Mark Cropp pleaded guilty to breaching a protection order on Tuesday. Photo / File
Mark Cropp pleaded guilty to breaching a protection order on Tuesday. Photo / File
Police have taken action after an evidential video was deleted by an officer, preventing it from being disclosed for the trial of a high-profile convicted criminal.
Cropp is better known as "Devast8", a nickname inked onto his face in a tattoo that stretches from ear to ear.
He first made headlines when he spoke to the Herald in 2017 about struggling to find a job because of the extensive tattoo - which he said was created during a night of heavy drinking in jail.
On Tuesday, he was due to face trial accused of strangulation, intentional damage of a cellphone and breaching a protection order.
The complainant had only briefly taken the stand in the Pukekohe District Court when she alleged that two filmed interviews, not one, had been made by police.
"The first video I did, I mentioned everything that had happened before the incident," she said.
But the officer "deleted it in front of my eyes" telling her to just mention what Cropp had done to her.
The two other charges were dismissed after no evidence was offered by police.
Mark Cropp pleaded guilty to breaching a protection order on Tuesday. Photo / File
Counties Manukau Police Inspector Wendy Spiller said it was not unusual when officers were taking victim video statements (VVS) to stop and start filming, therefore creating more than one video statement.
Breaks could be taken at the request of the victim, or if the officer needed to seek advice or guidance, Spiller said.
"In this particular case the officer made two videos," she said.
"The officer was a short way into the first interview when he realised that what was being covered was not admissible, and in breach of the Evidence Act.
"He decided to stop the interview and commence a fresh recording.
"The second video contained a full and detailed interview with the complainant."
A police review of that interview determined it was suitable to be played in court, she said.
"We do acknowledge that the officer should not have deleted the first video," she said.
"The officer believed the second video covered the details of the offending incident and followed regulations, was relevant and admissible, which he thought the first video did not.
"The officer's intention in this matter was to gather complete and admissible evidence."
He had since been spoken to about the need to preserve all videos taken with victims, she said.
"Police are following up with messaging to all staff involved in the victim video statement project to ensure this mistake is not repeated."
NZ Police was following up with its ICT provider to remove the ability to delete recordings from cellphones prior to upload to the cloud storage facility, she said.
"The defendant has been convicted of breach of protection order and has been remanded in custody for sentencing. Police continue to support the complainant in this matter."
