Law must be seen to apply to all

Justice Simon France. Photo / Mark MItchell

It appeared cruel, police charging the mother who absent-mindedly left her infant son in the car. The Mum's long hours of service rendered her overtired and with a tragic, but understandable, mind-blank the morning she was to drop him at daycare.

The court case was tough. A staffer broke down in tears as Justice Simon France described how the little boy had died. It was an awful tragedy for the family made worse by the court case.

The court discharged Mum without conviction and granted permanent name suppression. It's impossible to disagree with the court's mercy. Indeed, crown prosecutor Lance Rowe declared the discharge without conviction "probably irresistible".

So why put the family through the trauma? Acting Detective Inspector Dave Kirby of the Whanganui Police, explained: "Police are required under law to investigate and consider the circumstances of every death, and we do so objectively, fairly and thoroughly in the interests of the victims. Where there is sufficient evidence of a case to answer, then police present that evidence to the court for it to make a decision on the appropriate outcome."

At the time I accepted the police explanation and defended them on my radio slot. I explained that the police often must make tough calls. Justice must be seen to be done.

But then last week we had news that the police would not appeal Justice Collins' decision to throw out their criminal charges against members of the Red Devils Motorcycle Club. The case foundered because the police had faked a search warrant and laid false criminal charges to bolster the criminal credibility of their undercover officers who were infiltrating the club.

The search warrant was fake. The charges were fake. The defendant was fake. The police, to secure convictions, misled the court. Badly.

Justice Collins declared, "Had a private prosecutor engaged in similar tactics he or she could expect to face the full wrath of the criminal justice system."

So why not the police? Only the week before they'd lectured: "Where there is sufficient evidence of a case to answer, then police present that evidence to the court for it to make a decision on the appropriate outcome."

And I bought it. A week later we see that's not the case. Not when it's some of their own.

The police added to a grieving mum's misery saying they had little choice but to charge, yet choose not to charge their own officers who broke the law most egregiously. What is the message here? That it's okay for police officers to mislead the court? That can't be right. Ever.

Police bosses' message should be: one, that the police aren't above the law; and, two, that police should never mislead the court. That means charging the officers responsible.