Kiwiblog

Claire Trevett reports at NZ Herald:

Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson said Parliament should consider changing the process of dealing with electoral law breaches to speed it up – including giving the Electoral Commission powers to fine or penalise for some breaches.

Mr Robertson said the Electoral Commission was the expert body on electoral law, yet it had to send any breaches to Police to decide whether to act on them.

I’ve been advocating this for years, including in submission to select committees. Sadly, Labour never voted in favour of changing the law.

While their sudden enthusiasm to do so, seems rather opportunistic, it is the right thing to do.

“The bigger issue is the number of complaints they’ve sent to the Police that nothing has happened with. So maybe there is another way. For instance, could you set a threshold under which the Electoral Commission was able to impose some sort of penalty rather than have to have Police prosecute it.”

Time and time again the Police have shown, with all due respect, a total disinterest in enforcing electoral law (the most notorious case being the non charging of Labour over their $400,000 deliberate over-spend in 2005). They would obviously rather be catching muggers  etc.

Even worse, the Police seem to have a deliberate policy to not decide on any complaints until after the election. They see this as not interfering with the election, but it is in fact a worse form of interference. It means parties and candidates and others can breach electoral laws, and not have to worry about the stigma of being charged prior to the election. This encourages rule breaking.

I will once again be submitting to change the law to the 2011 election review later this year. I look forward to Labour voting for removing the Police from any role in electoral law enforcement, and other parties doing the same.

What should happen is that the Electoral Commission itself can levy small fines for relatively minor issues such as late returns and the like, or missing promoter statements on ads that still have a clear author. For more major issues they should be able to lay charges directly with the courts.

At various times in the past, the Police leadership hasn’t been all inspiring. It it important our Police our well led and effective. So great to see this article in the Herald.

The country’s top cop, Peter Marshall, was out with the rank and file on the late shift on New Year’s Eve helping staff deal with a young woman cutting her wrists with a knife at the end of Princes Wharf.

A few days later one of Marshall’s deputies, Mike Bush, and a few other senior officers went to the mortuary while Disaster Victim Identification staff were assisting with the post-mortems of the Carterton balloon tragedy victims.

Marshall says that in the past executive staff would go out “sporadically, shall we say” with the frontline officers, but now they are out there regularly.

Excellent.

This is the new top echelon of the New Zealand police, and staff all the way down the hierarchy seem to be highly impressed.

It’s unheard of, an officer told us, the Commissioner of Police going out on the beat.

“The guys really respond to that. He’s a very inspiring man.”

And not once as a PR stunt. But regularly.

The new leadership and direction seems to be paying dividends with the troops. Marshall has two deputy commissioners – Bush and Viv Rickard. Of the more than 20 police officers we spoke to around the country, from constables to superintendents, every single one was glowing about the leaders. Some said it was the best administration they had served under in 30-year careers – one even called the three the “Holy Trinity.” Another said they were “good blokes, down to earth, no bullshit, no pretensions”.

Credit should also go to Judith Collins who effectively appointed the Commissioner, and approved the Deputies. She leaves the Police in much better state than what she inherited three years ago.

They also appreciate someone defending them in the media. Several commented on how quickly and firmly Marshall had moved to rebut a critical article by former MP and police inspector Ross Meurant in North & South magazine. Marshall regularly blogs on the police website and sings the praises of the force or points out positive public trust and confidence ratings or tells anecdotes.

Openness also.

It’s not perfect. They still seem to have no idea when it comes to electoral offences. But they are making a real difference.

Karl du Fresne makes some excellent points here:

When did the police decide that their role extended beyond preventing crime and apprehending lawbreakers?

Clearly, a new generation of officers is under the delusion that they have a remit to provide moral guidance and matronly advice to the rest of us on how to lead wholesome lives.

Last week the head of the Canterbury police alcohol strategy and enforcement team, Sergeant Al Lawn, was publicly tut-tutting over the granting of an alcohol licence to a new Christchurch supermarket.

With respect, Mr Lawn should pull his head in. The law allows the police to have their say when submissions are heard on liquor licence applications, but once the decision is made, that should be an end to it.

Absolutely. It is not their job to undermine the decision of the independent authority, through the media.

Obviously not satisfied with this state of affairs, and probably smarting because the decision didn’t go his way, Mr Lawn seized on the opportunity to lecture supermarkets on their supposed moral responsibilities.

He doesn’t think supermarkets should discount alcohol because it supposedly encourages binge drinking. But I know lots of people who are happy to buy discounted wine and beer from supermarkets and they couldn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, be labelled as binge drinkers.

Mr Lawn went even further, suggesting that stores should reduce the price of milk, fruit and vegetables to attract customers “in a way that is also good for the community”. What pompous moralising.

Someone send him a membership form for the Mana Party.

When did the Police become responsible for the price of milk?

Out of curiosity I googled Mr Lawn and on the basis of what I saw, I concluded that he has well and truly crossed the line between objective law enforcement and political activism. He makes emotive statements about liquor industry “drug pushers” and condemns politicians for not getting tougher on alcohol.

He is entitled to those views as a private citizen, but to push them as a police officer is an abuse of his position.

Absolutely.

Listen to Goff being savaged on NewstalkZB over his false claims over the Police, where he claimed “all recruitment” for 2012 was canceled due to budget cuts, and in fact the truth is that the January intake has been delayed two months because the attrition rate of Police leaving the force has halved under National (which is great as experienced cops are better than rookies) so they do not need to recruit as quickly.

It is absolutely brutal. You see Goff at his absolute worse – unable to admit he is wrong on anything at all. He would argue black is white. It is just like when he argued the SIS never briefed him despite documented proof they did.

John Key does make mistakes. But when he does, he generally will concede he stuffed up. A great example is over the Israeli backpackers where his initial refuse to comment gave the story massive legs. He conceded to media that in hindsight he should have started with the position he ended up with.

But this is Goff’s awful weakness. He never ever admits he is wrong on anything (except the entire 1980s). To this day he maintains his handling of the Darren Hughes saga was first class, when everyone knows it was an absolute disaster.

A few weeks ago in relation to the S&P comments, Phil Goff said:

Goff said the Prime Minister has “lied to Kiwis” and if the source is credible then he should name them.

“John Key should stop trying to squirm out of it, front up, admit he got it wrong, and say sorry,” Goff said today.

So will Phil Goff take his own advice? Will he name his highly reliable source (my pick is its Trevor Mallard)? Will he “front up, admit he got it wrong, and say he is sorry?”

I suspect this is not the ending that Labour wanted to their campaign.

Phil Goff claimed in the debate that a “reliable source” told him

Radio NZ reveals the true story:

Labour Party leader Phil Goff says senior police have been told recruitment for next year has been deferred and the January intake of recruits has been cancelled.

Mr Goff made the claim in TVNZ’s leaders’ debate on Wednesday night and told Morning Report on Thursday that the reason given for the deferral was the need to make savings in the police budget.

He says his source is reliable and well informed.

However, National’s law and order spokesperson Judith Collins says there are so few people leaving the police at the moment that the January intake of recruits is not needed.

She says the first intake next year will be in March instead.

Ms Collins says there will be no reduction in frontline police numbers under a National Government.

If Goff thought there really was a freeze, he would have done a press release stating so, rather than alleging something in a debate where he knows the PM would not know if it was correct or not (as an operational matter).

Here’s what Goff actually said:

Just been advised that you’re deferring all recruiting next year, but that this announcement must not be made until after the election”

Goff lied. There will be recruiting in March 2012. Labour’s campaign has been based on a series of lies and half-truths – on asset sales, on state houses, on welfare and now on the Police.

The attrition rate for the Police under National has been just 3.2% and under Labour was over 6%. So this is in fact a very good thing, as it is far better to retain experienced police officers than recruit as many new ones.

I wonder what other lies Labour will try in the final two days?

When I saw that the Electoral Commission had referred Jim Anderton to the Police, I remarked to a couple of people that I was sure he would have a fit and attack the Electoral Commission. I was right. The Herald reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton has launched an extraordinary attack on the Electoral Commission for referring him to police for a possible breach of the Electoral Act. …

But Mr Anderton, who was referred to police over election advertising before the 2008 election, said he had done nothing wrong.

Jim thinks he has never done anything wrong in his life. His valedictory was full of how he was right and everyone else had been wrong. If you ask him hig biggest mistake, he will be stumped for an answer.

“I’m authorised to send my constituents any message I damn well like. This is my electorate.

First of all don’t you like how he refers to them as possessions.

Secondly he was not writing to them in his capacity as an MP for parliamentary purposes. He was writing to them to tell them to vote for Megan Woods. Even the thickest of MPs should have learnt by now that telling people who to vote for is not a parliamentary purpose.

Thirdly, MPs are not above the law. He is not a King or a God. He is merely an MP. That doesn’t mean he can do anything he damn well likes.

His arrogance is the same as that which destroyed the Alliance. He demanded the party members surrender total control of the organisation to him, and effectively make him dictator. They refused, so he left.

“And if the Commission wants to start stopping electorate MPs from communicating with their electorate, they’d better get prepared for a breach of privilege complaint, because that’s what it amounts to.

Oh I so hope he tries that – it would be most amusing. In reality all he is trying to do is bully neutral public servants and have them exempt him from the law.

They are interfering with the regular work of an MP.”

It is not the regular work of an MP to write to voters and tell them who to vote for. That is the role of parties and candidates.

“They have a few things like rape and pillage going on around the country, and this is simply ridiculous to tie up senior members of the police force with this kind of garbage.”

In Jim’s world, electoral law breaches are not an offence. I suspect Labour agrees with him.

Mr Anderton said the letter was sent outside the regulated period under the Electoral Act, but the commission referred it to police on the basis that the letter was not properly authorised.

The regulated period has nothing to do with this. In fact, the law for around 20 years has been the same in terms of requiring authorisation.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn comments:

Yesterday, I was willing to attribute Anderton’s crime to (unforgivable) ignorance. Today, its clear that its one of arrogance. And he needs to be held to account for it.

Dead right.

Stuff reports:

A project to make firearms more readily available to frontline police is a step towards “general arming”, the Police Association says.

The project will see existing stocks of Glock pistols and Bushmaster rifles moved from storage in police stations to response vehicles.

Police Association representative Craig Prior, of Christchurch, said the project was a “step forward”.

“It’s a natural progression to what we would prefer – general arming at some stage in the future,” he said.

Prior said the move would make policing safer.

“It gives a tactical option which most officers don’t have access to. They’re entitled to use firearms and trained and qualified to do so, but now they will have access to them should the need arise, which is a good thing,” he said.

Superintendent John Rivers said the project was not a step towards arming all police.

“It doesn’t involve a substantial purchase of assets and it’s certainly not a step towards general arming,” he said.

While the move to have firearms available in cars is a logical one, I think it would be a very sad day if we ever had the Police generally armed. I also think it would be a sensible idea to increase the amount of firearms training non-AOS officers have, if the probability of them using firearms increases.

Bevan Hurley in the Herald on Sunday reports:

Friends and former colleagues of Darren Hughes have put pressure on police to decide whether to charge him over sex allegations.

Labour Party figures risked accusations of political interference by calling on police to “give the guy a break”.

And close friend Paul Henry said it was “extraordinary” the case was dragging on, more than three months after an 18-year-old student alleged Hughes sexually assaulted him.

Wellington police defended the length of the investigation, saying it had to be “thorough”.

Labour figures expressed support for Hughes as pictures emerged of the 33-year-old former Otaki representative on a Hawke’s Bay beach at Easter. He was pictured with Henry, his girlfriend Linzi Dryburgh and Auckland list MP Jacinda Ardern.

In his new memoir, Henry described Hughes as his second closest friend.

 I think it is a good thing that Darren’s friends are sticking hy him, and supporting him. That is what friends should do.

Labour list MP Stuart Nash said the lengthy investigation was unfair on Hughes and the 18-year-old complainant. He called on police to “give the guy a break”.

“If there is something there then charge him, but if there’s not then let him get on with his life. You can’t leave him hanging.” …

Former Labour Party president Andrew Little joined calls for a swift resolution.

“It wasn’t as if there were people to hunt down, anyone who had anything to say about it would have been interviewed.”

Having MPs and senior political figures call on the Police to do something, however well intentioned, is a bad judgement call.

It goes without saying that it would be better for both the complainant and Darren for a decision to be made earlier, rather than later. The Police will know this. They will not be delaying a decision just because they can. They will be working with Crown Law to make sure that their decision will hold up to scrutiny – no matter what it is.

Having MPs call for the Police to take a particular action, because it involves one of their friends, is not a good look. But worse, it makes the job of the Police even harder. If the Police decide not to charge, then some people may feel it was because of the pressure put on them.

Let me hasten to say I do not think the Police will be influenced in their decision, by the comments by Nash and Little. But it would have been better if they had not spoken publicly at all.

Belinda McCammon in the SST reports:

A TRANS-TASMAN alcohol blitz has left police disappointed at the number of liquor outlets that continue to break the law despite an extensive campaign warning retailers not to sell alcohol to minors.

Operation Unite, which started throughout Australia and New Zealand on Friday night, is the fourth time the nations’ police have worked together in a weekend of action targeting alcohol harm.

I’m all in favour of Police operations where they crack down on outlets selling liquor to under 18 year olds. In fact I think they should be doing it far far more often.

But why is it a Trans-Tasman operation? The issues are a purely local one. Is there some belief that we should only crack down, if Australia is also? Trans-tasman operations make sense for crimes which involve our borders, or criminals working together from both countries. But why for a simple under-age drinking sting?

The New Zealand side of the operation, which lasted from 6pm on Friday and finished at 6am yesterday, involved 1069 police officers.

Sales practices were tested by controlled purchase operations at 208 off-licence liquor outlets, and there were 46 incidents of alcohol being sold to minors. …

121 controlled purchase operations were run at licensed liquor outlets to test whether minors were being sold alcohol.

46 incidents when alcohol was sold to minors on these occasions.

It seems around 35% of outlets sold liquor to an under 18 year old. That is a massively high figure and to me suggests the Police should be doing these crackdowns monthly or even fortnightly. It also reinforces my belief that better enforcement of the current law is preferable to changing the law.

Stuff reports:

A North Canterbury businessman is fighting charges of kidnapping and assault after tackling two alleged burglars at his Kaiapoi premises.

Clemence Drilling owner Dave Clemence was arrested after the April 8 incident, during which he and several employees tackled two men believed to have stolen diesel from the Smith St site.

Clemence declined to comment yesterday, saying he did not want to “pervert the course of justice”.

However, he told the Northern Outlook newspaper last month he could not understand why he had been charged.

He said he took the men to the Kaiapoi police station on April 8 and did not know how the pair had been injured.

“It’s unbelievable. Kidnapping? We dropped them off to the police,” Clemence said.

If the alleged burglars were assaulted (beyond restraint) then I can understand charges being laid. But the kidnapping charge seems bizarre.

Detective Sergeant Rex Barnett said the two men told police they had been kidnapped and assaulted by Clemence, the paper reported.

Police considered the injuries to be serious and “consistent with the claims of assault”, he said.

The men required treatment at hospital.

Yesterday, Barnett said a kidnapping charge could include “just detaining someone”.

But if you have caught them in the middle of a burglary, then surely it is legal detention? Otherwise a store security officer who detains a shoplifter would also be a kidnapper.

UPDATE: This is only second hand, but have heard a whisper that the “burglars” may have been out into a car boot. If that is the case, then that could explain why the Police laid kidnapping charges. Also I understand that the injuries the “burglars” had were reasonably severe. It will be interesting to see the evidence when it gets to court.

UPDATE2: I’ve also now heard suggestions that the gap between detaining the “burglars” and handing them over to the Police might be measured in hours, not minutes. I don’t know the facts, but if there was indeed a gap of hours, then the Police actions seem much more reasonable.

Anna Leask at NZ Herald reports:

South Auckland’s top cop has been commended for turning his district’s crime statistics from the worst in New Zealand to some of the best, and will now take his methods nationwide.

Counties Manukau district commander Superintendent Mike Bush was named yesterday as the new Deputy Commissioner of Police. …

“He achieved great results in what is not only the country’s biggest police district, but the one that is the most ethnically, socially and economically diverse. On his watch the district went from having some of the worst crime statistics in the country to some of the best.”

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said the reaction among officers to Mr Bush’s promotion was positive.

“Mike is a very popular choice. He’s a guy who’s more than come up through the ranks … He really has done the work.”

I’ve only heard positive feedback to this announcement. The job is not a popularity contest, but it is good to hear that the senior Police roles are supported by the rank and file.

I oppose the death penalty. I don’t think the state should be able to legally kill its own citizens (even the scum) and I also don’t like the risk of an innocent person being executed as has happened in the US.

But despite that when I read about some dreg of society raping a five year old, or sticking a two year old in a clothes dryer, that my primal instinct is to wish that person dead. If someone raped someone very close to me, my instincts would be to wonder if I could kill them myself.

I doubt I am unique in having a fairly primal emotional response to those who commit horrific crimes. If you don’t have such a response – well you’re a better person than me.

But we’ve had a good lesson this week on why one should not give into one insitcive desire for harsh and swift justice without due process – ie a trial.

I recall many years ago the death by cancer of a close family friend. During her funeral a burglar tried to rob her place (they see the funeral notice asking for donations to a hospice and conclude there are drugs on the premise they can steal to sell). This is about as scummy as it gets – robbing a mourning family during their mother’s funeral. As it happened one of the sons was a cop, and a couple of his colleagues said they would keep an eye on his place during the funeral. They caught the burglar in the act, and I recall hearing that the burglar had fallen down the steps a couple of times.

I’d be lying if I said that I was greatly upset at the time (this was around 20 years ago incidentially). Robbing a family during their mother’s funeral is a very scummy thing to do.

Likewise as there were reports of looters during the earthquake, a few of them got arrested. And what they did was hugely offensive to most of us. A typical example of a scummy looter was Jed Wilson-Carver.

A number of people commented about how they were disappointed Mr Wilson-Carver had not fallen down any flights of steps. And to be honest on a primal level, that was pretty much my response also.

But then we had another “looter” appear in court, and it looked like indeed he had fallen down many flights of steps. He was Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp. The Herald reports:

A young autistic man who became “the face of looting” in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake is unlikely to lay a complaint over a beating he alleges he received from the arresting officers.

Incidentially I understand he has alleged they were Australian, not NZ, police officers. But that is by the by.

Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp, 25, has a mental disability that compels him to take light fixtures, and he was arrested for stealing two light bulbs and an antique light fitting from a quake-damaged home.

Now let’s be clear about this. He still broke the law, and did wrong. And in the fullness of time will be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He already has spent several days in prison. So this is not to say he is without fault or guilt.

But it seems very clear he was not someone who was in the same category as Mr Wilson-Carver. He wasn’t really a looter, seeking to inflict misery and make illegal monetary gain from the earthquake.

And so this is a good reminder about why we shouldn’t give into our primal instincts. Why punishments should be meted out by a Judge and/or jury after a trial – not by the Police or vigilantes based on what we think are the facts.

I’m still going to silently hope that certain criminals get staked out over an ant burrow and covered in honey, but I don’t want a criminal justice system based on my primal instincts – or anyone else’s.

And as much as the Police must be very tempted to hand out “bush justice” to some of the criminals they deal with, this case is a good example of why that should remain unacceptable.

UPDATE: It is worth noting that the Police are alleged to have assaulted Smith-Voorkamp, but this is disputed, and a formal complaint has not been laid. There are some inconsistencies around the allegations – originally his mother said they were Australian cops, but NZ cops arrested him. regardless my post was not aimed at the Police, it was a reflection on why we should have due process in our criminal system.

Talking of due process though, Whale Oil has a quote from a senior politician calling for looters to get court-martialed and a firing sqaud. Go check it out – you may be surprised with who the politician is.

Anna Leask in the Herald reports:

A senior police officer has condemned colleagues for using their cellphones while driving, saying it is a joke to go out and enforce the law when officers appear to be readily flouting it.

I agree. I have never been a supporter of the new law, and the fact that Police are basically exempt from it makes it worse.

Another officer has been caught on camera talking on his cellphone at traffic lights. He was filmed by a motorist in West Auckland on Thursday.

“I wound down the window and started recording, I was yelling out trying to get his attention,” said the motorist, who did not want to be identified. “Then the light turned green and he casually drove off, still talking.”

If Police are in an emergency situation, then cellphone use should be okay, but this case shows quite the opposite.

The senior officer said it was unacceptable for police to be using cellphones while driving unless it was a real emergency. “I’m out there telling people off for using their phones while they drive. And yet cops are out there doing it. I am absolutely pissed off by the hypocrisy,” he said.

And shouldn’t Police cars have hand free devices anyway?

The Herald was inundated with emails from readers over the weekend who had spotted officers using their cellphones while driving.

“I actually reported a policeman in a marked police car driving on St Lukes Rd talking on the mobile phone, driving around 65km/h and changing lanes without indicating,” said one.

Another reader concerned about a female officer using her phone on the harbour bridge was disappointed with the response to his official complaint. He was quoted the relevant act.

The exemption for Police is too wide. It should be for emergencies only.

Or they could just scrap the law, and just use the general offence of driving while distracted.

Kate Chapman has a summary at Stuff:

Police Commissioner Howard Broad has hit back at a damning report into police culture, saying it looks “like a huge slapping”.

Well that is because it is Howard.

Ms Collins said yesterday that outgoing Commissioner Howard Broad had implemented a lot of changes, but “pockets of resistance” still needed to be tackled.

“Those are areas where the incoming commissioner [Peter Marshall] will be wanting to address.”

Mr Marshall starts in April.

Marshall, having headed up an overseas force for a few years, is in an ideal position to come in and make some changes.

Another problem area was rostering, with a graph of staff on duty in 2007 showing heavy staffing early in the week and fewer over the weekend when crime and demand were at their highest.

“It is appalling to think that, back in 2007 … there were more police officers on duty on a Monday night than … on a Saturday night,” Ms Collins said.

Hopefully that has changed or is about to.

Among the report’s findings were:

No action over poor-performing senior staff at police headquarters.

Police files revealed “highly inappropriate behaviour” by staff which was worthy of dismissal but received only a warning.

Rosters based on staff needs, not risk and demand.

Many staff felt the wrong people were sometimes given senior roles.

Wide inconsistency in the abilities of area commanders.

Little confidence in the detection of any concerning staff behaviour.

The commission of inquiry lacked impact as a driver of change.

Police need to implement “basic management concepts”.

That a pretty damning list. The inconsistency in the ability of area commanders has been there for a long time – you have a few good ones, but also a few who really are not up to it.

The Press ran this op ed from John Holm, brother of Dee Jordan who was killed by a driver fleeing the Police:

My big sister and her aerobics partner, Norman Fitt, were killed instantly at 8.10pm on August 26, just 10 minutes after I had travelled through the same set of lights on Fitzgerald Ave, Christchurch.

She did not have time to say goodbye to her frail 87-year-old mum, her soulmate and loyal husband for over four decades, two beautiful daughters, her younger sister, two brothers, relatives and hundreds of friends.

I have never had the need to write to the editor before but I, and other members of our family, am absolutely stressed by correspondents who see it as their right to form an opinion about the police’s role as this tragic event unfolded, without any knowledge of the background, let alone the facts.

The blame the Police lynchmob.

The individual who killed two beautiful people in the prime of their lives had offended against the law previously and been jailed. While under the care of his extended family following his release from jail, he got into an unregistered and unwarranted car while drunk and disqualified. He broke the law on several counts – the worst, killing two people

He drove from Akaroa to Christchurch and was “noticed” shortly after arrival by the police, who within a matter of 400 metres had the driver pulling into the kerbside as requested. When the car was virtually at a standstill, the driver had a “brain explosion”, sped off through three green-light intersections at a speed up to 90-100kmh in a 50kmh zone.

Sadly and fatally the fourth intersection had a red light and he had covered a total distance of only 500m since running the police stop and fleeing the police.

The police had not even passed through the first set of green lights, and the time elapsed was less than a minute, when my sister and the driver of the vehicle she was in were killed.

I can’t see how anyone can blame the Police, rather than the killer, for this.

So who killed my sister?

Bad parenting killed my sister and to a lesser extent the education system, with the latter not equipped with the tools or resources (or time for that matter) to educate this young man when his parents failed.

We have to have social rules and when people fail to abide by those rules as a consequence of bad parenting through their formative years, we have to have laws.

The laws have to have teeth, and be upheld, for without this we have anarchy.

The police are an easy target as they are “dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t”.

To all you police bashers out there, let the police use their best human judgment as they continue to “protect the public”, whilst at the same time society demands and reminds those who bring children into the world that they are equally guilty and should also be held accountable.

The public seem to forget that the police have husbands and wives, family and friends, so give them a break.

These two officers had to watch powerlessly as two people got killed right in front of their eyes. Have any of you been through that trauma?

My guess is no.

Very moving. It must indeed be horrific for the officers concerned.

Leigh van der Stoep in the HoS reports:

First-time offenders caught shoplifting, drunk in public or smoking cannabis are being let off with warnings as part of an ambitious police programme.

The policy, trialled in the Auckland region for more than a year and now going national, means police have discretion to let offenders off when they are caught committing crimes that carry a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Offences such as shoplifting, breaches of liquor bans, possession of cannabis and disorderly behaviour fit the criteria.

For a warning to be issued offenders must also be remorseful for their offending and the victims must consent.

A warning is entered into the police system against a person’s name, and a trip to court and potential conviction are avoided. If the offender is caught a second time, the matter is elevated to the courts.

Seems entirely sensible. This should have happened years ago.

The Timaru Herald reports:

A poster featuring Timaru shoplifters has been temporarily withdrawn after a woman laid a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Authority over her inclusion.

The complaint can take two main forms:

1. I am not a shoplifter, have never been a shoplifter and should not be on the poster as I have never shoplifted.
2. I have shoplifted but it is a breach of my right to shoplift if you include me in the poster

Nothing in the article suggests it is scenario 1.

The Herald reports:

The head of the police watchdog body is again calling for a rethink on pursuit policy after two more deaths from high-speed smashes.

Justice Lowell Goddard, QC, who chairs the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), said threats to public safety were important enough to merit an ongoing review of pursuit policy.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad said this year that the policy needed only minor tweaking.

There have been 2057 pursuits so far this year and 18 people have died – including two in less than 24 hours at the weekend.

So 99% of those pursued are safely captured, and 1% are not. I’m very hesitant about a policy change that means those 2,000 who are pursued, now get away with their crimes.

My personal suggestion to stop dangerous pursuits, is that fleeing Police in a vehicle carry an automatic prison term. This means that there is a reduced incentive to flee – you go from the possibility of prison to the certainty of prison if you do.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor called for cars to be crushed and the maximum fine available – $10,000 – to be handed out to those who fled police.

That’s the problem – the consequences of fleeing are not serious enough.

The Herald editorial wants a change:

But unfortunately, those few instances have led to 16 deaths this year, almost three times the previous worst annual figure for police chases. This can be no random occurrence. How many fatalities will it take, including, perhaps, those of innocent bystanders, before the minister acknowledges a change of policy is required?

The fault with those deaths lies with the criminals, not the Minister.

That conclusion is supported by figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act. They show that before last weekend’s two chase fatalities, the pursuits that led to 14 deaths this year were sparked by minor offences, not serious crimes.

What criminal acts are involved are not always known at the time. But also if people are fleeing for minor infringements, then that suggests the penalties are too low again for doing so. We need a simple clear policy – if you flee the police you will go to prison – even if just for a week.

In other instances, the reasons for pursuit was given as the manner of driving, suspected drink-driving and speed. It is reasonable to ask whether pursuits should be mounted only when more serious crimes have been committed.

I disagree. If someone pulls away from a drink driving checkpoint, then they are probably pissed as a newt and a major danger to other drivers. The Police will be damned for not pursuing him or her, if they get away and still kill someone.

We have stats on the number of police pursuits and the number of fatalities.  What I haven’t seen is any stats on what % of pursuits are already being abandoned by the Police, as the offender is driving too dangerously or quickly etc.

Many Wellingtonians saw these signs over Labour Weekend. I thought how nice it is that the Police are so proud about meeting their diversity targets

The Herald reports:

Arthur Allan Thomas will petition the Prime Minister to reopen the investigation into the Crewe murders.

“It’s going to the Prime Minister. The police are just cover-uppers and the Prime Minister is the only man who can do something about it.”

No the Prime Minister can not re-open a Police investigation. Only the Police can. If the PM could re-open a Police investigation, then he would have re-opened the one into Labour’s electoral over-spending in 2005.

The PM also can not close down an SFO investigation.

The Herald reports:

A former police officer and MP says he was pressured by the police commissioner of the day to change important evidence to the Crewe Royal Commission to suit the police case.

The moment I read this paragraph I worked out who the person is, and my first instinct is not to place any reliance on what he says.

Ross Meurant told the Weekend Herald that on the morning he gave evidence to the 1980 commission, Police Commissioner Bob Walton tried to persuade him he had not thoroughly searched the Crewes’ garden. …

Mr Meurant said the duty inspector, Phil Keber, saw him come out of the meeting.

“Phil said to me, ‘Geez, you’re white, Meurant, what happened there?’ and when I told him, he was as disgusted as me.”

Mr Keber told the Weekend Herald he had no recollection of the matter Mr Meurant describes. Mr Walton and Mr Wilkinson have died.

People can come to their own conclusions.

Dear Commissioner Broad,

This is a complaint alleging that Television New Zealand Ltd broke S140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 with their 6 pm One News bulletin on Tuesday 5 October 2010.

A video of the particular item can be found at http://tvnz.co.nz/local-elections-2010/court-appearances-over-alleged-voting-scam-3818752/video

The item showed the arrest of a man in relation to alleged enrolment fraud in Papatoetoe.

At around 50 seconds into the item, the reporter speaks to the camera with a Labour Party billboard in the background, showing photos and names of three candidates for the local elections. Slowly the shot zoomed in until the only two things visible were the reporter and the photo of the candidate on the right. At this stage his billboard photo is almost as large as the reporter. It is not an obscure background image.

The candidate prominently focused on was Daljit Singh, who was one of the two men arrested. At the time of the broadcast his name and identity was subject to an interim suppression order from the Auckland District Court.

The inclusion of the billboard featuring Mr Singh, and the extended close up zoom onto his image was obviously a deliberate decision by TVNZ to indicate or hint that Mr Singh was the person arrested. They did also show some images of other candidates and billboards but they were extremely rapid fire.

In the recent case of Police v Slater, the judgement of Judge Harvey made it clear that it is not necessary to actually name the person with name suppression, to be in breach of an order. Judge Harvey states:

The information can be decoded in the same way that an aggregation of information may lead to the identification of a person by way of a process of elimination – another form of interpreting a particular code or solving a puzzle.

The focusing on his name and photo allowed people to “solve the puzzle” of who had appeared in court. Presumably, this must have been the intention of TVNZ, otherwise they had no need to film their item in front on Mr Singh’s billboard.

I should note that personally I strongly disapproved of the situation where Mr Singh was able to get interim name suppression. I would even go so far as to say that I thought TVNZ provided a public service by implicitly identifying him before the deadline for posting in votes.

But I do not believe one can expect other “publishers” to obey the laws around name suppression, if they are not applied equally.

Therefore I reluctantly file this complaint.

Faithfully,

David Farrar

(complaint was sent by e-mail on Saturday 9 October 20110)

On Monday 20 September I blogged my views on the Wellington City Council elections.

Around 12 days later on 1 October, Eastern Ward Councillr Rob Goulden sent the following complaint to the WCC Returning Officer:

This email is in relation to information I sent to the Electoral Officer as a candidate profile.

My profile was sent for WCC to circulate on its website to the media, as general information as to who was standing, and for publication in the Candidates handbook.

I did not and have not given permission for my information to be published on the Kiwiblog website.

I am also required by the Electoral Act to authorise such publication. I have given no such authorisation to the Mr David Farrar the author and owner of the Kiwiblog website.

I believe his publication under the banner of Local Government Election 2010 on his website is a breach of the act. He tells people how to vote in numerical order, and whom they should vote for.

I do not see this as any different from circulating a leaflet doing the same thing, which was the subject of a recent complaint in Tawa.

I wish information about me to be removed from his website.

Can you please consider this matter as a formal complaint?

The first I knew of this complaint was today.

I should point out at this stage that in my blog post, I did not actually advocate a vote for or against Rob Goulden. I did endorse Simon “Swampy” Marsh and Amanda Nicolle for two of the three spots and said:

The three current Councillors are all quite well known. I’d keep at least one of them on – so people should also support their preferred incumbent.

Ironically several people wanted me to explicitly state that Rob should be ranked in an unwinnable spot. But because of some shared history I declined to do so, and did not state any preferences amongst the three incumbent Councillors. I won’t be as generous in future.

I also provided links to the official candidate supplied statements on the WCC site, allowing readers to make up their own minds on who to support.

Anyway back to the complaint, the Returning Officer responded the same day:

I acknowledge receipt of your complaint and, as required by section 138 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, your complaint will be referred to the Police for their investigation and appropriate action.

Oh what fun. I’ve been under Police investigation without knowing about it. The Police responded quickly:

Police response on Kiwiblog complaint

The Police very sensibly can tell the difference between an advertisement and a hyperlink.

Anyway I found out about all this today when Rob e-mailed me and said:

Please see the attached. I hope you will comply forthwith and remove my information from your website.

Now I am under no legal obligation to remove the link – it is to a public elections site. And I am bemused why Rob didn’t just e-mail me directly in the first place. But just so Rob doesn’t lose any more sleep about this, I have removed the hyperlink.

But perhaps I should replace that hyperlink, with another one. This hyperlink is to the WCC Watch Blog, specifically (by coincidence) to a blog post they did today on Cr Goulden.

UPDATE: A further e-mail from Cr Goulden:

I sent you an email tonight with the Police and Electoral Officers response attached.

I made a complaint to the Electoral Officer because that is the process I am required to follow.

You published my material without permission, which is why you have been asked to remove it.

For the record in 2007, you also published on your website defamatory material about me. You were told  to remove and you subsequently did.

I note already a defamatory remark made in response to your latest post.

I am not going to be as lenient as I was last time and intend to do something about you and your posts.

I will give you until the morning to remove them and no longer.

I have responded:

I am disappointed you have not learnt anything from this.  Polite requests go down better than threats and complaints.

You have not specified which of the comments you feel is defamatory. If you do so, I will consider your request.

I will continue to blog updates.

The Herald reports:

Four of the nine people standing for four seats in the Otara-Papatoetoe subdivision are Indian – Labour candidates Daljit Singh and Sukhdev Singh Hundal, and Citizens and Ratepayers candidates Avtar Hans and Narinder Kumar Singla.

Mr Gutry said candidates and campaign staff would be contacted as part of the inquiry. Yesterday, none of the four Indian candidates said they had been contacted by the police.

Daljit Singh yesterday said he knew of people who believed that because there was one Super City, they could vote anywhere.

People who may have unintentionally enrolled were being told to correct the matter with the Electoral Enrolment Centre, he said.

Unintentionally enrolled? Is this what it is about? Let us see what TV3 report:

Manjit Kaur and her husband Avtar have been living in Pukekohe for 10 years, so imagine their surprise when police turned up asking why she’d enrolled in the South Auckland suburb of Papatoetoe.

“We never lived at that address, and that handwriting was not belonging to us, ’cause we had not filled that form,” says Mr Kaur.

Ms Kaur signs her name in English, yet the police had a form with her date of birth and a signature in Punjabi.

Now this makes the alleged crimes even more serious. It is one thing to tell people to enrol at an address they don’t live at. That is bad enough. But to actually forge their signature on an enrolment form and re-enrol them against their wishes is even more serious.

Quite a mystery over who could have done this.

“We’ve executed a number of search warrants within the Papatoetoe area, residential and commercial properties,” says Det Insp Mark Gutry.

One of the properties searched was the real estate office where Labour candidate Daljit Singh works. He said today police had not contacted him.

“What we’re doing at present is investigating the enrolments,” says Mr Gutry. “As part of that process we are going to end up speaking to candidates right throughout the Papatoetoe area.”

Another address visited was Indo Spice World, where coincidentally today a support vehicle for Mr Singh was parked at his office next door.

What an absolute coincidence.

The Police announce:

A number of search warrants have been executed on residential and business addresses in Auckland’s Papatoetoe ward over the last two days as part of the police inquiry into electoral roll enrolment irregularities.

Detective Inspector Mark Gutry, crime manager, Counties Manukau Police, said the search warrants were executed at “properties of interest” to the inquiry which follows a complaint from the Electoral Enrolment Centre.

Up to 40 officers are involved in this latest phase of the inquiry.  People at the addresses or associated with them have been very helpful.   Candidates and campaign staff will also be contacted for information as part of the inquiry.

The Registrar of Electors last week removed 306 enrolments after establishing that people did not live at addresses stated on enrolment forms.

“Police are very aware of the electorate interest in this inquiry and we are working to complete it as thoroughly and quickly as possible,” Detective Inspector Gutry said.

“It’s too early to say what the outcome of our investigation will be.  Elections and the right to vote are part of New Zealand’s democratic process.  If people do have concerns about irregularities in the Papatoetoe ward then it’s important they have the confidence to speak up and get in touch with us.”

Well done NZ Police. 40 officers is a very serious commitment. Hopefully they will get a result quickly, as this could affect the election. If a candidate (or party) is found to be involved, then people should know this before they vote.