Dialogue: Safeguard police from unfair public backlash

National MP PAUL HUTCHISON* wants parliamentary support for legislation that would provide conditional name protection for police involved in firearms incidents.

For 60 years, there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in firearms incidents while on duty. However, the recent incident at Waitara saw the High Court rule that publication was allowed and the National Business Review, among others, published the officer's name.

The public both in New Zealand and Britain, by and large, appreciate that their police force are less intimidatory than most because they normally don't carry firearms.

I have drafted a private member's bill that would give police officers involved in firearms incidents while carrying out their duty, conditional name protection until a Police Complaints Authority investigation was completed.

In a small country like New Zealand, there is a risk that police officers or their families could be endangered by having their names published after incidents.

My interest arises from personal experience in the United States, where I was close to two police shootings. One involved a school headmaster using a walking stick. When he turned around on a footpath to observe two policemen who had hailed him, he was shot in the stomach.

The other incident involved an unarmed 18-year-old who was shot in the back while trying to evade his escort in the crowded x-ray room of a hospital at which I worked.

Both incidents were avoidable and unnecessary. These experiences left me with considerable respect for the conservative approach and extra risk taken by our unarmed police.

In the High Court ruling on the Waitara case (a plaintiff versus Wilson & Horton), it was stated: "There can be no right of privacy in respect of an action by a police officer in the course of his public duties in a public street." Therefore, the officer involved should not receive special protection. The High Court said the New Zealand Bill of Rights "had not seen fit to provide statutory limitation to the actions or omissions of police officers."

The police take on extraordinary risk in the course of duty and it is very much in the interest of the public to encourage them to take a conservative approach to firearm use.

In the relatively rare instances where firearms are used, natural justice dictates that the police and their families are not further penalised or endangered by having their names published - at least until the Police Complaints Authority has released its findings.

My proposed amendment to legislation does not represent a blanket escape clause for police. If a High Court judge determines that the public interest is best served by publishing the identity of a member of the police, name suppression would not apply.

It is important that the facts surrounding an incident are accurately reported after rigorous investigation. In that way, it is far less likely that a police officer or his family will be unfairly prejudiced in the heat and initial emotions that are generated at the time of a firearms incident.

Any judgment a police officer makes is subject to review by his or her superiors, external legal experts and by the courts, if necessary.

Police are armed with batons, pepper spray and, in some case, firearms. All use of force must be reported and accounted for. Use of deadly force, whether resulting in a fatality or not, is always investigated and is always subject to close scrutiny by more than one agency.

Extensive psychological research has concluded that being involved in the use of deadly force is one of the most psychologically traumatic events any police officer can experience. Officers involved will usually suffer prolonged post-traumatic stress disorder, require long-term counselling and continue to experience after-effects for their whole life.

There is almost always a public backlash when police use deadly force. Threats against police who have caused someone's death or injury are an inevitable occurrence.

If the officer's identity was publicised, there would be a real chance of retaliation against either the officer or their family by criminals with a grudge against police or by disgruntled members of the public, or by family or friends of the dead person.

If an officer's identity is publicly released in advance of a final decision on any criminal liability, it is probable that the officer will be forever associated with the event, however rightly and honourably the officer may have acted.

Recent events have shown that even if colleagues keep the officer's identity closed, the media can become aware of it through other means and will base the decision to publish on their own organisation's priority, not on the wellbeing of the officer.

There is no question whatsoever of providing any police officer with an ability to hide from the consequences of his or her action. It is simply a question of society affording a degree of peace of mind to police officers that they will not be subjected to a personal trial by media and public stigma, especially in advance of any conclusion about liability.

* Dr Paul Hutchison is the MP for Port Waikato.