“Blunder”, “bungle”, “mistaken” and of course “creative” these are the adjectives currently being employed by New Zealand’s apologist media, it’s Government, Police National Headquarters and of course yet another professional apologist the NZPA”s Greg O’Connor in their concerted effort to divert and defuse the public’s attention and anger from a recent spate of unavoidable disclosures of New Zealand police criminal offending; made possible by two well funded and very smart defence teams.
We say “criminal” simply because the police’s behaviour in these cases (a few exposures all but the tip of a rather large iceberg), has literally been criminal. In the latest, the trial of the red devils gang, one fact seems to have escaped most commentators attention; the fact that police had clearly conspired to mislead a number of District court judges and as if that wasn’t bad enough when caught red handed by defense counsel, they yet again conspired by manufacturing a fake police document; the “police protocol”, in yet another attempt to conceal their own criminal offending.
If one is to believe the New Zealand Herald’s editorial:
Two officers, Detective Superintendent Rod Drew and Senior Sergeant Warren Olsson, had visited the then Chief District Court Judge, Russell Johnston (photo above), and believed they had his permission to go through with the ruse. Justice France found, however, that a letter they had given to Judge Johnston was “wholly inadequate” to alert him to the realities of what was involved. Equally, the police claimed to be following a protocol for false charge scenarios that did not then exist. One was written afterwards to reflect the police perception of what had now been established as a result of this visit, the first ever to a chief judge
Police then had clearly invented the so called “protocol” document after the fact and claimed in court that it had been relied on when writing to the chief district court judge. That was not a fucking “Blunder”, “bungle”, or even a “mistake”; it was a deliberate attempt by someone in the police forces Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) or the prosecuting Crown Law Office (CLO) to mislead the court!
Justice France in fact points to the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in his ruling, although the Heralds editorial writer appears to have missed it:
“When one realises the protocol is a fiction, the inadequacy of the letter [to Chief District Court Judge Johnston] becomes obvious,“
So if, as the learned judge has pointed out, the “fictional protocol” was created after the fact then the inevitable conclusion is that it had been invented and then submitted, in evidence, with the intention of misleading the court; and that, readers, is a serious criminal offence under section 113 of New Zealand’s Crimes Act 1961:
113 Fabricating evidence
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
So what happens in this case? apparently nothing more than a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket! Other aspects of the police case don’t add up either, again the New Zealand Herald editorial:
Two officers, Detective Superintendent Rod Drew and Senior Sergeant Warren Olsson, had visited the then Chief District Court Judge, Russell Johnston, and believed they had his permission to go through with the ruse. Justice France found, however, that a letter they had given to Judge Johnston was “wholly inadequate” to alert him to the realities of what was involved
Somewhat conveniently, for police, the very respected Judge Russell Johnson is no longer around to confirm these purported visits from Detective Superintendent Rod Drew and Senior Sergeant Warren Olsson, the learned judge unfortunately passed away before this criminal conduct, by police, had been exposed.
Justice France accused the police responsible of having been involved in “a significant deceit” in not seeking legal advice on their activities. We suspect that this to is a furphy. Police have their own in-house legal section and we believe it unlikely that they had not been involved in the planning of the operation and likewise probably the creation of the police’s “fictional protocol”.
As the NZ Herald reports, the police’s alleged failure to seek legal advise:
……. traversed the initial use of a false warrant, the plan to lay false charges using a constable swearing on oath suspicion of a crime he knew not to have occurred, the obligations of disclosure to Judge Johnston if he was to be approached, the appropriateness of seeking to do this by meeting him in his chambers, and the correctness of using the court’s processes as an investigative aid.
All of these actions on the part of police have cast a pall over the reputation of New Zealand’s courts and it’s entire judicial system. Under the Westminster system the Courts are constitutionally required to be utterly independent (separation of powers); independent of Government, independent of police, independent of absolutely any influence whatsoever and the senior police officers involved aught to have been aware of that statutory reality, Rhode Scholars or not:
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the police conduct lies in the misunderstanding of the courts’ function. They are not a collaborator in criminal investigations. As Justice France says: “It is no function of the court to facilitate a police investigation by lending its processes to the false creation of street credibility. The court is independent, and sworn to treat all who come before it equally and without favour.”
Some not so bright New Zealander’s are asking the question;
But why did the police’s own criminal offending mean that the whole case needed to be thrown out?
Well boy’s and girls its simple really, its called “abuse of process“, or “prosecutorial misconduct/abuse” or perhaps “contempt of court” and there are so many other tails we could pin on this particular Donkey. Its not as if the police have not been previously warned by the Courts; in the mid 1990’s a juvenile charge with murdering a country vet was discharged without conviction by another judge; police in that case had ignored their statutory responsibilities by conveniently ignoring his right to have an adult present and or legal representation, in doing so the boys right to a fair trial.
Given, however, that the case hinged on this one undercover cops “sworn” evidence, the polices serious criminal skulduggery simply could not have been overlooked; and if some of New Zealand’s fucktards are still asking why then they need look no further than the age old maxim: falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus (“false in one thing, false in everything)
- It’s Time for Greg O’Connor to Stop Defending the Indefensible (Brian Edwards Media)
- Police ‘should be prosecuted’ over fake arrest (radionz.co.nz)
- Gang charges thrown out after corrupt New Zealand police fake prosecution (laudafinem.com)
- Fake prosecution wrecks police case (nzherald.co.nz)
- Corrupt New Zealand Cop poses as grieving father of police victim? (laudafinem.com)
- New Zealand Police an international laughing stock:Detective Senior Sergeant Al Symonds (laudafinem.com)
- Police ‘unlikely’ to overturn court decision (radionz.co.nz)
- Further fallout from police gang blunder (nzherald.co.nz)
- Editorial: Police action slap in face for judiciary (nzherald.co.nz)
- Botched undercover work reviewed (radionz.co.nz)
- Dotcom: Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, perjury in any mans language (laudafinem.wordpress.com)