Senior Police Officer let off drink/drive charge

**p.dath** · 14th June 2010, 13:16

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=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** · 14th June 2010, 13:29

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 ~~safer communities together~~ Tax Discriminatingly!

**slofox** · 14th June 2010, 13:35

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** · 14th June 2010, 13:49

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

**p.dath** · 14th June 2010, 13:51

Originally Posted by imdying

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** · 14th June 2010, 14:05

Originally Posted by 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.

But that IS how the law works

**imdying** · 14th June 2010, 14:06

Plenty have, don't you read the papers?

**NZsarge** · 14th June 2010, 14:19

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** · 14th June 2010, 14:27

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

http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/lo...ceman/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** · 14th June 2010, 14:38

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** · 14th June 2010, 14:39

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** · 14th June 2010, 14:47

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** · 14th June 2010, 15:14

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 14th June 2010, 15:42

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!!!!!!.