|
Allegations
of Abuse in NZ |
|
|
|
|
|
The heads of the
commission of inquiry into police conduct have retired to consider whether
hearings should be held in public and whether the media can report them. At a hearing in The commission was
established after Rotorua woman Louise Nicholas alleged in The Dominion Post
in January that she was pack-raped and violated with a police baton by three
police officers in 1986 when she was 18. All parties agreed that
future hearings should be heard in public as much as possible, but were split
on whether details of complainants and police officers should be reported by
the media. Kristy McDonald QC, for
the police, said hearings should continue in public even if criminal charges
from a police inquiry into allegations made by Ms Nicholas and Kaitaia woman
Judith Garrett against past and present police officers were before the
court. She said the process was vital in restoring public confidence in the
integrity of police and that special circumstances should exist before
suppression of names or details be considered. Mr Robertson said his
instincts were that running the commission and criminal proceedings
simultaneously could be a "recipe for disaster", but Ms McDonald
said the terms of reference were set up with the possibility of criminal
proceedings in mind, and that he and Dame Margaret were skilled to handle the
"juggling act" that existed. A team of 25 police are
investigating the complaints of the two women. Susan Hughes,
representing the Police Association, urged suppression of the details of all
police officers implicated in complaints. The terms of reference
referred to processes adopted by police, not findings of guilt and innocence
of individuals, she said. Past and present officers could be subject to
"salacious, inappropriate and intrusive" inquiry by the media if
their details were made public. John Upton QC, in a
written submission for the Police Complaints Authority, also supported
suppression of witnesses' details. Lawyers acting for media
organisations and for Ms Garrett argued that suppression orders could be put
in place on a case by case basis, rather than imposed uniformly from the
outset. Judith Ablett Kerr QC,
for Ms Garrett, said her client approved of names or details being suppressed
if it ensured fair criminal trials later. But Mr Robertson
repeatedly asked why police officers should be named. The principles of
natural justice would be breached as they would be identified but not heard. "The fact that it
is `Inspector Bloggs' or `Constable C' . . . is not going to make any
difference. We are investigating what happened after someone fronted up at a
police station." Deputy
solicitor-general Nicola Crutchley, on hand to offer general observations,
suggested either curtailment of information, hearing evidence in private or
postponement of the commission as possibilities to ensure fair trials. Justice Robertson and
Dame Margaret have retired to consider the submissions. |
