Stand with Christchurch


Yesterday, Friday 15 March 2019, white supremacists committed acts of terrorism against multiple Mosques in Christchurch where people were peacefully going about their prayers. In the ensuing attacks, 49 people were murdered. Improvised explosive devices were found by Police near the scene of at least one attack.

This is NOT what Christchurch stands for. This is NOT what New Zealand stands for. We are horrified beyond belief that such utter cowardice could be perpetrated against people carrying out totally legitimate activities.

Because of that, Will New Zealand Be Right will not publish until Sunday 17 March 2019. Stay safe. Reach out to any any friends you have in ethnic communities. Give thanks to the Police for the magnificent job they are doing bringing these people to justice.

Arohanui.

New Zealand Police not arming themselves


On Tuesday last week a man was shot in Richmond, Christchurch. The shooting happened after he fired a shot gun at police officers pursuing him whilst in a stolen vehicle. The vehicle had run over road spikes laid by the police to stop the vehicle whilst on Breezes Road, but it continued to be driven until it reached Evelyn Cousins Place.

Following the shooting, Canterbury Police armed their officers until the second man was found and taken into custody, on Monday. Despite the short duration of them being armed it was not part of a larger move and New Zealand Police stated that one of the great joys in New Zealand is not having to have officers armed, and that this is the way they would like to keep it.

This is understandable. Arming the constabulary raises tensions with the population and lessens the trust that is needed between communities and their lawn enforcement. There are also good reasons, based on overseas experience about why we should desist arming the police. So far in 2019, 162 people have been shot dead by police in the United States.

162 people – given the proliferation of guns in the United States and the fact that their population is about 65 times larger than New Zealand’s, maybe that should not be hugely surprising. However as we shall see there are several factors that need to be considered

When I look at police shootings here, I am grateful for the training New Zealand police receive. There are several very good reasons why I hope I never see New Zealand police officers routinely wear fire arms:

  1. The New Zealand police are trained differently and are taught to understand that the fire arm is the weapon of last resort. Because it is purpose built for delivering a potentially lethal injury, the threshhold for using a gun are correspondingly higher than that for using a taser, or lesser device such as a baton or pepper spray. I hope it stays that way.
  2. There is a certain degree of risk to the credibility of authorities when they play the fear card. New Zealand is a nation that does not like to be ruled by fear. If New Zealanders think authorities are purposefully playing on fear, the authorities will lose respect and any measures seen as punitive will become the target of ridicule. By giving authorities the means to use lethal force, the red line in the sand between credible fear and scare mongering comes a giant step closer.
  3. The gun culture in America makes things much more dangerous than it does in New Zealand. Because the Second Amendment explicitly permits Americans to use firearms for self defence, and because the National Rifle Association holds significant clout with conservatives who often complain about Americans having their gun rights eroded, it is a highly politicized issue which can cause politicians to tread unnecessarily warily around. We do not have that antagonism here around fire arms and there is no reason to start now.
  4. There is a degree of moral integrity at stake when a police officer shoots someone – for arguments sake – fatally. Because if that person was not armed, or in possession of something less lethal than a fire arm, unless the officer had expended the non-lethal options at their disposal and had failed to subdue the suspect, that officer has potentially committed manslaughter (giving the officer the benefit of the doubt that they did not intend to kill). How can one ascertain the suitability of an officer to possess firearms?
  5. The Police Complaints Authority and the system of accountability it uses to ensure that complaints against the New Zealand Police can be assessed have been found wanting with current cases. One where a formal complaint is laid for the accidental shooting of a homeless man high on methamphetamine could expose it and New Zealand’s reputation as a safe place with a reliable police force at risk. We cannot afford that.

Despite the concerns that New Zealand police may become like their American counterparts, I think the public scrutiny on the police force and their reactivity to that scrutiny is a good thing. The certainty that individual shootings are automatically referred to the Police Conduct Authority means officers have good reason to be careful about the use of force. However, a person high on drugs cannot be reasoned with, at least not safely. At that point force is necessary.

But in the Christchurch case, the offender reached for a gun and discharged it several times leaving the police with no choice but to use potentially deadly force.

People jumping to conclusions on Grace Millane – Give due process a chance


On 01 December 2018 a 22 year old English tourist named Grace Millane disappeared in Auckland. For a few days hope was held that Miss Millane might be found alive and that she had simply got lost or gone walkabout. These hopes were dashed on 07 December when the New Zealand Police announced that they were looking for a person of interest. Several hours later, they announced that this person was under arrest. Then yesterday, the worst fears were confirmed: the case had been upgraded to a homicide inquiry and the suspect was charged with her murder.

Right from the start on social media, especially on Facebook people hoped and prayed for her safe return which is completely understandable. When it was announced that the suspect had been charged with murder, the hopes and prayers not surprisingly turned to anger. People have every right to be horrified and angry that it happened in New Zealand, a country thought to be safe for people to visit. They have every right to want want justice for Grace Millane.

But the number of people who are trying to be the judge, the jury and the executioner before the accused is even brought to court is quite serious. The number of people who think the accused is guilty before any plea has been entered tells me that many don’t care about due process and I wonder if they even know what it is?

I have been criticized by many on Facebook for insisting on due process, but I make no apologies. I want justice done, but it is not going to be done by social media. It needs to happen under a court of law before a judge and – if this goes to trial – a jury.

So, let us look at what sections of the relevant legislation deal with due process in a legal setting.

A person detained or arrested by the Police or other arresting authority has rights under Sections 23-25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990. Section 23 rights deal with the period immediately after being arrested. Section 24 deals with those who have been charged with an offence – this is where I think the Police are probably at with the suspect in the case of Miss Millane. Section 25 deals with the rights of someone being sent to trial.

As for the victim of a crime, their rights are set down in the Victims Code. The victims code is covered under the Victims Rights Act 2002. I assume that New Zealand Police are applying this to Miss Millane’s family who must be going through the most harrowing moments of their lives at the moment, sick to death at the thought that their daughter is gone.

But due process exists for good reasons and are a mark of a functional justice system in any first world country. That includes New Zealand.

So, let us put this suspect to trial. Let us find out what happened, whether he had accomplices who assisted and whether any evidence has been destroyed in an attempt to pervert justice. Let us find out about Miss Millane’s final hours, and why – just assuming for a moment it was him – he was driven to murder a tourist on holiday in New Zealand.

But above all, let us give due process a chance to run its course, because if it turns out there were other people involved, then the blame is not totally on the accused. If there were other significant circumstances involved we need to know about them. Let us do this properly so that two things happen:

  1. The perpetrator or perpetrators are tried, sentenced appropriately
  2. Miss Millane’s family get the justice that they totally deserve

Neither can happen if due process is not followed.

The case for an overhaul of New Zealand’s prisons


It was mentioned yesterday that overcrowding in New Zealand prisons is bringing the penal system to breaking point. Whilst New Zealand does not have the large scale problems of the United States and other countries, the problems posed by the prison system as it currently stands are plenty bad enough.

One can break prisoners down into several groups. There will be a small group whose offending are a symptom of larger problems in their lives – addictions that wound up needing a new source of income to fund their lifestyle, which might have started off as a minor experiment that eventually became all consuming. The range of backgrounds from which these people come might be quite varied, with some coming from normal or relatively normal backgrounds whilst others

If these people can be made to see the harm they are doing and shown how to get help, they might have a future. Acknowledging what they have done is central to the assistance that they get.

Many of the offenders who go to prison know that they have committed a significant wrong – whether they admitted it or not is another thing all together. It might have been a spur of the moment thing such as fleeing from the Police and crashing into another vehicle or an argument that for whatever reason suddenly turned injurious or fatal.

Many of these people will be genuinely remorseful. These are the people who are perhaps least likely to re-offend and deserve a second chance. They are the ones who will probably seek restorative justice opportunities with any victims. They are the ones who might be in stable jobs and have supportive families or spouses who will make sure that they stay on track and help them avoid repeating the circumstances that made them commit the offence in the first place.

There will always be a small group of prisoners who no matter what happens to them will re-offend. These are the ones who need to be locked up indefinitely. These are the offenders who have no care for society, no respect for individuals or property. Among these are the ones who offended for the thrill of it and only regret being caught. This is the group that should have no prospect of release.

These offenders have a high risk of re-offending. They pose a significant threat to the community and monitoring them using tracking devices has a high risk of failing.

The solution of “lock ’em up” is clearly not working in many cases. Too many people are going into jail and coming out in a more dangerous psychological state than that in which they entered. Over crowding of cells just creates an environment where those who are genuinely remorseful or otherwise trying to clean themselves up are being negatively affected.

The privatization of the prisons was a particularly bad idea, and using a foreign multinational company (Serco)to run them was even worse as their accountability was nil. Serco should have been sacked as the contracted company once the organized fights in Mt Eden Prison had been exposed.

Furthermore simply building more prisons, the previous National-led Government proposed to do, just adds to a burgeoning penal system that does not necessarily work. Fixing the prisons is just part of the solution, which will require an inter-agency response. No one ministry is capable of fixing this mess on their own. It will require the input of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Police as well as Department of Corrections.

Whether this Government will understand this is one thing. Acting on that recognition is another thing altogether.

How to deter people from fleeing the Police


Mike Yardley, a columnist for The Press wrote a column that appeared in yesterday’s edition of the newspaper. In it he questioned whether people stopped by the cops would run from armed Police. Mr Yardley’s article was provocative. It got me thinking about how to reduce the number of car chases involving the Police, the number of fatalities that occur as a result of these chases.

One thing is clear. Mr Yardley’s suggestion that cops be armed when they check people is flagrant alarmism. New Zealand Police are largely not armed for very good reasons. There is no reason on Earth why we should arm them in a knee jerk fashion without stopping to consider how an already dodgy equation when it comes to being stopped, now suddenly becomes potentially very volatile.

In saying this, I think Mr Yardley might have had another intention in mind. That intention would be to get people thinking about the folly of fleeing the Police, and merely used armed officers as a suggestion because he knew it would get a reaction.

When a Police officer signals for a person to pull over, obviously they should. Most will do so without any problems and co-operate when the officer approaches the car. But there will be a few whose “fight or flight” instincts kick in, and they choose to flee. It could be for any reason or reasons – narcotics, or laundered money might be in the car; the car might be stolen; the car might be sought in relation to another offence; the driver might have someone in it that the Police are looking to arrest.

I have my own solution to the problem. Like Mr Yardley, I was disgusted by the incident that took Mrs Yanko’s life. How to fix the problem? A deterrent needs to be strong enough to make one think twice before engaging in such a silly act. In the end my solution is quite simple. If a person flees from the Police when they are signalled to stop, then – assuming no previous crimes have been committed:

  • Overnight in a cell for a first time offender with a previously clean record and a warning that the next such offence will be a week, plus $1,000 fine
  • For second time offenders a week in the cells plus the $1,000 fine, payable the day they are released
  • For third time offenders, a month in prison plus either $1,000 or 100 hours community service

I should stress – and I do not think I can do this strongly enough – that this is merely dealing with those who flee from the Police. It is not dealing with any other offences outstanding, or which they might be charged for on the day. The punishment for other offences come in on top of this.

It does not matter what sort of stop they were trying to flee from – alcohol/drug check point; search for a criminal or contraband; dangerous driving or otherwise. I wonder how many people would be seriously tempted to flee the Police if they knew that their criminal record – which might, up to that point not exist at all – will get an instant blotch by their name. I wonder how many might have thought of the consequences for their future plans, such as overseas trips and applying for certain types of jobs before they flee the Police

But I think we can agree on one thing now: Running from the Police is a really daft idea that simply is not worth the costs.