High Court at Auckland to murder. The Crown withdrew the rape charge.

Now Reekers was not unknown to the Police

Reekers was already a “person of interest” to the inquiry. …

Now there has been debate about the desirability of a law change allowing DNA to be taken from suspects for serious crimes.

It occurs to me this is a good example of why that would be desirable. If he had never stolen the salami seven years later, then he may have got away with it, and the killer would never have been caught.

But if the Police had been able to DNA test the suspects, he would have been identified earlier on, with no need to rely on the chance he may steal salami one day.

Now I do not favour no limits on Police being able to demand a DNA sample. Otherwise we end up in a Police state where everyone at birth has their DNA added to the Police database for future crime solving.

But where someone is suspected of involvement in a serious crime (such as rape and murder), I support the Police being able to get a DNA sample – so long as it is destroyed if they are not charged or found not guilty at trial.

Anyway well done to the Police for getting a good result.

The Herald reports:

New specialist traffic officers will be used to issue speeding tickets, freeing police to concentrate on fighting crime. …

he new-look “transport enforcement officers” proposal will effectively be a return to the separate traffic control force that patrolled the country’s roads in black-and-white cars until the early 1990s.

Those officers were part of the Ministry of Transport; the new traffic officers will remain under the control of the police force.

On the face of it, the proposal by Commissioner Broad seems sensible. I don’t think the proposal is a reversal of the 1992 merger, as control remains with the Police. Before the merger the Police were having to assist the MOT more and more with stuff like drink driving blitzes, and the level of training for MOT officers was seen as inadequate for the powers they were gaining.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad yesterday said he was “quite uncomfortable” with fully sworn police being used for road policing, as they were often just “sitting there with their radar gun”.

He told Parliament’s law and order select committee he wanted to use laws that allowed him to designate traffic enforcement officers, and also make greater use of technology such as speed cameras for road policing.

The move would free police officers for other duties, such as neighbourhood policing, he said.

Again, this seems a good move.

Civilians are now used to operate speed camera vans, but using a radar gun requires a police officer with power to stop a vehicle.

Mr Broad said he could give these limited powers under the Policing Act’s “authorised officers” section, and some motorway support officers in Auckland were already operating under this designation.

I say go for it.

Mr Broad also revealed a proposal to end firearms training for officers unlikely to require it, but increase it for those most likely to find themselves in dangerous situations.

Under the proposal, 40 per cent of Auckland police would not be able to use firearms. They would be trained only in use of the baton and pepper spray.

A critical response unit would be established to deal with call-outs.

Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove said the proposal could create problems, such as a community constable not being able to respond to an armed robbery because he could not use firearms.

Mr Broad said officers with low-level firearms training were often more likely to be killed, and he asked if Mr Cosgrove wanted officers trained in “gunfight protocol”.

“The idea you send a community constable into these situations as if they are Wyatt Earp is complete nonsense.”

Mr Broad became heated when the Napier siege – in which Jan Molenaar shot one officer dead and seriously wounded two others – was raised.

“Those police officers who did go in there [to rescue the wounded] without firearms, went in on humanitarian grounds, and they recovered people,” he said.

“They did an extremely good job in an extremely courageous way. They did not need to have firearms to do that.”

Mr O’Connor said the firearms policy was “a recipe for disaster” that would leave the police “out-gunned”.

I’d be interested in the views of the Police Assn on the firearms proposal, but on the surface it also seems reasonable, considering long standing police (despite Clayton’s grand standing) is that the Police are not routinely armed.

I blogged Friday on the pillow attack case and quoted the Herald story which said:

The judge also blasted the police as “ridiculous” and “petty” for bringing action against Mr Taylor.

And I commented:

This is the aspect that will cause more legitimate concern amongst opponents of the anti-smacking law. The Government and PM puts great stock in the discretion available to Police. When you see the Police applying such discretion badly, it makes you nervous.

Now Police HQ have sent me a response to the Herald story, that is worth quoting:

A media report last night stated Police were petty and ridiculous in charging a man with throwing a cushion at a child.

Police were called to a family violence incident involving Mr Taylor on New Years Eve last year. Police were told Mr Taylor had assaulted a seven year old child, was intoxicated and refusing to leave the address. Occupants of the house were frightened of him and were found outside by Police on arrival.

Mr Taylor has a long history of alcohol, drug abuse and family violence which was a factor in laying the charge.

An assault had taken place on a child who was not involved in the original dispute which was between the Mother and Mr Taylor. Taylor refused to leave the address and left Police with no option but resolve the matter by arresting him.

An arrest does indeed seem justified in that case.

The charges initially laid by police were legally correct. An alleged assault had been committed on a child. On the information provided by the complainant and witnesses present, the assault was neither trifling nor trivial. The child had made a complaint that the assault had caused him pain, and redness to his forehead, that he has been whacked.

The defence counsel elected trial by jury and made no attempt to negotiate a lesser charge as indicated by the Judge.

The charge was later independently reviewed by the Crown Solicitor after Mr Taylor was committed for trial. The Crown laid an indictment for the same charge.

The Judges decision to discharge the matter under Crimes Act 1961 s.347(2) was available in the circumstances. However, Police would point out it was the defence tactic to take a relatively minor case to trial where it could have been concluded in the summary jurisdiction. The case was laid in the summary jurisdiction and would have been disposed of as the Judge had suggested should have happened, had there not been an election of trial by the defence. In addition, the application under s347 could have been made by the defence at any point prior to the hearing. The application was brought by the Judge on the day of trial.

Also useful context to the story.

The TVNZ report stated police were petty and ridiculous. This comment was not made by the presiding Judge who did not criticise the police laying a charge in respect of this case. Rather, the Judge formed the view that the case could have been resolved with a lesser, included charge, which was unavailable to the Crown due to the election of the defence of a trial by jury.

This is quite a different impression to that of the original stories. Good to see the Police being proactive with their version of events.

I wonder if any of the media that ran the original story, have run the Police response? As far as I can tell, they have not.

The Dom Post reports:

In a crackdown on organised crime, Mr Broad and Police Minister Judith Collins announced a new police squad dedicated to confiscating millions of dollars of assets owned by crime bosses. …

The 22-man Assets Recovery Unit will be made up of veteran police investigators and forensic specialists while making use of accountants and legal experts. …

Ms Collins said gangs had changed since the 1970s, becoming sophisticated criminal businesses. Gang bosses owned farms, houses, cars, boats and motorcycles. Some of the seized proceeds would be used to fund methamphetamine rehabilitation and youth aid programmes, and some of it would go back into law enforcement.

I’d be tempted to stick the team on commission – they get 10% of everything they can get off the gangs

No I am not serious, but it is good to see a dedicated focus in this area.

The Herald reports:

Police will be using their discretion as motorists adjust to the pending law that bans use of handheld cellphones while driving.

Good. Not that it affects me as I have handsfree.

From Sunday, motorists must have a handsfree device if they want to use their mobile phone. If they’re caught using it without one, they face an $80 fine and 20 demerit points.

I’ve still yet to see any research from overseas showing a reduction in road tolls, after such a law change.

National road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said staff had been told that a period to allow the “bedding in” of the legislation was appropriate. …

Ms Rose doesn’t answer the phone when she’s driving. Instead she puts it in the boot, so if it does ring, she can’t get to it to take the call.

Ummm, does the Superintendent’s phone not have an off button? Putting it in the boot seems somewhat unnecessary.

She said she was excited about the new law because New Zealanders might think more about driving safely.

“In policing we’ve seen some really stupid things – people getting changed, putting their makeup on, eating their breakfast.

Personally I think a ban on women applying makeup while driving is more pressing!

A good editorial:

The grief of parents who have lost sons and daughters, killed in high-speed police chases, is wholly understandable.

But, in the wake of an Independent Police Conduct Authority report questioning the value of many police pursuits, one fact needs to be borne in mind.

Drivers have a choice when they hear a police siren. They can pull over to the side of the road as the majority do. Or they can try to escape police.

And parents should wonder about their role in the tragedy that ensures, if their kids even consider trying to outspeed the Police, let alone actually doing so.

When chases end in death or serious injury, as occurred 137 times in a five-year period studied by the authority, it is the drivers who tried to outrun the police who bear responsibility for the human toll. That is not something for which they, or their parents, can shift the blame.

And a policy of let them get away if they drive fast enough actually just encourages people to drive even faster when fleeing.

Those with the power to take the risk out of the equation are the individuals tempted to depress the accelerator pedal rather than the brake when they hear a police siren.

It is a power the parents of all driving-age children should remind their offspring of. The consequences of a wrong decision can be tragic for them, their families, their friends, police and complete strangers.

If the Police were allowed to shoot at fleeing vehicles, I’m pretty sure that would reduce the number of police chases also!

The Dom Post reported:

Police Commissioner Howard Broad has a chauffeur as the force slashes its vehicle fleet and considers selling stations and houses to cut costs.

Police are defending the driving position, despite claims that some community constables have lost their cars to help shave $21 million off the police budget. Police are selling up to 340 vehicles and are considering selling stations or housing to help make budget savings.

Police National Headquarters said a “logistics and project officer”, who is a sergeant, acted as a driver for Mr Broad, but said he also had other duties. These included organising security and providing support to Mr Broad while he was on the road.

I think the story is a bit of a beat-up, but often people will use it to score points. But look at this. First the Minister:

Police Minister Judith Collins backed the role. “He has got to be available to take urgent phone calls of a critical nature at a moment’s notice.”

Then the union:

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said he believed the driving job was “an absolutely essential role”. He agreed that some officers would question it continuing while cars were being cut from the fleet, but said it was a completely separate issue because Mr Broad would have a car regardless.

And then the Opposition:

Labour law and order spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said the role was justified. “[The commissioner] is on deck 24 hours, seven days a week and he is running a department of in excess of 10,000 people.”

Well done Clayton Cosgrove. Being in opposition doesn’t mean having to criticise everything.

John Key announced yesterday the panel and terms of reference for reviewing how Police and CYFS are implementing the amended Section 59 (the anti-smacking law).

The TOR says:

To review New Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family policies and procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, in order to identify any changes that are necessary or desirable in the interest of ensuring that:
1. good parents are treated as Parliament intended under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
2. provisions of the law (both criminal and under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989) are applied to those who abuse children.

Now like many, my preference is for a law change, not just a review of policies and procedures. But the choice of independent reviewer is a very good one, which should give some credibility to what he reports back.

The reviewer (along with the MSD CEO and Police Commissioner) is Nigel Latta, the host of the Politically Incorrect Parenting Show, that showed on TV One.

Latta has said:

I have been approached by the Prime Minister and asked if I would consider participating in a review of the Police and CYF processes around S 59 to see if the law is working as intended. I have agreed to participate in this review on the basis that it was understood that my role was independent and that I was able to speak freely about both the process of the review, and my opinions regarding its findings.

So if he disagrees with any conclusions, he will say so. And more interestingly:

For the record, and this is something I have commented on publically in a number of contexts, my personal view on S59 is that I did not agree with the original law change.

I also voted no in the referendum. I do not believe that a parent smacking their child, in the ‘common sense’ understanding of what that means, should be subject to criminal prosecution or investigation.

That is a very useful statement, because he has said not only should parents who merely lightly smack their child not be prosecuted, he says they should not be investigated (presumably by Police or CYFS).

Again my preference is for a law change, but nevertheless this review looks to be potentially quite positive if done well.

The Dom Post reports:

Mr Hart wants the introduction of a US system of plea bargaining between prosecution and defence before approval by a judge. “It deals with the root problem we’ve got: there are too many cases going to trial. A lot of them could be resolved.”

I’m sure one of many defence lawyer readers will comment in more detail on this. I understand there already is some sort of informal plea bargain system? How would the proposal by Barry Hart be different? As a matter of principle I ave no problem with plea bargains that reduce court time.

He believes police should be removed from laying charges and instead a Crown prosecution agency should be appointed.

Well Crown Law get involved in the major cases. Not sure how cost effective it would be to have every potential charge referred to a Crown agency.

Both lawyers also said the district court procedure in which judges gave a “sentencing indication” for minor offences should be adopted in the High Court.

Often defendants just wanted to know what sentence they were likely to get. If that could be sorted out early on, they could accept it and plead guilty earlier, Mr Hart said.

Seems sensible.

Judith Collins continues to show very good instincts as a Minister. The Herald reported:

Police Minister Judith Collins says she will change the law if police and court staff fail to find a way of routinely making public lists of convicted drink-drivers.

The bureaucrats get so detail obsesses sometimes, they forget the big picture. They were basically saying a conviction is a personal private matter and should not be publicised unless a reporter actually happened to be in court during the hearing.

That was and is an outrageous view. Criminal convictions are not private matters. They are by their very nature public, unless a name is suppressed.

I actually think all convictions should be publicly available through a searchable database.

Her comments come after police yesterday rescinded a decision to stop releasing lists of convicted drink-drivers to media. The about-face came after Ms Collins met senior police staff on Monday and requested they re-examine the decision.

Requested. Ha. I bet you that is a polite word for it.

Police spokesman Jon Neilson said the issue of “ownership of information” was at the heart of the review.

As it stood at the moment, police laid charges with the court, but their involvement effectively ended with prosecution. The information belonged to the court, he said.

No convictions are not private property of the court. They are public information.

The NZ Herald reports that National List MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is under Police investigation in relations to a job offer or offers he made to prospective immigrants before he was an MP.

It is excellent to see the Immigration Service referred the allegations onto the Police, and I await their findings with interest. There should be no sweeping under the carpet.

I have no first hand knowledge of the situation, so await the outcome of the investigation, or more information. I will point out that when these allegations first occurred, I said on 14 November 2008:

There are also the allegations against new National List MP, Kanwaljit Bakshi, that he offered jobs that did not exist to help immigrants enter. The allegations may well be baseless, but if John Key wants to set a different style to Helen Clark, he would do well to make sure there is an inquiry into them – even if just to ascertain the total number of job offers made by his new MP to potential immigrants.

And on the 15th of May 2009, I repeated my call for an inquiry, in response to  report that an Immigration Service staffer thought a witness had been paid off. I said it was “not a good look”.

Personally I have never had much trust in departmental inquiries, and would have preferred a fully independent inquiry with powers to compel testimony. But to be fair to the Immigration Service they appear to have been quite thorough in their investigation, considering they learnt enough to refer issues to the Police.

There will obviously be some speculation about whether Bakshi will remain an MP. Being investigated by the Police is never good for your political career. Again until evidence is known, I would not jump to any conclusions, but for those interested the next person on National’s list is Dr Conway Powell from Dunedin who is in position 59. Stephen Franks is next after that on no 60.

Stuff reports:

A top policeman wants people banned from entering bars after 1am, but his call has divided police bosses.

Christchurch area commander Inspector Derek Erasmus also wants bars closed by 3am as police struggle to grapple with “a heaving, throbbing mass of drunkenness” on weekends.

But Wellington’s police bosses and the hospitality industry say it would be a disaster and would not deal with the drinking culture.

Yay. Great to have the local Police being sensible.

Wellington area commander Inspector Pete Cowan said a single law change would not deal with weekend drinking problems or the drinking culture generally.

He said Wellington police had looked at a one-way-door policy a few years ago but realised it would not work unless all 247 licensed premises in the city centre signed up to it.

“I do not want all the businesses to close at the same time. Thousands of people put out on the street at once, that would be absolute chaos.”

Absolutely. And many people don’t even hit town until midnight. A 1 am one way policy would mean you have to stay at the same place all night.

I blogged on the 8th of July some basic steps that I believed the Police should have done in investigating the stolen Brash e-mails:

1. Compile a masterlist of every document referenced in Hager’s book
2. Sort them into groups – e-mails, faxes, etc
3. For the e-mails record down when each e-mail was received, and when it was deleted if it was. This will provide a window of time as to when the theft occured.
4. Also for each e-mail record who has access to it. Who was cc’d or bcc’d it. Who had access to a printed copy.
5. Look for common patterns in access, to try and narrow down which e-mail account or accounts were probably accessed
6. Look at the date of the final document used in the book. It is likely the theft took place soon after that.
7. Obtain staff lists for National during that period. Look especially at anyone who joined just before the thefts occurred.
8. Obtain swipe card records for the Leader’s Office for the period just after the final documents cited.

As far as I know, the original inquiry did none of this. Don Brash has a complaint with the IPCA over the inadequacy of the investigation.

Tracy Watkins from the Dom Post reports that the Police appear to have reopened their investigation, which is an implicit acknowledgement of the failings of the original investigation:

Police have been interviewing parliamentary cleaners and security guards after reopening their investigation into the Don Brash email files.

A team of up to four police officers has been involved in the investigation which is understood to have been reopened several weeks ago after Police Commissioner Howard Broad put one of his top officers, assistant commissioner Steve Shortland, in charge of reviewing the Brash file.

MPs and parliamentary staffers are expected to be interviewed as well. It is understood the Independent Police Conduct Authority is also investigating after a complaint from Dr Brash.

I’m not sure whether the investigation will reach any conclusions, as the theft happened around four years ago, but it is pleasing to see they are at least trying.

The Herald reports:

The number of fatal crashes on Auckland roads has risen sharply after a two-year lull, and police say cellphone use is partly to blame.

Okay. Now I am open to that observation being correct, so what are the stats:

Fifty-four people have been killed this year in the region – just one down on the toll for the whole of 2008 and seven fewer than in 2007.

So crashes are definitely up.

Crash investigators say they have anecdotal evidence that more and more motorists are talking and texting on cellphones while behind the wheel.

Why give us anecdotal evidence only? Every crash is recorded and likely factors also recorded. Surely someone can produce stats for the first six months of the year in Auckland and give us hard data.

I get suspicious when I see stories like this, with no hard data behind them.

Mr Macdonald had also noticed an increase in pedestrians killed crossing the road while talking on the phone.

So will the Police advocate talking on a phone while outdoors be an offence?

Sergeant Stu Kearns of the Waitemata serious crash unit said his staff obtained warrants to search cellphone records whenever practical.

“I think it is a good practice in crashes where serious injuries or fatalities [occur] that you get a warrant to check cellphones.”

An excellent idea. The more data we have on the cause of crashes, the better decisions based on that data will be.

Roading policing staff have also spotted motorists applying make-up, reading newspapers or maps and engaged in amorous activity while behind the wheel.

Which is why I prefer a law targeting all driver distractions.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said a ban on hand-held phones in cars was inevitable, but would be met with reluctance.

“The problem with the public is that they want everyone else banned from using a cellphone but not them and it won’t stop them from getting upset when they’re issued with a ticket for doing it.”

Or it might be they are aware of the scientific evidence that banning hands free phones are as “dangerous” as hand held phones. I have a hands free phone so any ban won’t affect me, but I think it is a tokenistic response. One should either ban all phones, or (preferably) have a tougher law dealing with all distractions. Targeting hand held phones only is unlikely to make much of an impact in my opinion.

AAP reports:

NEW South Wales police have begun a week of refusing to issue on-the-spot fines for traffic infringements and other offences after wage negotiations with the State Government broke down.

Excellent.

I am sure the public will hope the Government holds out for as long as possible.