Arguably one of Mahatma Gandhi’s most enduring wisdoms was that civil disobedience demanded that right thinking citizens, true democrats, do their utmost to disobey apparently unshakable laws that are inequitable or just plain evil; bad for justice, bad for democracy, bad for everyone regardless of the spin with which they are often portrayed by the politicians responsible for their existence.
“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” – M K Gandhi (Non Violence in Peace and War; a collection of Gandhiji’s speeches 1921-1947 )
Martin Luther King, human rights activist and leader of the 1960’s American Civil Rights movement, also a follower of Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha, saw the issue in pretty much the same light
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” M L King Jr (A letter from Birmingham jail, 16th April 1963)
Only creeps, goons and political wide boy’s with their own, often nefarious, agenda’s will ever be seen to stand by laws that are unjust, inequitable or just plain evil, more often than not within the context of their own efforts to delay the inevitable, attempts to cling to power, pervert justice or maintain the status quo.
New Zealand’s courts have become increasingly unjust, some would argue for years, being either blinded by a police force that has also become increasingly corrupt, arguably worse, willfully blinded by their increasingly hapless efforts to maintain public confidence, perhaps better framed as mass delusion.
The discontent of New Zealand’s citizenry has however now reached a point that’s not to far removed from despair, people are sickened, especially those who number among the victims or have been in anyway connected to someone who has suffered an injustice at the hands of government or the so-called authorities. So what does one do to bring about change, to shake the tree of political apathy, to remove the rotten limbs, to call the police to account? What does one do to bring an end to the constant flow of lies, the deceit, the carefully concealed politically driven cronyism?
Yesterday LF came across another of those unique Kiwi name suppression orders, like the other distasteful example LF has recently featured it involved criminal offending that was sexual in nature.
Why is it that little old New Zealand, or rather it’s Courts want to hide the dirty laundry of those who wield any amount of public power, to hide the identities of those responsible for this type of offending?
New Zealander’s have for too long now been denied rights that should be present in any true democracy, among those given’s, the right to know, the right to open and transparent justice, the right to an equitable stake in their democracy.
Check out LF’s article on exactly why the above New Zealand police press release is a load of complete and utter crap: Australian resident’s targeted with specious legal claims – Are New Zealand’s Halfwit Police Spin Doctors at it again?
Little more than a month ago team LF joined fellow Australian journo Derryn Hinch in naming the so-called well-known New Zealander, Grahame Thorne, who had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge to the crime with which he had actually originally stood accused, to avoid having to face justice; and now apparent, the searing glare of the public eye.
The decision taken by police and a prosecutor without consultation with the victim, only for his highly paid lawyers to then, in fact almost immediately, set about manipulating the justice system and it’s courts to obtain an acquittal and permanent name suppression. All arguably with the tacit approval of the local media who verily failed to challenge the courts inexplicable super suppression
Forget his status as a so-called All-Black, that title carries little if any weight, The fact that Thorne was a man who had run for, and ultimately sat in the Parliament of New Zealand, where he numbered amongst the many other hypocritical politicians who have over the years willingly cried “hang the bastard” at the drop of a hat whenever it has suited their own political agenda’s, The fact that Thorne numbered among the politicians who were quick to “name and shame”, even if only to score political points, benefiting not the public, nor the common good, but rather only to advance their own craven power.
If for no other reason Thorne should now stand, publicly humiliated for his crimes; but he hasn’t, instead he and the courts have forced Thorne’s victim to jump through the most extraordinary collection of legal hoops whilst attempting to get justice, moreover the victims desire to see others forewarned of Thorne’s propensity for sexual offending of the nature of that which he originally stood accused has been completely ignored by the same courts.
For this reason alone LF took the view, as have others, such as Thorne’s fellow retired politician Tau Henare (in Henare’s case we suspect because he justifiably believed that the failure was damaging others), that Thorne should have been named, as New Zealand’s own mainstream media had failed to do so, inline with its fourth estate obligation to democracy, Justice, the people and above all else the woman who had fallen victim to Thorne’s sexually violent predilections.
This then brings us to another very recent case; similar for a number of reasons. The first similarity being that it involved offending that was against a female and sexual in nature. The second, that the offending has been admitted to, the third, that the perpetrator was a person who held a position of trust and finally the fourth, that the perpetrator has escaped being named and like Thorne is now seeking to escape the public gaze, and with it any just sanction or punishment.
There is however one more similarity which should actually flag some pretty serious concerns, the offending was also committed in Otago. The most recent advances in this case were reported on last Friday by the Otago daily Times, LF has however placed the perpetrators name where it ought to have been;
‘No option’ but to remand case
Friday 12th December 2014
A former Central Otago policeman Senior Constable John Barry Clarke, who admitted making an intimate visual recording of a teenager showering, using a police-issued iPhone, will have to wait until next year for his application for a discharge without conviction to be heard.
The man (Senior Constable John Barry Clarke), who has continued interim name suppression, was to have been dealt with in the Alexandra District Court yesterday.
However, Judge Kevin Phillips said he had ”no option” but to remand the matter until January for a restorative justice process to be investigated.
Under the Sentencing Amendment Act 2014, that process applies if an offender appears before sentencing; admits guilt; there is at least one victim; and no restorative justice has previously occurred in relation to the offending.
Defence counsel Nic Soper said he believed that applied if a guilty plea was entered after December 6.
The man (Police Senior Constable Clarke), admitted the offending, which occurred in Central Otago on October 14, on November 11.
Judge Phillips said the Act applied to all sentencings after December 6.
Mr Soper said he had been approached by the complainant’s mother and told Judge Phillips a restorative justice co-ordinator would endeavour to contact the complainant yesterday.
Judge Phillips said it was not appropriate for Mr Soper to have contact with the complainant or her mother, given he acted for the defendant.
Further, Mr Soper was not one of the ”specified people” under the Act to make a decision about restorative justice.
Regardless, Judge Phillips said he intended to adjourn the matter based on other concerns.
”I would want the victim here to be independently spoken to and a detailed victim statement obtained of her independently . . . I am concerned about it all. She is entirely unrepresented here.”
Prosecutor Craig Power said there had been attempts made by the police in the past week or so for the complainant to be spoken to and for her to see a clinical psychologist in Dunedin.
”It seems she doesn’t want to provide one [a detailed victim impact statement].”
Judge Phillips said he intended to ‘‘follow the law”.
”This matter won’t be rushed. I do not accept any argument it’s just a rubber stamp or there can be immediate inquiries made and answers given [today].
”If restorative justice is appropriate, then it takes place. That’s what the law says.”
In November, Prosecuting Sergeant Ian Collin said the iPhone had been placed on auto-record by the defendant and placed on a bathroom shelf, partly hidden. When the victim was drying herself after her shower she noticed the phone.
She replayed the video, realised what the recording was and deleted it.
When spoken to by police the defendant had no comment to make.
He was a first offender and had since resigned from the police.
The incident happened when he was off duty.
The matter was remanded to January 21, with the Crown to seek a detailed victim report to be made available to the sentencing judge.
An order for interim name suppression was continued until that date, when arguments will be heard about final name suppression.
Now of course regular readers will remember the name Nick Soper. Mr Soper LLB is the very same Kiwi laywer that earlier this year represented the female cop, constable Jenny McNee, that assaulted and racially abused Queenstown taxi driver Ganesh Paramanathan following his demand the McNee and her party pay the $62.00 taxi fare.
McNee was convicted of the offending after denying the charges (despite the existence of a video recording which proved the behaviour the victim had alleged), but her lawyer Nick Soper still thought it worth a crack to apply for what almost all bent cops expect to receive, what’s become known as the scott-free plea.
Often in these cases the offending officer has sought a judge alone trial in the hope that the sycophantic cop loving judge will completely acquit and then grant one of those delightful name suppression orders.
Regular readers will also remember the case of Alexandra teenager, 17-year-old Shane Cribb, who was charged in 2005 and later convicted of careless driving causing injury after a court case in February 2006.
Young Mr Cribb’s conviction later being overturned when it was proven, following an investigation carried out by a friend of the Cribb family, Steve Potter, that Otago’s finest bent cops had lied through their teeth during the original 2005 investigation and then given false evidence during the 2006 trial.
Otago cop’s Neil Ford and Dairne Cassidy later convicted of perjury. Cassidy receiving seven months home detention for her part in the conspiracy and Ford sentenced to two years jail.
“This proves if you are dogmatic enough and stick at it, you can achieve justice,” Steve Potter said minutes after a Dunedin District Court jury found Senior Constable Neil Ford guilty of perjury and lying about Mr Cribb being at fault when their cars crashed in 2005.
The fact is that the conspiracy was bigger than just Cassidy and Ford. There are in fact allegations that Dairne Cassidy was thrown to the Wolves, used as a scapegoat, in a tactic employed to conceal the fact that senior Otago officers had been actively involved in the conspiracy to hide Ford’s culpability by falsely accusing the innocent Shane Cribb.
These are just two cases that have involved the very small policing area of Central Otago. In both cases however the police held out, they attempted to cover-up and then spin the offending, in both cases the cops where still treated as police officers, and not criminals, right up to the last minute, the minute that New Zealand Police National Headquarters realised that their attempts to spin the allegations were doomed, that their strategy was no longer tenable.
This current case is no different. The police trying to conceal the offending until such time as they realise that they are in for a public hiding. This response is stock standard for the New Zealand cops. Its only when their spin doctors strategies start to falter that the police hierarchy start to slowly pull away, in the hope that by using a different type of media spin the wheels won’t fall off, that they will somehow manage to isolate the contagion that bent cop’s always carry.
With this current case, as reported in the Otago Daily Times, the police are in fact using one of their contagion minimization strategies, evidence of that is to be found in the ODT article and the journalists employing of “A former Central Otago policeman”.
Of course at the time the offending occurred the perpetrator was still a serving police officer, in fact the offending involved the use of a police issue iPhone, the police however now preferring that a little doubt be cast on when it was the offender had in fact been a police officer.
In fact even the fact that there is a great deal of abiguity around when offending is alleged to have actually taken place (the typo’s in the article above, probably intentional) is suspicious, whats more the arguments being advanced by Soper appear to be semantic, split hairs, designed in an attempt to get yet another cop off scott-free, or as Nick Soper prefers, “discharged without conviction”.
In fact LF suspects that Judge Phillips might have himself caught a whiff of the same fishy smell we’ve detected emanating from Soper’s submissions and the background police behaviour. We are also detecting a very strong odour from Soper’s application for the continued “interim” name suppression.
From the start the case was dodgy, the police prosecutor responsible for the carriage of this matter has his own closet full of skeletons. Police prosecuting Sergeant Ian Colin was himself charged, back in May 2010, for an offence that tends to indicate he was the type of cop that specialised in bending the rules to suit himself. Perhaps “there but for the grace of god go I” was a factor in Collin’s prosecuting skills failing him, to the advantage of constable Clarke:
Top cop caught driving at 149km/h
Friday May 14, 2010
A senior Queenstown police officer is facing a code of conduct inquiry after being caught driving a police car at 149km/h.
Sergeant Ian Collin, who prosecutes in the Queenstown and Alexandra district courts, was issued with an infringement notice and an instant 28-day suspension after being caught speeding in the Kawarau Gorge on April 28, said southern regional manager for prosecutions, Inspector Richard Bruce.
It was understood he was fined $630, and stood down from his job while an internal inquiry was pursued.
Mr Bruce declined to comment about the inquiry and said he did not know when it would be completed.
Mr Collin moved to Queenstown from Auckland.
He was the first prosecutor solely dedicated to the two courts, which had previously been served by rostered prosecutors from Dunedin and Invercargill, the Otago Daily Times reported.
Sergeant Ian Colin was the prosecutor who was also involved in the Paul Currie miscarriage of justice, a case of police malfeasance that remains to this day unresolved. LF suspects that Collin’s transfer south, considering it’s timing back in late 2009, may have been anything but a promotion. The police hierachy really needs to get to grips with the fact that a simple relocation will not get rid of the smell of corruption, whether its in Auckland or Queenstown the smell of wrongdoing won’t go away.
What is also more than obvious is the fact that the police, the prosecutor and the defence in this case were almost certainly angling for a cover-up, they had obviously planned on obtaining permanent name suppression, but only once Constable John Barry Clarke’s bent cop loving lawyer Nick Soper had successfully managed to obtain a discharge without conviction.
Much the same strategy really, allowing for variations on the theme, that Grahame Thorne’s lawyer used to play the game of judicial chess.
This time however it seems that the Judge, Kevin Phillips, may be on to the cops, afterall team Lauda Finem certainly is and surely it’s not the case that every single judge in New Zealand is either completely stupid or bent? Phillips is one of New Zealands longest serving judges, at least on the District Court bench, which may well account for the “frank” exchanges the OTD reported.
Phillips was clearly mindful of the serious and inherent dangers of constable Clarke’s lawyer Nick Soper contacting the victim himself, Soper would have known better than to even propose such an approach, so why did Soper make the suggestion….desperation perhaps?:
“Judge Phillips said it was not appropriate for Mr Soper to have contact with the complainant or her mother, given he acted for the defendant.
Further, Mr Soper was not one of the ”specified people” under the Act to make a decision about restorative justice.”
So that Soper could attempt to cajole the victim into co-operating perhaps, maybe with some sort of offer that she couldn’t refuse? Soper was certainly up to no good if he did in fact attempt to solicit the courts approval for such a move.
There’s also another strange anomaly, it seems that the police have now enlisted the support of another prosecutor, having dumped sergeant Collin’s at some point in favour of the services of Dunedin Barrister and crown law buggery specialist Craig Power who just happens to be the type of lawyer that is normally found defending Government balls-ups.
Craig Power too would most definitely have been aware of the irregularities that had occurred during the hearing, he too was also probably left in no doubt that the Judge was on to slippery Nick Soper.
Powers submission that “there had been attempts made by the police in the past week or so for the complainant to be spoken to and for her to see a clinical psychologist in Dunedin” was frankly piss-weak and also reeks of police collusion. What about the psychological assessment that the cop should have undergone? Surely, given the nature of the offending, that would have been a prerequisite prior to granting a discharge or even begining to decide on a sentence? It certainly has been in most other similar cases we here at LF have reviewed:
Man sentenced for secretly filming in bathroom
Friday Sep 7, 2012
…..The man was also ordered to attend a psychiatric assessment, not to possess a computer, not to associate with people under 16 years, and not to associate with his victims.
The police have had ample time in which to process this case, more than sufficient in which to have obtained a psychologist report and or victim impact statement and with which to offer support and appropriate assistance to the victim if required; but instead they decided to leave it until two weeks before sentencing, if in fact the approach was ever made as police claim….again just why was that?
Again Powers submissions smell very fishy. In fact the stench of police manipulation of events leads us to believe that the victim may have been treated in an appalling fashion by police, that she has probably lost all faith in justice, in particular the police’s role in that process, hence her reluctance to have anything to do with the cops. That’s a far better fit with Craig Power’s very weak “two weeks” explanation.
The judge may have also picked up on that fact. He certainly seems to have picked up on the fact that the Police, Craig Power and Nick Soper had arrived in court believing that if they all collectively presented the right set of submissions then it would only be a matter of the judge “Rubber stamping” the outcome they had all obviously intended to obtain on the day by collusion without the victims knowledge;
‘This matter won’t be rushed. I do not accept any argument it’s just a rubber stamp or there can be immediate inquiries made and answers given” – Kevin Phillips DCJ
In short, the answer to the question “At what point do New Zealand cops become disgraced ex-cops?” is relatively simple.
When the cop has actually been NAMED.
After all, when all is said and done this cops offending was little different to that of a Wellington man convicted in 2012 (also cited above), who seems to have been dealt with very differently:
“The man appeared before Judge Peter Hobbs in Wellington District Court this morning where he was sentenced to six months’ home detention, 200 hours’ community work and ordered to pay $30,000 in reparation.”
When the police publicly admit that one of their own is BAD they will still go to quite extraordinary lengths to hide the offending and especially the identity of the police officer/s responsible. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to bury the matter if possible, especially when it’s contributing to, or compounding, a public relations nightmare, such as the problem police face with their Central Otago police local command and the integrity of the districts police officers.
Now we can’t have that happening any longer can we? Satyagraha demands that we don’t allow the skulduggery to continue un-challanged, justice must also be be seen to be done.
Name suppression orders are being abused by New Zealand’s police force, its lawyers and the country’s Courts, those responsible for the maintainance of law. The name suppression laws were only ever intended to protect the vulnerable victims of crime, or on occasion individuals who stood accused of offences, wherein the police or prosecutions case was perhaps arguably weak.
They where never intended to protect the identities of offenders who had in fact admitted their part in a crime and they were certainly never ever intended to protect the police, or keep the unlawful actions of police officers from close public scrutiny.
Bad law is bad law, the suppression laws undoubtedly started out with the best of intentions, but they have been allowed to spoil, putrified, by the New Zealand police, lawyers and the Courts who have seemingly allowed this abuse, what’s more, they have done so with complete impunity.
It seems the Key defence of “When I made those calls or sent those txts it was not while I was acting in my capacity as Prime Minister / Police Officer” is to become a classic… Key must be taken to task on this matter before it’s use becomes endemic. The legal system is polluted enough than to allow this nonsense to stand as precedent.
central otago police are corrupt…no where else in the world can a widowed father get approached about kidnapping own child on return from burying wife, have cyfs and the courts cost him thousands, get ripped off by sleazy lawyer tim cadogan, lose child every Christmas to pedophiles who dragging him through court, take an overdose from the strain, then get abducted beaten up and stomped on by dave greaves of Alexandra police and his monkey boy, then get locked up in a secure unit to silence parent, then get told they were just doing their jobs by nz police complaints authority…Alexandra police are pro pedophillia cuz no matter how hard ya try to protect ya daughter, the alexandra police scumbags will go out of their way to make sure every situation is against the father and unpleasant…I had to make a youtube video to get my story out cuz Alexandra police and courts think that fathers have no rights in the world except to obey a private court case rulings where the parent doesn’t even get to have their say about daughters future…they instead made daughter a ward of the state ordering child where to live if dad wants to keep custody of daughter, while they obey the demands of scum who date guys that rape their children, break a court order to steal a dead body and deny it in family court so treaty of Waitangi board member/family court lawyer Barbara collis of opotiki/kutarere clients can ruin a fathers life and childs life as they had promised to do before the courts got involved…central otago police are just sick evil scum who prey on the vulnerable like the predator vultures they are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4T1LTXOaHc
a person who terrorizes or frightens others…not as much as even an apology or compensation cuz to them they enjoy terrorizing people so much
I too live the consequences of Family Court injustice and corruption, the hatreds, the abuse, the never ending foul and false allegations, the extortions, arrests, and the screaming heartache of my child’s loss and pain. My advice to you is to have patience, keep yourself well and when your daughter is ready to have her parent back in her life, be there with your love for her on your sleeve and your heart and arms open wide.
Tell me, did your “lawyer” say the same thing to you as he handed you the multi thousand dollar bill for his “services”, “I could have told you you were never going to win…..” ?
Are you guys aware of the allegations made against Bush in protecting one of his workmates from rape charges made by Angus Fisk , ex police officer , on the NZPCA page some weeks back ?
No we were not aware of the allegations against Bush, raised by ex police sergeant Angus Fisk (photo below), but thanks for bringing them to our attention. Team LF members will now also start doing a little digging around the circumstance surrounding the two letter’s that Fisk sent, to both police and the Otago Daily Times;
Otago Daily Times
I submit the following open letter to the Commissioner of Police for publication in your paper.
The Commissioner of Police,
The incidence of the NZ Police taking upon itself not to prosecute certain cases on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges being laid has come to light as an increasing and unwelcome phenomena.
Most recently we have the unedifying instance of the case against Mr John Banks for submitting a false election return in which your judgement of insufficient evidence has been proven to be flawed threefold; first by a member of the public laying a private prosecution, then by the Crown Prosecutor taking on the case and finally by a judgement of the Court finding Mr Banks guilty. Then today I read of Sir David’s finding of excessive force by a Constable who employed pepper spray, a baton and two ‘shots’ of a taser to subdue an offender. Again the police considered that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution. Media reports of other similar instances seem to crop up all too often.
The practise is not new – I also know of a case, now dated, against a former police Sergeant for forgery, perverting the course of justice and perjury (of which you will have intimate knowledge by virtue of your service as a Detective in the Far North in the 1980′s) being written off on the same grounds not-withstanding abundant evidence to the contrary – but is becoming too commonplace.
Surely, it should not be necessary for a former Police Sergeant to remind the Commissioner of Police that the Courts are the right and proper venue for judging such cases, not behind the closed doors of Police Headquarters since the latter raises the question of why such dubious decisions are being made within the higher eschelons of the Police. Is it mere professional incompetence, an inablity to grasp the facts of a case? One would hope not given the considerable experience of our most senior police officers and the legal advisory resources available to them. Or could there be some more sinister motive; favouritism, partiality, corruption even? I make no judgement here, I am merely reflecting the growing public disquiet on the subject I perceive about me.
The fact is it is not necessary for the police to have an absolute and watertight case before a prosecution is lodged. Reasonable grounds to suspect an offence are sufficient criteria. It is up to to Courts then to decide the worth of a case. I would argue there is no harm in police losing cases in Court since this merely demonstrates that they are doing their job properly – and not usurping the Courts role. How many cases are disposed of in this convenient manner? And what proportion relate to police misconduct/politically delicate matters? Do we need some sort of Judicial auditing to ensure our police are up to the job, perhaps?
Prevailing Police practise does little for the good name of the Police; indeed it contributes to a growing public cyniscm on the integrity of the Police. I urge you to either address this issue or to stand down for somebody that will.
Open letter to Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess 22/08/14;
Your email of the 19 August refers. Lets get the facts out there….
On the afternoon of the 20 March 1988, Commissioner Michael Bush, then a Detective in Kaitaia, colluded with Sergeant Colin Yates and Constable Timothy Ogle to cover up a complaint of rape by Ogle in the early hours of that same day. The coverup was to endure for the next 26 years.
On the evening of the 19 March 1988 Ogle and Yates had used a police vehicle to go on a drinking binge. Yates eventually returned to Kaitaia alone leaving Ogle behind. Ogle prevailed upon Ms Garret to transport him back to town and had her divert to the Kaitaia Police Station, then unattended. When there he handcuffed her and committed the acts leading to the rape complaint.
Ms Garrett lodged a complaint of rape to the Police the following afternoon, the 20 March. It was referred to Sergeant Yates who at the time it was received was drinking with both Timothy Ogle and Mike Bush at the after match social function of the annual Kaitaia police/fire service cricket match. After being notified of the complaint Yates discussed it in depth with Ogle and Bush. Ogle put forward the claim that sexual intercourse had been consensual. This was accepted implicitly by Bush who agreed to dispense entirely with the established police procedures for the impartial investigation of a serious crime. As the local detective Bush’s first duty was to inform his superiors at the Police District Headquarters so that a proper and impartial criminal investigation could be undertaken. He failed to do this. It was to be three months before Ms Garrett lost patience and had her solicitor formally follow up her complaint, finally initiating an investigation.
Bush also failed to implement the most basic of police procedures, that of securing the alleged crime scene for later examination. Evidence left by the victim which could have substantiated her account was lost. Preservation of the crime scene presented no difficulty for Bush since the alleged rape was committed in his office and a shirt of his was used to clean up afterwards.
Further breaches of proper procedure by Bush include his failure to arrange a medical examination of the victim (or indeed the suspect), his failure to take a statement of complaint in the manner prescribed in order to ensure the integrity of a complaint against the police,and his failure to keep a record of the meeting with Ogle and Yates, (at which Ogle, as the suspect should properly have been formally cautioned.)
During the three months Bush aided the coverup by remaining silent Sergeant Yates put together a falsified file supporting the claim of consent with forgery and hearsay evidence.. This false account would go on to be accepted without question by his superiors and the investigation that followed was engineered to substantiate it rather than uncover the true facts.
Every police officer involved thereafter accepted this myth based on the forgeries of a corrupt Sergeant and hearsay statements, without question. And I mean every police officer. Even Assistant Commissioner Matthews, who gave perjured evidence on police procedure in taking complaints against the police in the civil action brought by Ms Garrett. (This would be acknowledged in 2011 by the Attorney General paying Ms Garrett a substantial sum in compensation for ‘possible perjury’ by the police in that case)
Ms Garrett lost her civil action against the police on the grounds, in short, that the Court Of Appeal found no malice toward her on the part of the police. One can only speculate as to their judgement had the truth been allowed to emerge in that action.
In their judgement on that case (Garrett v. Attorney General, 1997) a full bench of the Court of Appeal, while finding against Ms Garrett for the reasons outlined, also concluded that without any doubt Ms Garret had been raped, that the police investigation unduely favoured Constable Ogle and that the evidence purporting to reflect the victim’s sexual history and reputation was inadmissible under the Evidence Amendment Act, 1985. They also found Ms Garrett had sufferred seriously in consequence of the police conduct. The police chose to simply ignore these findings from the highest Court in the land and have persisted with their claim that consent was consensual to this day, employing a trial of the alleged offender in 2006 to perpetuate that claim.
Having got away with ignoring the Court of Appeal it later became imperative that the police to shut down the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct initiated by Ms Garrett and Louise Nicholas in 2004 least the depth of police misconduct become known.
You yourself, after being placed in charge of Ms Garrett’s (and Louise Nicholas’) case succeeded at this by reopening their stale rape inquiries, thereby preventing the very people that had sought the Inquiry from making known the facts. To my mind you committed the crime of perverting the course of Justice by this action. The perversion of justice lies in the fact that the victims at that time were seeking an inquiry into police conduct, not into the rapes themselves.
Attempts to have you acknowledge the complaints of misconduct were ignored, and ridden over roughshod with the smug mantra “You will not be appearing before the Inquiry.” I recall that with great clarity.
By totally ignoring the allegations of corruption you were able to use the ploy of claiming you were preventing a miscarriage of justice in the rape complaints to actually pervert justice and prevent the exposure of the despicable conduct of the police in this and other cases over a considerable period of time. You also wasted inordinate amount of judicial resources and public monies by presenting carefully selected cases to the Commission of Inquiry in the course of what was reduced to nothing more than a red herring.
In your email to me you make reference to exhaustive criminal investigation that followed the reopening of the Garrett rape complaint which resulted in a prosecution in the High Court in 2006. I have no argument with that re-investigation, other than it was a mere ruse to subvert an Inquiry and was contrary to the victim’s wishes, unnecessarily subjecting her once again to past trauma suffered through the rape and earlier cover up. I certainly have no complaint at the manner in which Detective Inspector John Winter conducted a thorough, sensitive and professional re-investigation of the rape. I continue to have the gravest of reservations though as to the conduct of the prosecution that followed. I suspect the prosecution was overseen by some one other than D.I. Winter. I do know that it failed because of serious omissions in both the evidence presented by the Crown and by the the prosecution allowing the victims character and reputation to be once again denigrated without objection or evidence of rebuttal being presented.
I am of the considered opinion that both you and Commissioner Bush are products of a police culture that places loyalty to one’s colleagues above all else. You ignore the greater obligation to the fair and impartial performance of your duty and have thus reduced the integrity and crediblity of the NZ Police to something akin to that of the Mongrel Mob. They at least have the honesty to admit that peer loyalty is at the core of their culture. You though, will go to almost any length and expense to keep your colleagues’ criminal actions hidden while maintaining the guise of upholding the law. The NZ Police has developed into a culture where it can ignore the findings of the Courts with impunity, as it can with its watchdog body the IPCA. You have set yourselves up as a law unto yourselves and police prejudice and arrogance continues unabated.
Both you and the Commissioner should resign.
I do not wish to meet with you. I have no doubt that the police will find some means of evading justice in this case and have decided that the best I can do is the present this in the public arena so even if you cannot be called to account the truth is out there.
Justice must be seen to be done in our police organisation or all is lost, use to be one bad apple now the whole barrel has been spoilt and whistleblowers condemned, I also feel complicit as I pay these repugnant people with my tax paid dollars, it can not go on as status quo
McNee just resigned
Yes, we here at LF will be publishing a eulogy to mark the passing of her police career, oh and point out a few more bent cops whose careers should be lowered into the ground along with hers.
For readers that are interested notice of her departure can be read here –
“racially abusive cop quits police force” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11376320
There also a little more information that had been concealed from the public until the MSM pulled finger and sought it via FOI laws. McNee’s witness’s were “biased and unreliable”……go figure;