Police defend officer found by IPCA to have intentionally mislead their (Police's) own investigators

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Police defend officer found by IPCA to have intentionally mislead their (Police's) own investigators

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#275933 17-Sep-2020 10:37

Police press release

versus

IPCA press release

Sorry but in a civilised society when an independent investigative body chaired by a judge finds that your officer (who's in a position of great power and owes significant fiduciary duty to their employer and the public in both moral and legal terms) lied, you accept it. If you don't like the verdict, challenge it via judicial review at the High Court. In other words, someone found to have lied by an independent body gets... zero consequences. Not named; defence lawyers in future will struggle to know the name of this officer in the event it's a contest between his or her credibility versus someone else.

No words. The usual Boys in Blue defenders will no doubt not care. Anyone who cares about the rule of law should, however.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2566715 17-Sep-2020 10:58

Disgraceful. The public should be able to have faith and trust in the Police force and have know that if something is found to be wrong then it is corrected. This follows what seems to be a trend in the Police force and other agencies and has to stop.

Edit: Added a bit to the post

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#2566717 17-Sep-2020 10:59

As a lay person the way I read it is. Someone messed up at work (happens to be a police officer in this case), told some porkies to try and cover it up but got found out anyway.

On the plus side, with the. albeit illegitimately received, new information hopefully the landlord can now find tenants who won't use the premises to deal drugs which contributes to (using your own words) a more civilised society.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2566732 17-Sep-2020 11:06

floydbloke:

On the plus side, with the. albeit illegitimately received, new information hopefully the landlord can now find tenants who won't use the premises to deal drugs which contributes to (using your own words) a more civilised society.

How are they going to do that? Ask them if they are going to deal drugs? Spy on all lessees 24/7?

Even if that was possible or useful, it wouldn't contribute to a more civilised society - the drug dealing tenants would just find somewhere else to conduct their business.

Journeyman

1205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1236

#2566765 17-Sep-2020 11:56

IPCA: Police overstepped their authority

Police: Nothing to see here

Makes you wonder what else is going on if they can brush this so easily under the carpet.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2566772 17-Sep-2020 12:09

For further context, this is the second time in less than two weeks the less-than-decent human being that is Superintendent Naila Hassan has given the middle finger to a judge. See the police release after the IPCA ruled one of a group of arresting officers assaulted an arrestee and failed to file use of force report. Instead, most of the police press release was the usual BS "background setting" and hagiography about police work. See the IPCA press release here. The police do what they do because we are an apathetic society that doesn't value the rule of law and reflexively defend whatever it is that the police do, when instead they should be held to the strictest standards and account.

The media would do well giving more reporting on this and to challenge the disgraceful and lawless behaviour of Hassan, instead of bleeting on endlessly about rugby or some entertainment "news".

In respect of the privacy breach incident, the Privacy Commissioner's Office also agreed that Police breached the law. It's almost inevitable that the police will have to compensate the victim (who's obviously no angel) as if he takes them to the Human Rights Review Tribunal or lays a formal complaint with the Commissioner's Office, they will certainly send the case to the Director of Proceedings to take to the HRT and the police will be embarrassed and ordered to pay. Good news, my fellow taxpayers: your tax dollars are paying for the ongoing employment of a proven liar with no ethics and to compensate a drug dealer (albeit rightly).

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2566821 17-Sep-2020 13:54

I'm no fan of the police, however ... I don't see the serious disparities the rest of you are seeing between the two statements

The police acknowledge the report, accept a bunch of the findings, and explain their reasoning for not accepting the finding that the police officer lied. This was attributed memory failure 9 and 14 months after the events, which was corrected when the officer checked emails. It's a judgement call whether the officer was lying or genuinely forgot.

If I was the property owner I would be grateful to the police for the heads-up, that enabled me to eject a criminal enterprise from my building.

Mike

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2566863 17-Sep-2020 14:40

You can't understand why it's outrageous that an independent oversight body's word is not accepted? And that the police choose to so arrogantly relitigate the issue using PR "specialists" instead of, say, resorting to the courts to overturn the findings if they truly disagree, as is the proper method? And do you think private citizens will get to say "**** you, I don't agree with [insert description - be it a court decision or a regulator's decision]!" and suffer no consequences, e.g. the threat of arrest should you fail to obey all of prima facie valid decision? Remember, in a civilised society, the initial decision of a properly empowered body should stand in full unless and until it's overturned.

Are you really that confused?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2566887 17-Sep-2020 15:04

And it also helps if people would actually at least skim through the IPCA report before defending the police. Here are some relevant excerpts:

60.When the Authority asked about her knowledge of the rules governing disclosure of personal information, Officer A said: “No, I wouldn’t know… what my rights are to send information through.” When further asked if Officer A now knew what the law was around the disclosure of personal information, she said, “No”. When asked if she had made any effort to find out, she replied that she had enrolled in a Basic Investigators’ Course...

61.Police policy regarding disclosure of personal information states that before disclosing personal information, in the absence of a request, an officer must believe on reasonable grounds the disclosure is permitted by one of the exceptions in the Privacy Act 1993.

Complying with the law is not optional. If you don't know the answer/the law, then common sense tells you that you stop and ask questions. This stupid and unethical cop didn't even bother to have regard to her own organisation's policy. To top it off, this woman is also a thoroughly nasty piece of work, as evidenced by this comment in an e-mail to the motel owner:

it is distressing to the local Police and community that your motel complex is now being used as accommodation for WINZ beneficiaries from outside the area. The authority's comment at [82] is damning: Secondly, the reference to WINZ beneficiaries residing at the address implied that these people
were responsible for the perceived rise in criminal behaviour in the area. There was no evidence to support this assertion. This information was personal information that the landlord had no business knowing and it should not have been disclosed.

And the police PR was thoroughly selective/misleading as usual. The IPCA's findings on whether she intentionally mislead the police on whether she made the unlawful disclosures at [146]:

* She admitted to having been dishonest to [complainant] when she was asked about the disclosure of the information, advising the Authority that she did so to keep [complainants] onside with her.

* She may have forgotten about the emails when she was asked about them the first time, but it is implausible that she forgot about them on the second occasion when she was asked, especially when she had said on the first occasion that she would check when she was back at work.

* Officer F [officer who processed complainants' lawyers' requests as to information on who might have breached the complainants' privacy] is satisfied that Officer A deliberately lied to her.

* Officer A divulged the emails herself only when she was made aware that Police would be able to search for and find them on the system.

And this woman tried to stick another cop in it by claiming to the IPCA initially that the other cop sent the information.

Yet the "leader" of this police district has no problem with most of this. Cool.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2566908 17-Sep-2020 15:46

I think the cops largely accepted the reports findings.

I'm comfortable with any person or organisation disputing what any authority concludes. It takes a lot more than that to outrage me.

I'm not defending the police. I just don't think what they are saying is very far from what the IPCA has said.

I now see what you mean about the lying part - that is quite clear. However, I do think it's plausible to forget about emails twice. I have something on my to do list that I've forgotten to do every day this week.

Mike

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2566914 17-Sep-2020 15:49

dejadeadnz:

Remember, in a civilised society, the initial decision of a properly empowered body should stand in full unless and until it's overturned.

Are you really that confused?

In a civilised society people wouldn't get angry and insult people who disagree with them.

Mike

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7810

Lifetime subscriber

#2566926 17-Sep-2020 16:08

I read the first 10 pages or so of the full ipca report

https://www.ipca.govt.nz/includes/download.ashx?ID=158163

It appears the officer targeted the business for closure as undesirable due to an association with WINZ clients and subsequently misrepresented the number of issues to the landlord of the property to further this aim. The number of issues represented included those where past residents of the property had subsequent contact with police after leaving the property.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2567034 17-Sep-2020 16:53

MikeAqua:

In a civilised society people wouldn't get angry and insult people who disagree with them.

In a civilised society people accept basic premises of the rule of law, e.g. the validity of decisions made by properly constituted and independent authorities until those decisions are overturned. This is a long established socio-political principle not up for you to randomly deny.

I now see what you mean about the lying part - that is quite clear. However, I do think it's plausible to forget about emails twice.

Can you please decide what points you are actually trying to make before resorting to your keyboard? If you accept, as frankly anyone who has at least skim read the IPCA report must, that the policewoman lied (i.e. asserting something to be true with full knowledge that it is not and with the intent to deceive the receiver), of what moral relevance is that notion that she might have forgotten about about her e-mail? Remember, the officer intentionally misled the complainants when she was confronted about the leak, as she freely admitted to the authority.

That is enough to conclude the matter. It's not up for rational debate after that if facts and logic are matters of concern for you. People really understand that in this world not everything is up for rational contest and hiding behind shields of nicety and social etiquette (in any event I was actually asking you an open question) won't change BS into a pot of gold. So you can prattle on all you like that the police accepted most of the report but the underlying moral reality is that your assertion is plain rubbish. This is because they seem happy to keep employing someone who is indisputably dishonest whilst continuing to deny that she is in fact dishonest, despite there being no rational grounds to disagree with the IPCA's findings.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2567070 17-Sep-2020 17:37

dejadeadnz:

In a civilised society people accept basic premises of the rule of law, e.g. the validity of decisions made by properly constituted and independent authorities until those decisions are overturned. This is a long established socio-political principle not up for you to randomly deny.

Depends what you mean by accept. If you mean accept everything the IPCA says without critique, I disagree.

There is no socio-political principle that says a govt authority or it's decisions cannot be criticised or disputed. The fact an agency has the authority to make a particular recommendation does not mean that anyone has to agree with that decision or prevent anyone from criticising it.

Of course the IPCA doesn't actually make decisions, only recommendations. The IPCA has the power to summon witnesses, gather evidence and make recommendations - in a word read, talk and write. Beyond that it's a toothless, paper tiger. https://www.ipca.govt.nz/site/z-archive/2015-template-archive-/about/role-and-powers.aspx

Mike

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#2567074 17-Sep-2020 17:48

dejadeadnz:

of what moral relevance is that notion that she might have forgotten about about her e-mail?

It's of no moral relevance at all. But the IPCA described it as implausible, and I think it's quite plausible. That minor conclusion struck me as odd.

It's just an observation, I don't question the overall conclusion that she lied.

Mike