Kerre Woodham: Wallace case delivers sober judgment

Keith Abbott. Photo / Mark Mitchell

On the face of it, it seems a no-brainer. When police officers are involved in "critical incidents" - or rather less euphemistically, when police officers shoot and kill individuals, they should be alcohol and drug-tested in the aftermath of the shooting to show they were not impaired when they made their decision.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority this week made a recommendation that there be mandatory testing after "critical incidents" as part of its investigation into rumours that Constable Keith Abbott had been drinking when he shot and killed Steven Wallace in Waitara in 2000. The Wallace family has been relentless in its pursuit of Abbott and even now, with the authority finding that the rumours were absolutely without foundation, Wallace's mother is refusing to let it go.

Such is her distress I imagine that even if there had been mandatory testing that proved Abbott was stone-cold sober, she'd have accused the police of fiddling the results in Abbott's favour.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor is not all that keen on the idea. He says it will be difficult to staff remote areas where there's only one officer for the station and they're on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The case of Jono Erwood comes to mind, the Mokau constable who drove drunk to a fatal accident with lifesaving medical equipment in his police vehicle.

That case divided the small Taranaki settlement - Erwood had been drinking with the driver who caused the fatal crash but probably saved the life of the innocent passenger in the other vehicle by driving to the scene with the medical equipment.

He was breath-tested by a fellow police officer at the scene, prosecuted for driving with excess breath alcohol but discharged without conviction and kept his job.

The judge who discharged him lauded his actions, remarking that there was nothing personal in it for Erwood, that it showed a commitment to the job of which he should be proud and that he'd risked his life in attending the accident.

Of course, by choosing to drive after a few drinks, Erwood was also risking the lives of other road users. And there were other options Erwood could have taken, such as asking his wife or a mate to drive the police vehicle for him - it's against police regulations, but so too is drink driving.

It seems fairly obvious that to protect the police and the public, to avoid witch hunts and pointless could have/should have post mortems, there has to be a no-drink or drugs policy while on duty.

And if smalltown officers want a night off, perhaps other members of the community could be trained and deputised to act in their stead.

Nobody should be expected to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week without backup - but neither should there be any lingering doubts about the capabilities of officers when they make the decision to shoot and kill.

* www.kerrewoodham.com