Corrupt Policeman still being paid

Forums › Off topic › Corrupt Policeman still being paid

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#217916 18-Jul-2017 15:35

Most of you have probably heard the story but its now been released that the man convicted is a police officer. What I find disturbing is he has been convicted and remains on paid leave, he should have been booted out the door the second he was found guilty.

He brings the police force into disrepute and the initial judge giving him suppression didn't help either.

Full story here.

1 | 2 | 3

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824489 18-Jul-2017 15:40

With anything like this the Police will need to manage the disciplinary action and dismissal correctly to avoid come back. It is a time consuming process with a lot of gotchas along the way.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

gzt

16821 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824492 18-Jul-2017 15:43

Corrupt does not cover it. The guy is a psycho.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824495 18-Jul-2017 15:45

Happens in every profession....Police are not exempt.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824503 18-Jul-2017 15:55

"Buis, who has been on paid leave for nearly two and a-half years, was sentenced to 200 hours' community work and ordered to pay the victim $15,000 after being found guilty of criminal harassment, threatening to do grievous bodily harm and intentional"

"Safer Communities Together".

I wouldnt even know what to say about that, Seriously a police officer... One step closer to America!

Dairyxox

1594 posts

Uber Geek

#1824505 18-Jul-2017 15:58

MikeB4:

With anything like this the Police will need to manage the disciplinary action and dismissal correctly to avoid come back. It is a time consuming process with a lot of gotchas along the way.

While most reasonable people would agree this is true, I think this particular time frame is unreasonable. The cost to the tax payer is absurd, and 2.5 years to resolve is way-way too long (understatement).

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824510 18-Jul-2017 16:04

Dairyxox:

MikeB4:

With anything like this the Police will need to manage the disciplinary action and dismissal correctly to avoid come back. It is a time consuming process with a lot of gotchas along the way.

While most reasonable people would agree this is true, I think this particular time frame is unreasonable. The cost to the tax payer is absurd, and 2.5 years to resolve is way-way too long (understatement).

You would probably find a person employed by the private or corporate sector would have been dismissed instantly or paid out their "gardening leave" and left at that. That the police let this happen for 2.5 years makes you think they are on his side.
I got respect for the police as people, Not as a force.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824526 18-Jul-2017 16:16

My biggest concern would be this:

"When police analysed Buis' phone, they found he had communicated with colleagues over an app during which he voiced his hatred for Pryde."

So, a number of other police service staff knew something was odd and presumably they brought that to the attention of someone senior? Seriously, if you are a policeman and one of your colleagues starts discussing how much he hates a member of the public, that surely has to ring alarm bells somewhere.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824532 18-Jul-2017 16:18

Pumpedd:

Happens in every profession....Police are not exempt.

It's virtually prerequisite for joining the Police.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824549 18-Jul-2017 16:30

Geektastic:

My biggest concern would be this:

"When police analysed Buis' phone, they found he had communicated with colleagues over an app during which he voiced his hatred for Pryde."

So, a number of other police service staff knew something was odd and presumably they brought that to the attention of someone senior? Seriously, if you are a policeman and one of your colleagues starts discussing how much he hates a member of the public, that surely has to ring alarm bells somewhere.

You'd think the so-called good cops would be cleaning up their ranks... which they really aren't. What was it Judge Davidson said... oh yeah... "a sick culture". Of course the puppet Tompkins later participated in whitewash masquerading as an inquiry.

dfnt

1501 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1824604 18-Jul-2017 17:06

Think it's just the unfortunate reality of law enforcement, including military, they all stick up for each other otherwise they're a worthless rat

It reminds me of that air force guy stealing and selling weapon parts:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/88966432/air-force-flight-lieutenant-denies-stealing-pistol-parts-from-base-woodbourne

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/88997214/Trial-over-as-flight-sergeant-admits-stealing-high-powered-gun-parts-from-Air-Force

I happened to be working with the guys father when this was happening, the son who exposed the guy selling the parts, so got to hear about it from him. Not only was he harassed because of what he did I believe he's had to move to a different base altogether. It's no wonder they keep their mouths shut.

I wouldn't be surprised if old Mr Smith was on paid leave too

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824660 18-Jul-2017 18:08

The earliest Police could commence dismissal proceedings is when he was found guilty.

Dairyxox

1594 posts

Uber Geek

#1824701 18-Jul-2017 18:52

MikeB4: The earliest Police could commence dismissal proceedings is when he was found guilty.

Not necessarily. Organisations are free to conduct their own internal investigations and act accordingly. An employment matter doesn't necessarily have to rely on a civil or criminal case outcome. It could for example be a serious misconduct issue etc.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824783 18-Jul-2017 21:15

MikeB4:

With anything like this the Police will need to manage the disciplinary action and dismissal correctly to avoid come back. It is a time consuming process with a lot of gotchas along the way.

Taken literally and at a highly theoretical level, this is correct. Applied to the relevant context, it's pure rubbish. The guy has been convicted for months (and this is applying the best possible case for the Police) and his right of appeal is up -- does it take months to hear from a convicted criminal why he shouldn't lose a job of enforcing the law, when said disgusting criminal has threatened to kill someone, stalked him, and also behaved disgracefully amongst his own (equally) disgraceful colleagues who had done nothing to report him for sharing offensive pictures of the victim? Here on planet Earth, the answer has to be "no".

And I know the answer to be "no" because I have been involved in running disciplinary processes and recommending disciplinary actions (up to and including dismissal) for large organisations, including being directly involved in the dismissal of people at GM level and above, let alone some pathetic constable. If other large organisations can do this expeditiously, so can the police with their budget of hundreds of millions. The fact that they basically did not initiate any disciplinary process for years until the criminal case resolved itself is most unusual -- it is an absolute myth that people are entitled to hold on to their jobs until they are proven criminally culpable. The true test is whether an employer acting reasonably could have chosen to dismiss the individual concerned for reasons including a justified total loss of trust in the employee. Given the totality of evidence apparently at the police's disposal at the time that this low life was charged, it's absolutely ridiculous that they did nothing to get rid of him.

And even if the police were found to have been procedurally hasty in getting rid of him, precedents at the ERA are abundantly clear that people who are large/total contributors to their own (procedurally unfair) dismissals will have any awards reduced massively. I would rather the police risk having to pay out 10 grand to a scumbag than to give him 2+ years' worth of salary and to keep stinking up the force. Of course, this thinking assumes that the NZ Police has some actual standards and if this and the constant IPCA criticisms are anything to go by, they clearly don't.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1824790 18-Jul-2017 21:34

MikeB4: The earliest Police could commence dismissal proceedings is when he was found guilty.

Absolute and utter garbage. You don't understand the law and facts aren't optional - it's incredibly frustrating to see people who don't understand these complex matters going around making conclusory statements that are completely wrong. The following comes from a website administered by MBIE:

Summary dismissal is when an employee is dismissed without notice. This means they are not:

able to work out their notice period
paid out for their notice period.

An employee may be summarily dismissed if, after a fair investigation and disciplinary process, they are found guilty of serious misconduct. This is conduct that deeply impairs or is destructive of the relationship of trust and confidence.

It is not necessary to have a specific clause in the employment agreement for a summary dismissal to be an option in the event of serious misconduct. If there is a clause, it will make the decision for a summarily dismissal more reasonable, provided the employer has followed proper process.

There will be circumstances where continuing with and potentially dismissing an employee during a criminal investigation is unjustified -- this would include asking an employee to answer questions that require him/her to incriminate him or himself. There are cases, including a case called Wackrow where the Employment Court injuncted an employer against certain lines of questioning but declined to injunct the employer from continuing with the disciplinary process overall. There are cases where the employer was stopped altogether from continuing the investigation process; whilst there are still cases where decisions to dismiss before the criminal process concluded were upheld.

It is absolutely not standard employment practice, contrary to the assertion of the idiotic police District Commander to various media, for people to be suspended with pay for 2+ years. By the time the police got hold of the evidence of this guy sharing pictures of the victim with penises drawn over them to his various colleagues (for example) and given the forensic evidence they had supporting the substantive criminal allegations against him, the Police could have quite reasonably concluded that Buis was a person capable of displaying major animus towards other citizens and was severely lacking in judgement. That is fundamentally incompatible with the duties of a police officer and pretty destructive of the relationship of trust and confidence.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1824794 18-Jul-2017 21:38

dejadeadnz:

MikeB4: The earliest Police could commence dismissal proceedings is when he was found guilty.

Absolute and utter garbage. You don't understand the law and facts aren't optional - it's incredibly frustrating to see people who don't understand these complex matters going around making conclusory statements that are completely wrong. The following comes from a website administered by MBIE:

Summary dismissal is when an employee is dismissed without notice. This means they are not:

able to work out their notice period
paid out for their notice period.

An employee may be summarily dismissed if, after a fair investigation and disciplinary process, they are found guilty of serious misconduct. This is conduct that deeply impairs or is destructive of the relationship of trust and confidence.

It is not necessary to have a specific clause in the employment agreement for a summary dismissal to be an option in the event of serious misconduct. If there is a clause, it will make the decision for a summarily dismissal more reasonable, provided the employer has followed proper process.

There will be circumstances where continuing with and potentially dismissing an employee during a criminal investigation is unjustified -- this would include asking an employee to answer questions that require him/her to incriminate him or himself. There are cases, including a case called Wackrow where the Employment Court injuncted an employer against certain lines of questioning but declined to injunct the employer from continuing with the disciplinary process overall. There are cases where the employer was stopped altogether from continuing the investigation process; whilst there are still cases where decisions to dismiss before the criminal process concluded were upheld.

It is absolutely not standard employment practice, contrary to the assertion of the idiotic police District Commander to various media, for people to be suspended with pay for 2+ years. By the time the police got hold of the evidence of this guy sharing pictures of the victim with penises drawn over them to his various colleagues (for example) and given the forensic evidence they had supporting the substantive criminal allegations against him, the Police could have quite reasonably concluded that Buis was a person capable of displaying major animus towards other citizens and was severely lacking in judgement. That is fundamentally incompatible with the duties of a police officer and pretty destructive of the relationship of trust and confidence.

I was going to respond to you but you have shown time and time and time again that you are incapable of discussing anything with common courtesy.

1 | 2 | 3