Senior Police Officer let off drink/drive charge

[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 ) that the previous, closest match case was the baseline i.e. the link posted by Smiffy http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/lo...ceman/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
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
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?