NZ Herald
February 6, 2004
'Slipups' abort previous trials against police
officer on sex charges
by James Gardiner
A series of Rotorua
court cases nine years ago gives a clear idea of the type of concerns Prime
Minister Helen Clark had in mind when she spoke of the need for the commission
of inquiry to look at the culture of the police.
A former police officer was tried three times on charges of indecent assault
and sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl living with him as a member of
his family and under his care and protection.
The first two trials were aborted after the detective in charge of the case
introduced inadmissible evidence. The man was acquitted at the third trial.
During these trials it emerged that the complainant had also made sex
allegations against serving police officers but the detective had failed to
make a written record of her complaint and advised her not to make a statement.
Two of the judges severely criticised him for this.
At the second trial, Judge Philip Evans said his failure to record the
allegations was "remarkable ... in view of the background of such a large
number of police officers being implicated and in my view shows a lack of
judgment on his part".
In a ruling on costs after the third trial, Judge Michael Lance went further:
"I am of the view the failure to record details of these allegations was
not only 'remarkable' it was utterly incredible.
"During his interview with the complainant he is told of allegations of
potentially serious sexual offending by ... currently serving police officers.
"Such disclosures should have triggered alarm bells that would have
permanently silenced Big Ben no matter how vague in terms of time and event or
place.
"Even more surprising than the failure to record is the officer's
deliberate advice to the complainant not to make a statement about her
allegations against these officers."
Judge Lance said the fact that a non-serving police officer was pursued with
vigour while allegations against serving officers went unrecorded leant weight
to the defence argument that the accused man was "a sacrificial
offering". He awarded the acquitted man more than $20,000 in costs.
Because of a suppression order the name of the detective, as well as the names
of the accused and the complainant, cannot be published.
The decision records that the first trial was aborted after the detective said
in evidence that a fellow officer and former colleague of the accused had told
him he was prepared to lie to protect the man because he did not believe he was
guilty.
That was seen as unfairly discrediting a potential character witness for the
defence and, by association, the defendant.
The second trial, before Judge Evans, was aborted after the same detective said
in evidence that several other officers had admitted to him that they had had
sex with the complainant. The judge said the experienced detective had placed
this "clearly hearsay evidence before the court during the course of what
I must describe as measured and carefully delivered evidence in circumstances
where there are accusations against a number of police officers of a serious
nature".
At each trial the judges expressed concern about how and why an experienced and
high-ranking police officer could make such blunders in giving evidence.
When he aborted the second trial, Judge Evans noted it was the second time the
same officer had done a similar thing at a similar point.
"That leaves a question mark as to the motive of the officer which should
no doubt be examined by the appropriate authority," he said.
He was not the only person in court puzzled by what was behind the officer's actions.
The Herald has obtained copies of statutory declarations prepared and signed at
the time by a senior Rotorua solicitor not involved in the case.
The solicitor, who asked not to be identified, said he was sitting in the back
of the court after the defence raised its objection to what the officer in
charge of the case had said.
He was aware the previous trial had been abandoned in similar circumstances.
According to him, after the judge left the police officer walked to the back of
the courtroom "grinning and looking pleased" and said to the
complainant and her family, "You know what's going to happen now - just
what we discussed".
The solicitor says he then overheard the officer outside the courtroom, saying
words to the effect that "it was a bit of a gamble".
Judge Lance did not agree with the Crown's assertion that it would be wrong to
infer the actions of the officer in charge were "a stupid and fundamental
error" rather than deliberate. "I am of the view it was a willed and
conscious act calculated to embarrass and frustrate the accused's
defence," he said. "It most certainly had that effect. Twice."
The case sparked an internal police inquiry and an investigation by the Police
Complaints Authority.
Although the police officer was found to have failed in his duties and had
acted unprofessionally, allegations that he deliberately misled the court and
was malicious in his prosecution of the former policeman were not considered
proven.
Documents obtained by the Herald show police chiefs and judges lost confidence
in the officer but he did not lose his rank and was transferred to an
administrative post in another city.