Police lose Duff case

[SixPackBack]

'Once were Warriors' author wins court battle against police

7:00PM Friday June 06, 2008



Alan Duff. Photo / Supplied

Traffic charges against author Alan Duff were dismissed today in Taupo District Court, with a judge also criticising police for prosecuting him on other charges.
Duff, 57, had pleaded not guilty to failing to remain at a scene after being stopped for speeding, failing to stop for police and two counts of resisting police.
He was charged after an incident on Broadlands Rd, about 20km north of Taupo, on September 13 last year when he was stopped by a policewoman for speeding.
The resisting charges were withdrawn earlier this week and in his written judgment today, Judge Chris McGuire said there seemed no practical reason why those charges were laid on January 4 instead of when the others were laid last September 14.
He said police evidence in support of the resisting charges was "unpersuasive and vague" and police were right to seek leave to withdraw the charges.
"The result, however, is that I am left uneasy over whether police prosecutorial power was used wisely and fairly in this instance," Judge McGuire said.The court had been told that Constable Patricia Foden had pulled the Once Were Warriors author over for speeding and he started "ranting". She later threatened to pepper spray him when he tried to avoid having both arms handcuffed together.
Judge McGuire said Duff became "very fired up" after Ms Foden told him he had been going 112km/h and he saw the locked reading on the radar was 110km/h.
"I have considered the situation of a sole average sized, slim female officer versus a taller and more powerfully built male meeting in these circumstances in a rural district ...," Judge McGuire said.
Although she did not appear fazed by Duff, she would have been startled by his "seizing the initiative" the way he did and his sudden anger.
When she asked for his details, he said he had done nothing wrong and initially refused.
When making a "query person" (QP) request to police communications and writing down his details, he went back to his car and drove off.
She gave pursuit and requested assistance. After 3.5km she stopped him again and told him he was under arrest for failing to remain and failing to stop.
But Duff's lawyer said he had been entitled to drive off when he did because from the moment Ms Foden initiated the QP, she was not exercising any power under the Land Transport Act.
Judge McGuire agreed and said police have no power to detain a citizen except under express statutory power.
"It may well be that a public debate on this issue is timely," he said.
"There may well be very sound practical and pragmatic reason to give carte blanche to QPs in their present form in all cases where drivers are stopped.
"But there are certainly arguments to the contrary that they are an unwarranted and further erosion of human rights. Those arguments are not for me to decide. Ultimately they are matters for Parliament."
Duff had fulfilled his duties under section 114 of the Act to remain stopped to provide personal details required of him. Having given Ms Foden the opportunity to establish his identity, he was entitled to leave when he did, the judge said.
With the charge of failing to remain dismissed, the other charge of failing to stop must also be dismissed.

[Patch]

Cool, something else for them to be pissy about and/or others to exploit

[peasea]

'Once were Warriors' author wins court battle against police

7:00PM Friday June 06, 2008



Alan Duff. Photo / Supplied

Traffic charges against author Alan Duff were dismissed today in Taupo District Court, with a judge also criticising police for prosecuting him on other charges.
Duff, 57, had pleaded not guilty to failing to remain at a scene after being stopped for speeding, failing to stop for police and two counts of resisting police.
He was charged after an incident on Broadlands Rd, about 20km north of Taupo, on September 13 last year when he was stopped by a policewoman for speeding.
The resisting charges were withdrawn earlier this week and in his written judgment today, Judge Chris McGuire said there seemed no practical reason why those charges were laid on January 4 instead of when the others were laid last September 14.
He said police evidence in support of the resisting charges was "unpersuasive and vague" and police were right to seek leave to withdraw the charges.
"The result, however, is that I am left uneasy over whether police prosecutorial power was used wisely and fairly in this instance," Judge McGuire said.The court had been told that Constable Patricia Foden had pulled the Once Were Warriors author over for speeding and he started "ranting". She later threatened to pepper spray him when he tried to avoid having both arms handcuffed together.
Judge McGuire said Duff became "very fired up" after Ms Foden told him he had been going 112km/h and he saw the locked reading on the radar was 110km/h.
"I have considered the situation of a sole average sized, slim female officer versus a taller and more powerfully built male meeting in these circumstances in a rural district ...," Judge McGuire said.
Although she did not appear fazed by Duff, she would have been startled by his "seizing the initiative" the way he did and his sudden anger.
When she asked for his details, he said he had done nothing wrong and initially refused.
When making a "query person" (QP) request to police communications and writing down his details, he went back to his car and drove off.
She gave pursuit and requested assistance. After 3.5km she stopped him again and told him he was under arrest for failing to remain and failing to stop.
But Duff's lawyer said he had been entitled to drive off when he did because from the moment Ms Foden initiated the QP, she was not exercising any power under the Land Transport Act.
Judge McGuire agreed and said police have no power to detain a citizen except under express statutory power.
"It may well be that a public debate on this issue is timely," he said.
"There may well be very sound practical and pragmatic reason to give carte blanche to QPs in their present form in all cases where drivers are stopped.
"But there are certainly arguments to the contrary that they are an unwarranted and further erosion of human rights. Those arguments are not for me to decide. Ultimately they are matters for Parliament."
Duff had fulfilled his duties under section 114 of the Act to remain stopped to provide personal details required of him. Having given Ms Foden the opportunity to establish his identity, he was entitled to leave when he did, the judge said.
With the charge of failing to remain dismissed, the other charge of failing to stop must also be dismissed.

Bravo!
I'd say more but I'm so boorish and self appointed I might get red rep'd.
Bahahahaha

[scumdog]

'Once were Warriors' author wins court battle against police

.

Oooh, I bet that worked out pretty cheap.

I guess we can now expect a slew of "My name is Bill Burglar and I'm not hanging around for a QP cos you'll find out I have several Warrants to Arrest and Allan Duffs lawyer says I don't have to wait" type incidents??

[peasea]

Oooh, I bet that worked out pretty cheap.

I guess we can now expect a slew of "My name is Bill Burglar and I'm not hanging around for a QP cos you'll find out I have several Warrants to Arrest and Allan Duffs lawyer says I don't have to wait" type incidents??

We live in hope.

[davereid]

Alan Duff was speeding near Taupo. He was pulled over by a female police officer, and he gave her his licence.

She went to her car to check he wasn't wanted on the police computer.

Mr. Duff drove off.

She pulled him over again, and this time attempted to arrest him. He allegedly swung her to the ground with her handcuffs and resisted arrest, before finally being subdued and taken back to he police station.

Mr. Duff claimed that as he was stopped for a traffic offence, the police only had the authority to check his licence and issue a ticket, and he had complied with that.

Mr. Duff claimed that checking the police computer for other offences was a "fishing trip" and that he had no legal obligation to wait.

Mr. Duff claimed he was therefore not guilty of resisting arrest, because he had already met all his legal obligations.

As the arrest was not legal the policewoman had no powers to make an arrest and was simply assaulting him, and if his action had occured, they were simply self defence.

The Judge took less 15 minutes to agree, on the charges of failing to stop, and failing to remain. The police then withdrew the two charges of resisting arrest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This won't particularly open a "can of worms", as its a repeat of a string of previous cases, which just point out that a police officer can't detain you at a whim - it needs legal process.

But, its the first re-confirmation of the un-necessary detention rule. Years ago, I went to a bike rally. On the road out police herded bikers into a "virtual concentration camp" and then checked rego's,warrants, alcohol etc.

The judges comments in this case, would indicate that detaining you to do this would be illegal.

That is, if you can be pulled over, and checked wthout delay, it is wthin the law. But if you are asked to wait so you can be checked later, it would be illegal.

Time will tell, Mr. Duff is possibly to sue for illegal arrest and assault.


OOPS - THIS THREAD ALREADY STARTED UNDER GINGA COP.. Can Mods Merge or Summat ?

[Steam]

Frankly, Mr Duff should have been pepper-sprayed and then tasered for driving off.
What's the fucking problem with cooperating with the coppers? Most of them are very reasonable people. (apart from the Ginger dick.)

As for not being able to check the computer for outstanding warrants, what the fuck???
What if he had been wanted for multiple murder, or had been an escaped prisoner, or anything like that? How else are the police going to find someone who is at large? Checking the computer after traffic offenses is an important tool for the police.

I already thought Alan Duff was a cock, this merely confirms it.

[Subike]

Not waiting unless charged or arrested.
ROFL
this has been common knowlage to many people for years.
Ignorance of the law is so common here in NZ that when somebody stands up and says
"hey this is not right"
it makes headlines......LOL
So many on here spout about the laws of NZ ,
what is legal, what is not.
How many of you bother to go and buy to read, the transport act, and other relevant acts, which can be bought for pennies at GOVT books shops.
Ignorance is bliss.......but also not an excuse.
Yeap he won the case......but so have many many others in the same situation.
Being a celeb just made it news worthy,
If it was you or I , it would never have reach second page news.

[Indoo]

At least we now know where he got the inspiration for Jake the Muss from.

Quite a ludicrous decision though, how many disqualified drivers or suspended drivers simply hang onto their licenses, great news for them as well as wanted criminals, flash your license and then take off.

[SixPackBack]

At least we now know where he got the inspiration for Jake the Muss from.

Quite a ludicrous decision though, how many disqualified drivers or suspended drivers simply hang onto their licenses, great news for them as well as wanted criminals, flash your license and then take off.

And a refreshing snippet of hope for those stopped often for no good reason. No longer will I have to be hassled 'cos the poleece think I'm 'Ghostrider'
Fucken good job I say.

[jimbo600]

Oooh, I bet that worked out pretty cheap.

I guess we can now expect a slew of "My name is Bill Burglar and I'm not hanging around for a QP cos you'll find out I have several Warrants to Arrest and Allan Duffs lawyer says I don't have to wait" type incidents??

Just a query though SD when does waiting for a QP of QV become unlawful detention? I mean what is considered a reasonable time to wait? Some one *555'd a mate in a HSV on the takas one day and was made to wait 30minutes until the *555 caller arrived.

I would imagine though that a QP or QV would only take a couple of minutes.

I can imagine Duff being a "don't you know who I am" type

[jrandom]

What's the fucking problem with cooperating with the coppers? Most of them are very reasonable people. (apart from the Ginger dick.)

Actual twats aside, many coppers seem to suffer from the effects of dealing day-in and day-out with scumbags.

When brought into contact with well-intentioned law-abiding citizens, they tend to lack courtesy and respect.

Personally, I do not enjoy being treated without courtesy and respect.

I had an interesting experience, recently. Long story short, someone made a unsubstantiated complaint against me (not related to a traffic matter). Trying to be helpful, I agreed to travel a 60km round trip on my lunch break to chat to the investigating officer.

Long story, short, the way I was treated opened my eyes to an arrogant, bullying police culture. It was sobering and disturbing.

I have learned that it is never to one's advantage, if one is in fact not a criminal, to cooperate with the Police.

Obviously there are advantages for those who have actually committed crimes - if you're nicked, best front up and get it over and done with. However, I could never in good conscience advise someone not guilty of a crime to assume that the police have their best interests at heart.

[Skyryder]

Frankly, Mr Duff should have been pepper-sprayed and then tasered for driving off.
What's the fucking problem with cooperating with the coppers? Most of them are very reasonable people. (apart from the Ginger dick.)

As for not being able to check the computer for outstanding warrants, what the fuck???
What if he had been wanted for multiple murder, or had been an escaped prisoner, or anything like that? How else are the police going to find someone who is at large? Checking the computer after traffic offenses is an important tool for the police.

I already thought Alan Duff was a cock, this merely confirms it.

I have little time for Duff myself. He's had an attitude problem with authority all his life. The alledged assault on a female police officer is in keeping of all that he supposes to disagree with; Maori violence.

However his actions in driving off after he had handed over his licence and the Judge dismissing this raises some interesting questions. On the surface it would appear that after a ticket has been issued and you have 'correctly identified yourself the police have no powers to detain you any further. That is how it should be.



Skyryder

[Ixion]

That is my understanding. The police , in general, cannot detain you unless they arrest you (there are however a number of specialised exceptions to that statement, so do not universally rely on it). However, they do have the right (can't be arsed looking up the reference) to detain you for a maximum of 15 minutes, for the purpose of establishing your identity. However, once you have produced your licence, identity is established. You are under no obligation to remain, and may drive off (which is doubtless why experienced coppers hang onto your licence while they do a QP thingy).

There is nothing untoward about this. After all, what if said rozzer had then decided she wanted to contact Interpol? "Please remain stopped for the next three days " ?

Exactly the same thing happened to Sir Robert Jones a few years ago, and he also drove off, and was duely arrested. He challenged it, it went to a very high level in the court system (Court of Appeal, I think) and he won. Quite properly. It is a fundamental principle of our justice system that the police do NOT have an arbitrary right of detention , which is of course what the rozzer-chicky was demanding. Nor, likewise, do you have to answer any questions the police may put to you . In the case of a minor motor vehicle offence, you are legally entitled to say "I have established my identity. I deny any wrongdoing. I do not intend to answer any questions. You have no right to detain me. Goodbye". And drive off.

Whether such a response is wise, may be another question. In general , cops do not stop one without reason, and a cooperative and humble approach (sham though it may be, practise your acting skills) willl be more effective at minimising tickets than a hard line stand on your rights.

However, that is "in general". Cuntstable Cunt is still in uniform, and if stopped by him no amount of cooperation or reasonableness will help . He (in in this case she - I wonder if all police binties are attracted to the job because of the opportunities it offers for small people to bully larger people ?) is a natural bully , and acquiesence will simply encourage him (or her) to bully more. As witrness a certain PC Ginga Cunt

Do note however, if you decide to do this

(A) You must not have committed any offence under which you can be detained.
(B) You must cooperate with breathtesting stuff and such like
(C) If you do drive off, and the rozzer chases after you with lights etc, you must stop again. Rinse lather repeat, that could get quite amusing.

[Skyryder]

They can 'instruct' you to remain on the scene for purposes of gathering further evidence etc. I seem to remember seeing something of a time frame in the Land Transport Act. Ix quotes fifteen minutes. I'll have a look but someone may be able to confirm one way or the other. Either way guys I'd treat Duff's dismissal with some caution.


Skyryder