Senior Police Officer let off drink/drive charge

[p.dath]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651389

Interesting, a Sergeant who pleaded guilty to drink driving was subsequently discharged without conviction by the Judge because the Judge considered it was for the public's "greater good".

This is the second time the "greater good" "sentencing" option has been used recently. I think that it needs to go.
Either you did the crime or you didn't. And if you plead guilty ... well that should be the end of the story, shouldn't?

[bogan]

It does seem to fall under police policy though, a member of public doing that probably wouldn't lose their job (with those results would they even lose their license?). If he is a good cop then it is probably for the greater good for him to stay on the force, though they should definitely fine the fuck out of him to deter others and show the public the don't tolerate that shit within ranks, also fining the shit out of people is their new motto init? NZ Police <s> safer communities together </s> Tax Discriminatingly!

[slofox]

Wrong. wrongwrongwrong. He should be treated as anyone else would be treated. Else it looks like one law for you and me and another law for coppers. Wrong.

[imdying]

That's the thing, he has just been treated as anyone else would be treated.

[p.dath]

That's the thing, he has just been treated as anyone else would be treated.

Negative. No ordinary member of the public would have had the conviction discharged.

[Ragingrob]

Wrong. wrongwrongwrong. He should be treated as anyone else would be treated. Else it looks like one law for you and me and another law for coppers. Wrong.

But that IS how the law works :bash:

[imdying]

Plenty have, don't you read the papers?

[NZsarge]

If it were a less serious charge and it was his first charge then i'd me more inclined to say alright don't do it again, on your way. Then there's the whole thing about being "the law" they should never break the law but we are all human. But DIC is not a minimal charge and certainly not in light if what he does for a living, he pled guilty and the Judge should have up held the charge IMHO

[Smifffy]

I guess it must depend on which old boys network you belong to:

http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/no-leniency-shown-to-drink-drive-policeman/3911073/

Abridged:


A Whangarei police officer has lost his bid to avoid a drink- drive conviction.

Senior Constable Ross Kneebone, 53, was convicted, fined $600 and given a six-month driving ban when he appeared for sentencing in the Whangarei District Court yesterday.

Judge Harvey said no doubt Kneebone was well-thought of as a member of the community and a hard working police officer.

However, he said he was unable to see why Kneebone should be treated differently.


"It is only by being consistent can the courts be seen to be fair," he said.

Being a long-serving police officer, he said Kneebone should have been only too aware of the consequences of his actions.


"Do as I say, not as I do" has long been a rapid path to loss of respect from others.

[Ixion]

Judges have to have some discretion. I guess it depends n how good a cop he is, and how "good" is defined. My definition might be different to the learned judge's, but he's the man sitting on the bench, not me. There have been cases of civilians discharged without conviction where the weight of a conviction would be disproportionate.

The law should be there to serve the public. In which case "public good" should always be an option the judge should consider.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, and I'm happy to take the learned judge's assessment of how the public good be best served.

[SPman]

Sorry. He knew full well when he chose to drink that evening that if he misjudged his competency to drive and his alcohol intake and was caught then the effects on his job could be catastrophic -- yet he chose to take that gamble. If you or I were caught in similar circumstances, would we escape conviction?
Like hell we would!
Just as politicians, the ones who make our laws, should be held to a higher level of account than the rest of us, simply because of their position of power and responsibility -- so should members of the police force (especially senior ones) be held to a higher level than those over who they have the power of arrest.
The fact they can do things that members of the public would generally pay a high price for and can be seen to receive a more lenient treatment, does nothing to engender respect for the institution or it's members.
Wrong Wrong Wrong!

[avgas]

To argue devils advocate, I don't think he should have been charged.
To quote the NZH:

"The rules on whether police officers are automatically dismissed after a drink-driving conviction are unclear."

So clearly the bigger picture is the police as an organization are not organized nor are they structured to deal with their own members. It should be very black and white whether a cop loses their job due to conviction. Not up to the Judge to decide if he keeps his job or not.
The judge is there to determine if the charge should hold, not if you should keep your job, or keep active at work. This is how it differs from anyone else - turns out if your anybody else you can't be fired with a driving charge, but as a cop......you might.

Until the cops sort out their own processes, cops should get off scott free with all drunken, u-turning, dangerous driving charges they get. You are protected against these charges and your boss firing you, cops are not apparently.

[jahrasti]

To argue devils advocate, I don't think he should have been charged.
To quote the NZH:

"The rules on whether police officers are automatically dismissed after a drink-driving conviction are unclear."

So clearly the bigger picture is the police as an organization are not organized nor are they structured to deal with their own members. It should be very black and white whether a cop loses their job due to conviction. Not up to the Judge to decide if he keeps his job or not.
The judge is there to determine if the charge should hold, not if you should keep your job, or keep active at work. This is how it differs from anyone else - turns out if your anybody else you can't be fired with a driving charge, but as a cop......you might.

Until the cops sort out their own processes, cops should get off scott free with all drunken, u-turning, dangerous driving charges they get. You are protected against these charges and your boss firing you, cops are not apparently.

So if I take your post correctly then what you are saying is that the NZ Police should be subject to different employment laws than the rest of the country?

It is actually very hard to fire someone CORRECTLY with out being subject to a PG.

And while I am on it, feel free to google 'special circumstances' in relation to the law.

[Mudfart]

a few years ago, approx 2006-7?, a canterbury rugby player was charged with beating his missus or summin', i can't remember much. what i do remember is the way he got let off.
His judge claimed "the consequences of conviction far outweigh the seriousness of the crime", so didnt convict him to jail time.
If I'm ever in the shit, I'm gonna use this too. I have a job, a family etc to lose, maybe for the lack of seriousness of my crime. (I haven't committed one yet, but do accidentially go over speed limit from time to time).
Westminster law is all about following precedents, and setting "new" standards of rule, even if those standards slip, or require relaxing!!!!!!.

[p.dath]

I guess it must depend on which old boys network you belong to:

http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/no-leniency-shown-to-drink-drive-policeman/3911073/



Note that is a senior constable, whereas this one is a seargent. So the higher ranked "officer" got a better result.

[red mermaid]

I doubt if he is safe yet.

I would imagine he is now facing an employment hearing internally and if his conduct is found sufficiently wanting could still be dismissed from the Police.

[Smifffy]

Note that is a senior constable, whereas this one is a seargent. So the higher ranked "officer" got a better result.

Good point. That makes it better.

[Smifffy]

I doubt if he is safe yet.

I would imagine he is now facing an employment hearing internally and if his conduct is found sufficiently wanting could still be dismissed from the Police.

His conduct doesn't matter. He does good work, the judge said so.

[SPman]

a few years ago, approx 2006-7?, a canterbury rugby player was charged with beating his missus or summin', i can't remember much. what i do remember is the way he got let off.

One of many....Rugby seems to hold even more sway over magistrates, than the Plice!

[p.dath]

I doubt if he is safe yet.

I would imagine he is now facing an employment hearing internally and if his conduct is found sufficiently wanting could still be dismissed from the Police.

Remember, there was no conviction - no record of being found "guilty". It would be pretty shaky ground to try and discipline an employee when a Judge failed to find them guilty. I imagine it would be a pretty short hearing in the employment court as a result ...

[scumdog]

Negative. No ordinary member of the public would have had the conviction discharged.

It HAS happened.

Not saying I approve in any event, this time or at any other.:no:

[scumdog]

Remember, there was no conviction - no record of being found "guilty ...

It won't matter, he is still going to face an internal hearing with a 'not-so-good' outcome for him.

[scumdog]

His conduct doesn't matter. He does good work, the judge said so.

The Judge is not his boss.

And the Judge don't pay his salary.....

[Smifffy]

Remember, there was no conviction - no record of being found "guilty". It would be pretty shaky ground to try and discipline an employee when a Judge failed to find them guilty. I imagine it would be a pretty short hearing in the employment court as a result ...

Yes, but remember they have different procedures and rules that the rest of us mere mortals could never understand. Law, including employment law, is applied differently to the police, as this very thread demonstrates. That is the only way the police can operate effectively as a force.

[avgas]

So if I take your post correctly then what you are saying is that the NZ Police should be subject to different employment laws than the rest of the country?
It is actually very hard to fire someone CORRECTLY with out being subject to a PG.
And while I am on it, feel free to google 'special circumstances' in relation to the law.
You would be supprised.
However unlike the public sector - they don't push you. You cant be seen to fire someone from the cops, however you can setup the sword they fall on.
In his case it would be off the beat, into an office, out of the office, into the back office.......until he quits.

Regardless to say he wouldn't be a cop anymore.....

[avgas]

Yes, but remember they have different procedures and rules that the rest of us mere mortals could never understand. Law, including employment law, is applied differently to the police, as this very thread demonstrates. That is the only way the police can operate effectively as a force.
Yes and no.
Its not really a case of the law being different. But when you think about it when you become a cop you do it for a reason.
To change career is not really a consideration.
To be fired as a cop........what the hell do you do next.
Kinda like the first divorce for most men. Would take a lot to get to your feet again.

[Smifffy]

Yes and no.
Its not really a case of the law being different. But when you think about it when you become a cop you do it for a reason.
To change career is not really a consideration.
To be fired as a cop........what the hell do you do next.
Kinda like the first divorce for most men. Would take a lot to get to your feet again.

The law is the same. It is applied differently. Judging by the cops they promote (even all the way to the top in some cases), the ones they fire must be pretty effin bad.

[Smifffy]

In my view, the judge should have convicted this guy, given him the going rate with regards to disqual, fine or comm service. If he truly does good work and shouldn't be sacked from the force then surely that is for his superiors to decide, and the matter of him keeping or losing his job is an employment matter.

[Indoo]

Discharges without conviction are pretty common, less so though in relation to drink driving.
Depends very much on the Judge even 'prospective' careers can count.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/front-page-top-stories/news/article.cfm?c_id=698&objectid=10476741

[Smifffy]

Discharges without conviction are pretty common, less so though in relation to drink driving.
Depends very much on the Judge even 'prospective' careers can count.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/front-page-top-stories/news/article.cfm?c_id=698&objectid=10476741

Yeah, I had some misguided idea that in recent times there was a zero tolerance approach to drink driving. Even morning-after driving.

[duckonin]

Reported as 1 1/2 times over the legal limit FFS....POTENTIAL KILLER......

[98tls]

Fwiw many years ago i got off a drink drive conviction after blowing the bag and being over,no laywer and simply tried my luck in court and was lucky enough to have a sympathetic judge who let me go.Back on topic the whole drink driving/court thing leaves me shaking my head in dis-belief every time i read a paper with court news in it,constantly i see 4-5-6 times convicted drivers still not going to jail,crazy.

[meteor]

Hang on, years and years of service, highly trained at our expense, one mistake... albeit a biggie but no one else was hurt. Some want all that thrown away because that's what a conviction would mean to him... he's automatically out of the job. What a waste. Yes it's wrong, against the law etc etc but the judge knows that... and he did put his hand up and plead guilty. He still got done for disqualification and fine didn't he, same as anyone else.... Maybe his employers will think differently but shit we all make mistakes... don't we?

[98tls]

Hang on, years and years of service, highly trained at our expense, one mistake... albeit a biggie but no one else was hurt. Some want all that thrown away because that's what a conviction would mean to him... he's automatically out of the job. What a waste. Yes it's wrong, against the law etc etc but the judge knows that... and he did put his hand up and plead guilty. He still got done for disqualification and fine didn't he, same as anyone else.... Maybe his employers will think differently but shit we all make mistakes... don't we?

Indeed we do fella.This is KB though,anytime a cop takes a shit and doesnt flush theres someone up in arms about it on here.

[duckonin]

Indeed we do fella.This is KB though,anytime a cop takes a shit and doesnt flush theres someone up in arms about it on here.

Aha, had he killed someone being 1 1/2 times over what would the reaction be then?

[Smifffy]

Yes we do, or at least I do. I've also had to accept the consequences of those mistakes more than once. Luckily that has never included court time. I agree that he shouldn't lose his job, I don't agree that a conviction should not have been recorded against his name.

The drink drive conviction, and things like historic weed posession convictions, in my view should not be a barrier to being in the force. People are able to rehabilitate. All these policies do is to seek to place the police on an even higher pedestal from which some inevitably fall.

How many people do you know with DIC convictions, who on the night they were stopped had caused no injury to anyone else?


Hang on, years and years of service, highly trained at our expense, one mistake... albeit a biggie but no one else was hurt. Some want all that thrown away because that's what a conviction would mean to him... he's automatically out of the job. What a waste. Yes it's wrong, against the law etc etc but the judge knows that... and he did put his hand up and plead guilty. He still got done for disqualification and fine didn't he, same as anyone else.... Maybe his employers will think differently but shit we all make mistakes... don't we?

[Hitcher]

Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

[Smifffy]

Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

I think it's because it is easier to prove that one has been drinking, than it is to prove that one is drunk. Drunk is subjective - as in "I've had a few drinks, but I'm not drunk"

Whether the subject is drunk or not is irrelevant, however it is relatively simple to prove that they have a threshold value of alcohol in their system.

[98tls]

Aha, had he killed someone being 1 1/2 times over what would the reaction be then?

He didnt,simple really.Dont get me wrong i dislike drink drivers as much as the next bloke but my point is the fact that this guy got off doesnt bother me at all considering every time i pick up a newspaper and read the court news i see repeat drink drivers get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.I really dont get it,with all the publicity/money etc spent on getting them off the road the system fails time and time again on court day,cops must just raise there arms skyward and shake there heads in disbelief.

[imdying]

Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?Who says they're drunk? They've just been drinking, more than the limit allowed.

[p.dath]

Hang on, years and years of service, highly trained at our expense, one mistake... albeit a biggie but no one else was hurt. Some want all that thrown away because that's what a conviction would mean to him... he's automatically out of the job. What a waste. Yes it's wrong, against the law etc etc but the judge knows that... and he did put his hand up and plead guilty. He still got done for disqualification and fine didn't he, same as anyone else.... Maybe his employers will think differently but shit we all make mistakes... don't we?

The consequences, especially to a Seargant, would have been well known about in advance - yet they still decided to continue and drink/drive. They didn't drink/drive by accident.

This was a caluclated decision, where they hoped not to be caught, and were.

[Smifffy]

What are these consequences that you speak of?

He's a sergeant - there are no consequences, unless you mean a little bad press if he's unlucky enough to appear in court on a slow news day. Then a bit of bad press, some blagging on an online forum or two and then back to busting crime.


The consequences, especially to a Seargant, would have been well known about in advance - yet they still decided to continue and drink/drive. They didn't drink/drive by accident.

This was a caluclated decision, where they hoped not to be caught, and were.

[p.dath]

What are these consequences that you speak of?

A guilty verdict of a drink/charge charge would have resulted in more serious internal disciplinary actions.

[Smifffy]

A guilty verdict of a drink/charge charge would have resulted in more serious internal disciplinary actions.

When he made his calculated decision, he most likely factored in the chances of receiving a guilty verdict. Looks like his calculations were quite accurate. Good job!

[Smifffy]

A guilty verdict of a drink/charge charge would have resulted in more serious internal disciplinary actions.

When he made his calculated decision, he most likely factored in the chances of receiving a guilty verdict. Looks like his calculations were quite accurate. Good job!

[Ixion]

Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

They're not.

Drunk driving = capability impaired by alcohol

Drink driving = over an arbitrary limit, which may be so low that it would be impossible to detect any impairment.

Remember, youth limit is very very low indeed. Walk past an open box of chocolate liquers and you'd be over. Because a youth fails the drink driving test does not at all mean that they are drunk.

Do you get drunk every time you sample the contents of that whisky cabinet of yours? I am sure you do not. But, if you were a youff, you certainly could get done for drink driving after such sampling.

[duckonin]

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

[PirateJafa]

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

"Judge Gittos did disqualify Mr Lamont from driving for six months and ordered him to pay court costs"

It is good to see you didn't even bother reading the thread.


Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

Surely it should be "drunken driving"?

[98tls]

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

Well he got the same as me when i was let off,nothing.Edit,upon reading the last post it seems he did indeed get more than me.

[Smifffy]

According to the hippie harold he got 6 months disqual & costs. He just didn't get a conviction recorded against his name.

I wonder how that affects his insurance risk profile?


I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

[duckonin]

"


It is good to see you didn't even bother reading the thread.
Oh I read the thread, not the new's paper
Okay went and read the lot what a crock of shit, "Mr Bonnar said 'his client' had misjudged the amount of alcohol he drank before driving" Why should he not of been convicted as others would of been?

[meteor]

The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit ...
Correct, but they caught him, charged him and took him to court.. where their jurisdiction ends


...so he should of had the same penalty as any of us.
He did, and he's got a lot more than some...

And he's got more to come because he has to go through the internal stuff (probably/possibly losing his job) which is more than [most] others get. So that said, is it fair?
How would parliament treat MPs that drink drive? And lets wait and see how the fraudsters with their credit cards get on...

My point is that I don't think there is justification to throw a whole career and countless $ in training away because of 1 bad decision.

[Smifffy]

I agree, however that should be a decision for the employer. All should be equal in the eyes of the judiciary, regardless of occupation.


Correct, but they caught him, charged him and took him to court.. where their jurisdiction ends


He did, and he's got a lot more than some...

And he's got more to come because he has to go through the internal stuff (probably/possibly losing his job) which is more than [most] others get. So that said, is it fair?
How would parliament treat MPs that drink drive? And lets wait and see how the fraudsters with their credit cards get on...

My point is that I don't think there is justification to throw a whole career and countless $ in training away because of 1 bad decision.

[p.dath]

Correct, but they caught him, charged him and took him to court.. where their jurisdiction ends


He did, and he's got a lot more than some...

And he's got more to come because he has to go through the internal stuff (probably/possibly losing his job) which is more than [most] others get. So that said, is it fair?

Yes. He should have to face the same consequences as anyone else. The punishment should not vary by choice of career.


How would parliament treat MPs that drink drive? And lets wait and see how the fraudsters with their credit cards get on...

They should be treated harsher than a private citizen because they create the laws. They have to be seen doing it better than everyone else.

Credit cards - as I understand it, most of the MPs involved paid back the funds after they finished their trips. So the issue is not so much about fraud, but that the transactions were not paid for directly in the first place. I can have some sympathy for them having done a bit of travelling. Ever stood at the Hotel counter at check out time with 5 people behind you, saying I want those three charges on this card, and these two charges on this card, and I want this meal split 50/50 between the two cards? Much easier to just clean it up afterwards.


My point is that I don't think there is justification to throw a whole career and countless $ in training away because of 1 bad decision.

You seem to imply the the money spent on his training as a Polcie officer is somehow more important than the omney spent on training a private citizen for their chosen carrer path. The cost of training the officer has no relation to the choice they made to drive drunk.

[Woodman]

I tried joining the force a few years back when it was ok to join with a dic conviction which I got when I was 18. During the recruitment process there was a lot of media shit about people joining up with such convictions and the Police changed their policy.

The explanation the recruitment officer gave me was that "the integrity of the police is paramount", he also explained to me that if ever as an officer i was called on as a witness (because police are actually professional witnesses) it would be very easy to discredit my testimony and my integrity as a witness.

Where does that leave this guy now??

[avgas]

The law is the same. It is applied differently. Judging by the cops they promote (even all the way to the top in some cases), the ones they fire must be pretty effin bad.
To answer simply - yes.
Recently heard of a ex-prison guard in USA. There is a man hunt for him after he went home and killed his wife and 2 kids.
So yes

[avgas]

Yes. He should have to face the same consequences as anyone else. The punishment should not vary by choice of career.
Very true. but sadly it does make it different. They are having a hard time getting people to join the cops - so to fire all the ones who have done wrong may end up being a double edge sword in the wound.
Imagine if Teachers were sacked due to their political views.
While I do feel he needs to be charged, if the police have no process to see that he can keep his job, it is the same as a Teacher loosing their license to teach.
If he is going to lose his career - than also charging him for it seems like a waste of time.
As they say "You'll never work in this town again"....

[Rogue Rider]

I guess he should "Always blow on the pie" hope 3 strikes rule applies lol......

[marty]

Note that is a senior constable, whereas this one is a seargent. So the higher ranked "officer" got a better result.


Also, the dangers of you not knowing the full (or any of the) story are thoroughly apparant here.

[Rogue Rider]

What about the high court judge done for drink driving, or the wellington QC lawyer, or the Mayer of Invercargil, or alot of other mayors in the past 4 years....... or the principle of a profile college, or the sports stars, Rugby, league, and even a netballer........ or the mates on Saturday nights, or your buddy?????? Drink driving is everywhere, everyone knows it's wrong, yet they still drive/ ride. People are the dumbest breed of creature, they don't learn from there mistakes, or from mistakes of others who have died pointlessly. I have had 3 close friends/ associates killed by alcohol, and I dare say alot of you do too.
I personally don't drink at all now, nor do I partake in illegal substances. I just hope no drunk but munch takes me or any member of my family out.

[Max Preload]

If he is a good cop then it is probably for the greater good for him to stay on the force...

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

[Smifffy]

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

Ain't we all?

Which is why the courts should treat us all the same.... IMO

AFAIK there is no law, nor written policy that states he would have to lose his job if convicted.

That decision would still ultimately be up to the numb nuts officers in charge to decide.

[meteor]

Yes. He should have to face the same consequences as anyone else. The punishment should not vary by choice of career.... The cost of training the officer has no relation to the choice they made to drive drunk.

We agree, the double jeopardy of the employment tribunal should be negated by the action of taking him to court.... ie he shouldn't get done twice for the same act.
And regarding training, correct insofar as the choice goes... but regarding training, you and I [and most others on here] paid for all that training, that's how it's different to the quals of a mechanic or a lawyer. I wouldn't want that investment thrown away if in all other respects he's a good cop and the judge reckoned he was.

[SS90]

I suspect this is going to be unpopular, but, oh well......

I have benefited from a "disharge with-out conviction" some years ago, in my case, wilfull damage.

I had never been before the courts, never committed a crime, and, ben a good citizen.

The officer responsible for the case (investigating officer) was a complete tit, and simply looking for a conviction to bolster his career.


Oh, they had no witnesses, I was only a suspect, and they could not even arrest me.

After talking things over with a good friend, I decided to come clean, and I was advised by my Lawyer that I was eligible for "diversion", which I asked for (with-out admitting guilt), and this was deinied by the investigating officer (out to bolster his career), so I went to court.

The first thing the Judge said was
" Why is this man here, why has he not been offered diversion?" (this was after the clark of the court asked me "are you sure this is you", (when he saw my conviction record was blank)

After my Lawyer plead guilty on my behaf, then presented the Judge with the facts of the situation, the Judge looked at me (I was the most sheepish person in the room), and read a short letter of recomendation from a fellow business owner and friend, he discharged me (I had to pay 500 bucks court costs), again stated that I should not be here (Oh, and that I would never get this opportunity again regarding the discharge), "what did the complainant expect would happen", and sent me on my way.

The discharge was conditional on my paying for repair of my willful damage, and, I was done.

Basically, the concept of "discharge with-out conviction" is subject to different rules than an aquittal (although they are treated as the same thing), and, the Judge is often presented with more evidence than they seem to let on.

Basically, my experience is that there is more to this story than meets the eye.... because we have not heard the whole story, of that I am sure.

Discharge with-out conviction is a rare thing indeed, and reserved for special cases.

[Max Preload]

Reported as 1 1/2 times over the legal limit FFS....POTENTIAL KILLER......Wrong. He was about 1½ times the legal limit of 80mcg/mL at 113mcg/mL not 1½ times OVER the legal - a critical distinction. He was ½ or 50% over the limit. If he was 1½ times OVER the legal limit he'd have to be 2½ times the legal limit (200mcg/mL).


Ain't we all?

Sure. But the difference is I didn't swear any oath and I admit I'm a hypocrite. :lol:


Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

It was a rebranding done in the 90s to put across the fact that you don't have to be drunk per se - people seem unable to admit that they're drunk, but they're only too happy to acknowledge they've been drinking.

[p.dath]

... but regarding training, you and I [and most others on here] paid for all that training, that's how it's different to the quals of a mechanic or a lawyer. I wouldn't want that investment thrown away if in all other respects he's a good cop and the judge reckoned he was.

Negative. You pay for Police Officer training directly via your taxes. You pay for the training of your lawyer or mechanically indirectly every time you use them - it's effectively built into their hourly wage. Make no mistake, no matter what, you are paying for someone's training every time you use them.

[BoristheBiter]

"discharge with-out conviction". What a pile of shite that is, thats the same as not guilty due on mental grounds.
You did the crime why should it not go on the record.
Thats the problem in the country, there is too big a gap between minium and maxium sentinces, for everyone.
Everyone should be the same, if you get caught then you pay the consequence otherwise why should we be good.
"oo i was silly just let me off" don't make me laugh.

[SS90]

"discharge with-out conviction". What a pile of shite that is, thats the same as not guilty due on mental grounds.
You did the crime why should it not go on the record.
Thats the problem in the country, there is too big a gap between minium and maxium sentinces, for everyone.
Everyone should be the same, if you get caught then you pay the consequence otherwise why should we be good.
"oo i was silly just let me off" don't make me laugh.

I think you are missing the point of the whole thing. The justice system is more complex than most people seem able to grasp.

Essentially, the Police are (in most cases, but certainly not all) legally required to bring charges.....drink driving is one of these cases.

The correct thing was done in bringing this Copper to a Judge, but you have to be convicted of Drink Driving to be fired from the Police force.

The "Discharge with-out conviction" conept excists so that people (like me for example) are not unfairly disadvantaged in the future for one foolish, uncalculated reaction to a situation, that they where put in.

Like my story, you don't know all the facts that where presented to the Judge in the case of the Police officer, just consider this (in no way am I claiming this is what happened)

Let's say, some one who had a grudge against him spiked his 2 Beers with, say, Gin, then, when he left, called the feds, telling them that he just saw a drunk guy getting into his car heading South on "blah blah" street, knowing there is every chance he was over the limit.......

Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction.

[avgas]

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.
So are you.
So am I.
Your a Hypocrite if you don't think your a Hypocrite.
Perspective is a motherfucker

[BoristheBiter]

I think you are missing the point of the whole thing. The justice system is more complex than most people seem able to grasp.

Essentially, the Police are (in most cases, but certainly not all) legally required to bring charges.....drink driving is one of these cases.

The correct thing was done in bringing this Copper to a Judge, but you have to be convicted of Drink Driving to be fired from the Police force.

The "Discharge with-out conviction" conept excists so that people (like me for example) are not unfairly disadvantaged in the future for one foolish, uncalculated reaction to a situation, that they where put in.

Like my story, you don't know all the facts that where presented to the Judge in the case of the Police officer, just consider this (in no way am I claiming this is what happened)

Let's say, some one who had a grudge against him spiked his 2 Beers with, say, Gin, then, when he left, called the feds, telling them that he just saw a drunk guy getting into his car heading South on "blah blah" street, knowing there is every chance he was over the limit.......

Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction.

No i grasped the point correctly.
You think (i was not refereing to your case but as you brought it up) you should get off with what you did? Ok it was your first offence (i'm guessing) and you owned up to it, good for you (not many would do the same), But, and here is the point, why should you get put in the same category as those that have never done anything wrong in the first place?
Same goes for that cop, he should have known better, he knew what the outcome would be, he chose to drive after drinking.

It makes a complete farse of the justice system if you get away with something that somone else gets convicted for, just ask that cop in Northland. He will be thinking why didn't i get that.

The lack of Consequence of ones actions will, IMHO has, been the downfall of NZ.

[Max Preload]

So are you.
So am I.
Your a Hypocrite if you don't think your a Hypocrite.
Perspective is a motherfucker

Like I said...


Sure. But the difference is I didn't swear any oath and I admit I'm a hypocrite. :lol:

[oldrider]

Judges have to have some discretion. I guess it depends n how good a cop he is, and how "good" is defined. My definition might be different to the learned judge's, but he's the man sitting on the bench, not me. There have been cases of civilians discharged without conviction where the weight of a conviction would be disproportionate.

The law should be there to serve the public. In which case "public good" should always be an option the judge should consider.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, and I'm happy to take the learned judge's assessment of how the public good be best served.

I am "not" happy about it! :oi-grr:

This is a typical example (IMHO) of why there is a falling level of respect for the Police and the Judiciary in this country!

I am not at home on my own computer so can't read everything but I would love to know how TGW has reacted to this BS!

I will be surprised if she is not feeling "gutted" right now!

I saw a boy, first offence, a little over, just like this cop, go to jail for six months just so that the judge could "make an example" of him!

Do as I say, not as I do, if he was such a good cop, so essential to the community, he would not be in this (bloody mess) situation!

The bloody judge should get his arse kicked well and truly over this too, no accountability at all for them though, is there! :mellow: Bastards! :yes:

[bogan]

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

yeh, but if he's a good cop he will learn from this and be far less likely to do it in the future than many cops who would likely replace him!

Kinda like the toyota accelerator pedal debacle, they were shit before, but I bet they make em real good on all the new cars now :yes:

[duckonin]

you and I and most others on here paid for all that training[QUOTE] I wouldn't want that investment thrown away if in all other respects he's a good cop and the judge reckoned he was.[QUOTE
Yes we did pay for his training and more than likely he has repaid us for that.it ends there with me.

As for the investment side yep I would throw that away, he cannot follow the system plus he is not he only person in the world,we are all indispensable. 'He's a good cop the judge reckoned' well bully for the judge, that is his own subjective opinion...

[mashman]

I thought the whole point of the law was to create baselines for sentencing when "trying" people... This isn't the first time a cop has been caught, yet mitigating/special circumstances seem to be trumping the letter of the law in regards to sentencing, quite spuriously by the looks of things... baselines have already been set... Why are we moving away from them?

imho the conviction should have stood, same as anyone else found DUI. I believe that cops should be as beholden to the law as every other citizen in NZ (we're not always at work), losing his job would be counter productive, a waste of everyones time, money and effort...

[jahrasti]

Yes this bloke is a cop. So? yeah yeah pillar of society, held to a higher standard and all that shit.

Was he acting in an official Police duty? I don't know but I would guess not. If not then he is going to court as another citizen, not as a cop.

He pled guilty, and at sentencing put foward special circumstances. The judge listened and made his desicion.

As much as it pains me to say it, his lawyer sounds like he is fucken good at what he does.

I have seen the same sort of sentence given to a few people (all types of people) for the same offence and putting foward arguments for special circumstances.

My point is that you can bitch and moan about him being a cop, but ANY person can argue for the same. If they get it?well thats another post

[avgas]

I thought the whole point of the law was to create baselines for sentencing when "trying" people... This isn't the first time a cop has been caught, yet mitigating/special circumstances seem to be trumping the letter of the law in regards to sentencing, quite spuriously by the looks of things... baselines have already been set... Why are we moving away from them?

imho the conviction should have stood, same as anyone else found DUI. I believe that cops should be as beholden to the law as every other citizen in NZ (we're not always at work), losing his job would be counter productive, a waste of everyones time, money and effort...
Actually it looks like the baseline was never set. As you have to take a step back as to why he got let off.
The judge didn't let him off due to being nice
The judge didn't let him off due to saying he was never going to do it again.
The judge let him off due to him being a good beat cop who would lose his job if charged.

He still needs to be charged, but the police first need to have there systems aligned with the rest of NZ. This is not 1952, you cant lose your career due to stuff you did outside of work.
Likewise it is not the Judges duty to make judgment on if he was a good cop and if he should be kept on the beat.
Governance here has been shot to hell. So in summary where was the base line?

[avgas]

Like I said...
Actually unofficially you do as a citizen.
And the police don't swear under the Hippocratic oath - that is for medical.
Police swear that they will enforce the law. This can still be done even while your breaking it.

[jahrasti]

Actually it looks like the baseline was never set. As you have to take a step back as to why he got let off.
The judge didn't let him off due to being nice
The judge didn't let him off due to saying he was never going to do it again.
The judge let him off due to him being a good beat cop who would lose his job if charged.

He still needs to be charged, but the police first need to have there systems aligned with the rest of NZ. This is not 1952, you cant lose your career due to stuff you did outside of work.
Likewise it is not the Judges duty to make judgment on if he was a good cop and if he should be kept on the beat.
Governance here has been shot to hell. So in summary where was the base line?

How dare you use common sence, you cad.

[mashman]

Actually it looks like the baseline was never set.

He still needs to be charged, but the police first need to have there systems aligned with the rest of NZ. This is not 1952, you cant lose your career due to stuff you did outside of work.
Likewise it is not the Judges duty to make judgment on if he was a good cop and if he should be kept on the beat.
Governance here has been shot to hell. So in summary where was the base line?

Agreed with the bringing policies into the 21st century... but I've always been led to believe (OMG I could be wrong :rofl:) that the previous, closest match case was the baseline i.e. the link posted by Smiffy http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/lo...ceman/3911073/ (http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/no-leniency-shown-to-drink-drive-policeman/3911073/)... 2 similar cases, 2 different outcomes... Why? Isn't law all about the precedents that are set in regards to the crime committed and then the mitigating circumstances taken in account in regards to sentencing? Whilst I accept it would be near impossible to have precedents for sentencing (because of circumstance), there should be no quibbling over the FACT that he was guilty. He should receive the conviction... the sentence should not override the conviction as it looks to have done in this case... that's kinda where i'm coming from...

[Genestho]

2002 Sentencing Act: Guidance for discharge without conviction And further Info/link (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM136807.html)
The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

Reminds me of the article in the Dom Post - November last year...

"Half of all police officers caught drink-driving in the past three years have beaten the charge, raising allegations of one law for police and another for the public.

Three officers are still fighting their cases in the courts, including one caught driving while more than three times the legal limit.

Even the police's top personnel manager admits it is hard to secure a conviction against an officer.

The average conviction rate for all drink-drivers in the past three years was more than 95 per cent, compared with less than 38 per cent for police officers.
Figures given to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act show that just five out of 16 officers on drink-driving charges have been convicted since the beginning of 2006. The 16 include the three whose cases are still before the courts.

Police human resources general manager Wayne Annan said judges and juries could feel pressure not to convict because a conviction would end a police officer's career. "I think it's the high stakes that are involved. It is very difficult to gain conviction against a police officer."

Mr Annan, of police human resources, said that, since the merger of traffic and general police duties in the early 1990s, police had adopted a strict policy against employees convicted of drink-driving.

"Anybody who's convicted don't stay working for us. We expect police officers to enforce the law and we expect them to obey it. We do treat it very seriously."

[GOONR]

2002 Sentencing Act: Guidance for discharge without conviction And further Info/link (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM136807.html)
The court must not discharge an offender without conviction unless the court is satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

Reminds me of the article in the Dom Post - November last year...

"Half of all police officers caught drink-driving in the past three years have beaten the charge, raising allegations of one law for police and another for the public.

Three officers are still fighting their cases in the courts, including one caught driving while more than three times the legal limit.

Even the police's top personnel manager admits it is hard to secure a conviction against an officer.

The average conviction rate for all drink-drivers in the past three years was more than 95 per cent, compared with less than 38 per cent for police officers.
Figures given to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act show that just five out of 16 officers on drink-driving charges have been convicted since the beginning of 2006. The 16 include the three whose cases are still before the courts.

Police human resources general manager Wayne Annan said judges and juries could feel pressure not to convict because a conviction would end a police officer's career. "I think it's the high stakes that are involved. It is very difficult to gain conviction against a police officer."

Mr Annan, of police human resources, said that, since the merger of traffic and general police duties in the early 1990s, police had adopted a strict policy against employees convicted of drink-driving.

"Anybody who's convicted don't stay working for us. We expect police officers to enforce the law and we expect them to obey it. We do treat it very seriously."

So even plod themselves acknowledge that they "get away with it" more often than Joe Public would.

Personally, I think if you're over the limit then you are over the limit, simple. As far as I'm aware (I could be wrong, but hope not) there is zero tolerance for Joe Public being over the limit, no matter what they do for a living. When faced with court plod should be treated the same as Joe.

[jahrasti]

So even plod themselves acknowledge that they "get away with it" more often than Joe Public would.

Personally, I think if you're over the limit then you are over the limit, simple. As far as I'm aware (I could be wrong, but hope not) there is zero tolerance for Joe Public being over the limit, no matter what they do for a living. When faced with court plod should be treated the same as Joe.

Yes you are wrong.

[GOONR]

Yes you are wrong.

Well that's a shame.

[Ixion]

So even plod themselves acknowledge that they "get away with it" more often than Joe Public would.

Personally, I think if you're over the limit then you are over the limit, simple. As far as I'm aware (I could be wrong, but hope not) there is zero tolerance for Joe Public being over the limit, no matter what they do for a living. When faced with court plod should be treated the same as Joe.

Well, of course hey "get away with it" more than Joe Public. Just as bank officers are more likely to get a mortgage at keen rates.

Firstly, a cop, by the nature of his job, is going to know the rules. And the loopholes. And know when to keep his mouth shut. Just as the bank officer knows all about finance and where to get the best rates.

And the cop has a lot more to lose, so he's more likely to pay out for top notch lawyers. Joe Public mainly just pleads guilty to get it over with.

And because he has more to lose, judges will be more inclined to listen sympathetically. That's just human nature. There have been entertainers discharged without conviction on quite serious charges, because of the effect it would have on their careers.

I don't think the Rule of Law is likely to be any more damaged than it already is, on the basis of one discharge without conviction.

I don't see that "zero tolerance" comes into it. He wasn't given any tolerance. He was charged just like anyone else. And, just like with anyone else, the judge decided what was a reasonable penalty, in all the circumstances. That's what judges do. Sort of the reason they exist.

Bad cops deserve to be shat upon from a great height. By accounts, this cop wasn't a bad cop. He shouldn't be condemned just because he is a cop.

[duckonin]

Bad cops deserve to be shat upon from a great height. By accounts, this cop wasn't a bad cop. He shouldn't be condemned just because he is a cop.
Ixion you say this cop wasn't a bad cop, but if he was over the limit wouldn't that make him a bad cop at the time?, who also used the best hired help to try and evade what should of come to him (a conviction)
being a cop is only part of it he is not being condemmed in total for that "HE WAS A DRINK DRIVER OVER THE LIMIT"

[Ixion]

Dunno. I don't know anything of him personally, so I can't say if he's good or ad. And the definition that judges and senior cops apply to "good cop" might be quite different to mine .

But his superiors obviously thought he was good, because they stuck by him instead of throwing him to the wolves as they usually do. And a judge went along with them. So I'd have to think that , as a cop, he had respect within the trade, so to speak.

Sure, he did everything he could to avoid a conviction , and save his career. I would too. He still got the same effective penalty as anyone else - disqualification , fine. But he saved his job. That's what would happen to me if I got done for drink driving (FTR I never have) . Fine, disqualification. I wouldn't lose my job. He got treated the same as me. I'm willing to take his bosses word, and the judge's opinion that he deserved to keep his job.

[Bikemad]

so the cop gets off cause hes a "good cop" and it would be a lose lose situation for the public because of this and also a waste of a shitload of public money spent in his training if he lost his job as a result of a conviction...............so using the principle of how important the money invested in his training is as a reason for him to be let off..........will he be repaying that money should he later decide the police force aint for him............i seriously doubt it

[Smifffy]

Judge Harvey said no doubt Kneebone was well-thought of as a member of the community and a hard working police officer.

However, he said he was unable to see why Kneebone should be treated differently.

"It is only by being consistent can the courts be seen to be fair," he said.
Being a long-serving police officer, he said Kneebone should have been only too aware of the consequences of his actions.
Judge Harvey said like Kneebone, even ordinary citizens feared for job security and financial difficulty upon conviction of a criminal offence.

Prosecutor Sergeant Paul Watkins opposed the application, saying any decision the court made would have no bearing on the police internal disciplinary process.

So now the resident rozza are telling us that any decision the court makes does have a bearing on the disciplinary process? Did Watkins perjure himself? Has the disciplinary process changed since March 2010?

They would have us believe that Judge Harvey was just being melodramatic when he made his statement about consistency and fairness?

That Kneebone was a good hard working copper, but Lamont is demonstrably better? I wonder what kind of performance review you need from your boss to be discharged without conviction.

I'll wager that there are many more discharges without conviction for offences such as willful damage, assault, theft etc among the general populace than there are for Drink-drive.

[Smifffy]

If training expense can be a consideration, how come Air NZ pilots get convicted?

[peasea]

He broke the law.
The law applies to us all.

Unless you're a cop, obviously.

[Smifffy]

And after your hypothetical conviction, how would you respond to any legally binding document that asks if you have ever been convicted of an offence, and to provide details?

How will Lamont be required to answer?


Dunno. I don't know anything of him personally, so I can't say if he's good or ad. And the definition that judges and senior cops apply to "good cop" might be quite different to mine .

But his superiors obviously thought he was good, because they stuck by him instead of throwing him to the wolves as they usually do. And a judge went along with them. So I'd have to think that , as a cop, he had respect within the trade, so to speak.

Sure, he did everything he could to avoid a conviction , and save his career. I would too. He still got the same effective penalty as anyone else - disqualification , fine. But he saved his job. That's what would happen to me if I got done for drink driving (FTR I never have) . Fine, disqualification. I wouldn't lose my job. He got treated the same as me. I'm willing to take his bosses word, and the judge's opinion that he deserved to keep his job.

[scumdog]

If training expense can be a consideration, how come Air NZ pilots get convicted?

'Cos they don't lose their job forever? I dunno...

[scumdog]

He broke the law.
The law applies to us all.

Unless you're a cop, obviously.

Or anybody else that gets off a charge...

[Woodman]

If training expense can be a consideration, how come Air NZ pilots get convicted?

because Policeman do not find it necessary to get personalised numberplates telling everyone what job they do.

[peasea]

Or anybody else that gets off a charge...

No; wrong. If someone is charged and 'gets off' as you put it, I assume you mean 'found not guilty' than that is quite different to being discharged because of your position.

The guy might (might) be an ok copper, good at his job etc. I might be good at my job, Joe over the road might be good at his job. Who is to say that any one of us is worth more or less to the community? The cop was gulity, no argument. He did a dumb thing; drank then drove. The law should apply. It didn't, that sucks and the judge should have his head split open with a meat cleaver. (Just like Jantar and Virago)

[scumdog]

No; wrong. If someone is charged and 'gets off' as you put it, I assume you mean 'found not guilty' than that is quite different to being discharged because of your position.

Had a couple of 'discharged without conviction' efforts today, they were guily alright..

You and I would probably have convicted if we were the judge.

[Woodman]

Are the Police and the courts seperate identities???

[peasea]

Had a couple of 'discharged without conviction' efforts today, they were guily alright..

You and I would probably have convicted if we were the judge.

Maybe we're not doing our jobs right; like greasing the right palms.........

[scumdog]

are the police and the courts seperate identities???

yoobet.!!!

[peasea]

Are the Police and the courts seperate identities???

They frequently appear to be so. Often the aims are at odds, or so it seems. Also, I'd have to say I do not know of any judge telling porkies in court (although I suppose it's possible) but I HAVE seen cops do it. Is that seperate enough for you?

[peasea]

yoobet.!!!

See post #101

[SS90]

No i grasped the point correctly.
You think (i was not refereing to your case but as you brought it up) you should get off with what you did? Ok it was your first offence (i'm guessing) and you owned up to it, good for you (not many would do the same), But, and here is the point, why should you get put in the same category as those that have never done anything wrong in the first place?
Same goes for that cop, he should have known better, he knew what the outcome would be, he chose to drive after drinking.

It makes a complete farse of the justice system if you get away with something that somone else gets convicted for, just ask that cop in Northland. He will be thinking why didn't i get that.

The lack of Consequence of ones actions will, IMHO has, been the downfall of NZ.

Ok, in my case, it was fairly clear that the case should never have come before the courts, so, the Judge exercised his discrectionary power to "give me a chance" (as like, I say, ordinarily it would hve never progressedthat far), sure in the case of the Police officer, it simply had to go in front of a Judge, but I really feel we don't know the whole story.

[Smifffy]

'Cos they don't lose their job forever? I dunno...

Then that has nothing to do with training expense, and everything to do with potential consequence. A consequence that Sergeant Watkins told the northland court was not inevitable.

[Indiana_Jones]

I bet he can't wait till he gets his licence back, off to the pub and stop by the doughnut shop on the way home!

-Indy

[duckonin]

Are the Police and the courts seperate identities???

It would appear they are but the police run the show, to obtain good results for themselves..

[avgas]

Agreed with the bringing policies into the 21st century... but I've always been led to believe (OMG I could be wrong :rofl:) that the previous, closest match case was the baseline i.e. the link posted by Smiffy http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/lo...ceman/3911073/ (http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/no-leniency-shown-to-drink-drive-policeman/3911073/)... 2 similar cases, 2 different outcomes... Why? Isn't law all about the precedents that are set in regards to the crime committed and then the mitigating circumstances taken in account in regards to sentencing? Whilst I accept it would be near impossible to have precedents for sentencing (because of circumstance), there should be no quibbling over the FACT that he was guilty. He should receive the conviction... the sentence should not override the conviction as it looks to have done in this case... that's kinda where i'm coming from...
Sadly that is human nature.
We even do it here.
Some foolish idiot crashes here and dies, I few on here would say he deserves it.
But if he crashes into a cop car or wire rope barrier - we cry that they should be removed from service.
While I still feel he is guilty - It is a dumbshit charge, we all do dumbshit. So by all means drag him over the hottest coals known to man (he could have killed someone).
But to kill his livelihood over it - WTF!.
Police Commissioner needs to come clean and say that he would be stood down for a short time, and then fully reinstated. Not told to go elsewhere.
I would expect the same from my employer if I lost my license. Until someone high up states that from now on a cop cant lose his job due to charges.........why even bother charging them, may as well give them a prison sentence as well because they wont be able to put food on the table at home.

So in summary:
1) Someone high up in the cops needs to say he wont lose his job, and will be reinstated.
2) He needs to go to a proper trial and plead guilty (again)
3) He needs his 30 raps, and to be put on some form of probation back at the cops.

3 cant happen before 1

[avgas]

I bet he can't wait till he gets his licence back, off to the pub and stop by the doughnut shop on the way home!
-Indy
Yeah he may even have to put the phone down. Its hard to drink, drive and talk

[BoristheBiter]

Ok, in my case, it was fairly clear that the case should never have come before the courts, so, the Judge exercised his discrectionary power to "give me a chance" (as like, I say, ordinarily it would hve never progressedthat far), sure in the case of the Police officer, it simply had to go in front of a Judge, but I really feel we don't know the whole story.

Yes it should have, you broke the law, you damaged something, you pleaded guilty, it should go on the record(i get the point about should have just been in front of a judge) just like this copper broke the law and drove over the limit.
The problem is conviction Vs sentince. you can still have a suspended sentince even if found/plead guilty.
This copper like all the others know if you get DIC you will loose your job.

[SS90]

Yes it should have, you broke the law, you damaged something, you pleaded guilty, it should go on the record(i get the point about should have just been in front of a judge) just like this copper broke the law and drove over the limit.
The problem is conviction Vs sentince. you can still have a suspended sentince even if found/plead guilty.
This copper like all the others know if you get DIC you will loose your job.

I don't agree.

Normally, such a charge would not have brought you before the court, so, why the hell should my indiscretion have been put on my (blank) record. I actually have a conviction clearance here, right now on my desk, that I had to get from the department of justice, before I could start my new job in Austria.

If I HAD of been convicted, I would have NO JOB, no apartment, and, NO FUTURE.

Due to the discretion of a Judge (for something he agreed I was pushed into reacting to) I now have a career, I have a legal right to live and work in Austria (the most difficult of all EU countries to get into), I have social security, health insurance and so on.

Any time I recant my story (obviously in more detail) I explain my gratitude to that Judge.

I also feel the experience made me a better person, I can talk with experience when advising people of actions and consequences, and I have been part of the NZ justice system, and, actually received justice (as far as all people concerned in my case.....the complainant (agitator) was in no way left out of pocket from the damage I caused (like I say, I would have "got away with it", and never have had to pay a cent, but instead I came clean, and made reparation, so, as I see it, "Justice was done", by me being discharged.

The same is true for this Police Officer.

Yes, he admitted to driving with excess breath alcohol.... (and, the officer who caught him did not try to cover up).

I am VERY VERY confident that if this Police officer was "way,way, way" over the limit (i.e he was under no illusions wether or not he was under the limit), then the Judge would never have given him the "discharge with-out conviction".

With-out knowing all the facts, it would seem to me that he had "one Beer too many" (literally), perhaps even had it too soon before driving, and, he was "over the limit" Bummer.

However, this is a situation that (according to the Judge) the "sentence" (i.e a DIC conviction, which would result in the loss of his job, as a Police officer) would out weigh the crime (slightly excess breath alcohol).

This officer (just as I) still received the same punishment he would have received if he had not been discharged.

My case, reparation of damage, and $500 court costs, The police Officer, 6 months loss of licence , along with $500 court costs.

Neither of us had this recorded as a conviction.

I assure you, my attitude would be the same as yours, if I had not been lucky enough to receive the second chance I did.

[BoristheBiter]

I don't agree.
I assure you, my attitude would be the same as yours, if I had not been lucky enough to receive the second chance I did.

I agree in parts to what you are saying.
I agree with the second chance bit. (i employed a guy with a long list of convictions).
But where do you draw the line on DWC?
Would you be saying the same thing if he crashed into somone?
What about assault? i have never had a conviction, could i get away with twating someone and use the same excuse?
I get the point you are trying to make, but tell that to all the poeple you have just been over the limit and got convicted.
Yes i know people get off all the time, and more often than not they don't lose there jobs (that is a condition of empolyment) but that should not be looked at until sentencing.

[SS90]

I agree in parts to what you are saying.
I agree with the second chance bit. (i employed a guy with a long list of convictions).
But where do you draw the line on DWC?
Would you be saying the same thing if he crashed into somone?
What about assault? i have never had a conviction, could i get away with twating someone and use the same excuse?
I get the point you are trying to make, but tell that to all the poeple you have just been over the limit and got convicted.
Yes i know people get off all the time, and more often than not they don't lose there jobs (that is a condition of empolyment) but that should not be looked at until sentencing.

In regards to "twatting someone", I don't believe that any Judge would discharge on that.... I know a guy my age who went to prison for 2 years (no prior's) for assault (it was quite serious though....... he is a little guy, on his own, and took out 3 guys with a small weapon.....apparently even the arresting officer expressed his surprise at this sentance), so it does seem that (rightly so) Judges differentiate between what sort of crime was committed when considering a discharge.

But here is where I agree with you 100%...." Tell that t all the people just over the limit and been convicted", that is true, and, if I had been in that group, I would undoubtedly be "up in arms"..... I guess opinion is swayed by experience!