Failing to swear in police recruits properly once might be seen as unfortunate. Twice smacks of carelessness. Three times, when the potential consequences are not trifling, seems almost incomprehensible. Yet, as we reveal today, that has happened over the past five years. The police should be thoroughly embarrassed, and people have every right to ask whether this is symptomatic of a wider malaise.
The first blunder, in 2009, involved hundreds of graduates from the Police College. The police breached legislation passed the previous year stipulating that the oath for sworn officers must be administered by the Police Commissioner or a person authorised by him instead of a justice of the peace or a district commander or inspector. Late last year, a further mistake was discovered. This involved 63 officers who had returned to the force over the previous four years.
In the second instance, the Police Minister, Anne Tolley, made her annoyance clear. This was a "monumental cock-up", she said. She was right. Any assumption being made by the police should have been summarily dismissed with the disclosure of the first mistake. So should any chance of a recurrence. Yet it has now been revealed that this year, two constables, one rejoining the Counties Manukau police and the other in Wellington, had not been sworn in by an authorised person.
The repercussions are real enough. In the latest case, about 10 criminal charges against what the police describe as "a few individuals" have had to be withdrawn. They included selling cannabis, dangerous driving, driving with excess blood alcohol and burglary. The two officers also had to be placed on restricted duties until they could be re-sworn correctly.
But that is small beer compared to the ramifications of the earlier swearing-in transgressions. These meant the activities of large numbers of officers, including searches, arrests and prosecutions, could be legally challenged. On both occasions, rushed retrospective legislation validating the unlawful oaths was necessary to prevent severe embarrassment. That, in itself, is very embarrassing for any government. Retrospective legislation is never sound legislation and, indeed, breaches an international covenant.
