Summary of Complaints
For those of you unwilling to wade through the Bazely report, I present a shortened summary of the complaints that the anonymous submitters made to the commission. Louise Nichols' complaint has been dealt with an acquittal and I am unaware of any resolution in the case of Judith Garrett. I have given aspects of the complaints ratings out of 5 (with 5 being high).
Complainant A: made two rape complaints against an officer in 1982. At the same time, the officers partner alleged that he was sexually abusing their stepdaughters. Neither complaint was investigated at the time. It wasn't until 1994-95 that both complaints were re investigated and the result was that the officer was convicted for offences against his stepdaughters but acquitted of rape against complainant A because the medical records had been lost.
Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 1
Followup police handling: 4
Complainant B: had been fostered into the care of a police officer before 1985. He had sexual relations with her which eventually resulted in a child. The police originally tried to resolve the matter through an admission of paternity. When that failed, they investigated the matter criminally but not enough evidence was available to sustain a conviction then. No disciplinary charges were considered (although he was facing other disciplinary proceedings). In 1996, the matter was re-examined but the police failed to consider a charge of indecent assault.
Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 3
Original police handling: 3
Followup police handling: 3
Complainant C: was allegedly raped by a police officer in 1989. Supposedly she complained then but neither C or the Police have any knowledge of the matter. In 1991, the Police heard rumours about C's attack. They began a full investigation and contacted her. C denied the attack then for fear of being done in for cannabis she had during the attack in 1989. A second police officer actively concealed information. In 2004, the Police re-investigated again which "came out of the blue" for C. Apparently she had not been told that a formal investigation had been launched into her complaint. The re-investigation lead to the discovery that information had been concealed and disciplinary charges followed against the second police officer but the original offender had died in the meantime.
Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 3
Followup police handling: 4
Comment: I get the impression that the officer was blackmailing C for sex over cannabis possession. If C had known that she wouldn't be prosecuted for having dope then a conviction might have been obtained.
Complainant D: was allegedly raped by a police officer who was her partner at the time in 1996. She complained almost immediately and a full investigation ensued. The officer did try to influence the investigating officer but was unsuccessful. D was upset because she was confronted with inconsistencies in her statement and the fact that some personal items of hers were taken away for forensic analysis and never returned. There is a short mention that D had an undiagnosed medical condition which may have caused her unhappiness. No prosecution was made due to lack of evidence and when disciplinary proceedings over the original relationship were laid against the officer, he quit the force.
Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 4
Comment: The mention of the undiagnosed medical condition implies that D's evidence was unreliable.
Complainant E: claimed to have an consensual affair with her husband's diversion officer. When an internal enquiry was launched, the officer quit the force.
Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 1
Original police handling: 4
Comment: A police officer had an affair! Stop the presses!!
Complainant F: was allegedly raped in 1997 by three police officers (one recently retired). A detective, hearing rumours of the attack, contacted her soon afterwards but was told that only an indecency was involved. F didn't report the rape until 1998 at which time forensic evidence was lost. F remains unhappy about the police treatment of her but the police maintain it was professional.
Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 4
Comment: No outcome is mentioned of the case which implies lack of evidence. The fact that a detective actively investigated the case indicates that the "culture of silence" that Louise complained of didn't extend to serious offences.
Complainant G: claimed to have been searched very intimately while in police custody in 1997. The search should not have happened and the senior sergeant who had ordered the search was subsequently counselled after an investigation.
Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 3
Original police handling: 4
Comment: I would have ranked the impact a 2. But then I realized that G was still upset about the incident to complain ten years later. Which makes it a 3.
Complainant H: alleged that in 2001 her partner, a police officer, had indecently assaulted a child. The police disregarded the practice (despite recorded submissions) of bringing in an investigator from outside the district on the grounds that alleged offender was involved in community policing and hence only nominally associated with the station. Although with hindsight, the police accept this decision did not look good. No prosecution was brought due to lack of evidence.
Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 4
Original police handling: 4
Complainant I: was originally investigated for being beaten up by Police Officers in 1986. In 2003, he claimed that he had been sexually assaulted during the same attack. A thorough investigation was carried out which lead to a no prosecution. I was however unhappy about a misunderstanding during the course of the interview,
Likelihood of original offending: 0
Impact of alleged offending: 4
Original police handling: 4
Comment: I can understand police beating up somebody and then lying about it. But male rape? I suspect I to be related to Louise Nicholas.
Complainant J: was a police officer who complained of sexual harassment in 1994. The police followed a draft procedure. Although the sergeant concerned denied the activities, he was transferred elsewhere within the station. J remained unsatisfied with the resolution of the event.
Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 2
Original police handling: 3
Comment: Nothing dramatic here. The police followed a sexual harassment case and screwed up somewhat.
So of the ten cases, there is only one (that of complainant A) where the police buried the file. There is misconduct in the investigation phase of complainant C but that is a single officer withholding information. In the cases of B, D, E, G, H, I and J, the cases were investigated promptly as soon as a complaint was made. In the cases of C and F, the impetus for the investigation came from the police rather than the complainant.
So while there has been police misconduct, people seem to have forgotten that the original allegations and reason for the enquiry were that the police were refusing to investigate the criminals in their own ranks. That some of the cases are disgraceful doesn't even begin to warrant the flagellation that the police have been forced to indulge in on Helen's wishes.
Complainant A: made two rape complaints against an officer in 1982. At the same time, the officers partner alleged that he was sexually abusing their stepdaughters. Neither complaint was investigated at the time. It wasn't until 1994-95 that both complaints were re investigated and the result was that the officer was convicted for offences against his stepdaughters but acquitted of rape against complainant A because the medical records had been lost.
Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 1
Followup police handling: 4
Complainant B: had been fostered into the care of a police officer before 1985. He had sexual relations with her which eventually resulted in a child. The police originally tried to resolve the matter through an admission of paternity. When that failed, they investigated the matter criminally but not enough evidence was available to sustain a conviction then. No disciplinary charges were considered (although he was facing other disciplinary proceedings). In 1996, the matter was re-examined but the police failed to consider a charge of indecent assault.
Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 3
Original police handling: 3
Followup police handling: 3
Complainant C: was allegedly raped by a police officer in 1989. Supposedly she complained then but neither C or the Police have any knowledge of the matter. In 1991, the Police heard rumours about C's attack. They began a full investigation and contacted her. C denied the attack then for fear of being done in for cannabis she had during the attack in 1989. A second police officer actively concealed information. In 2004, the Police re-investigated again which "came out of the blue" for C. Apparently she had not been told that a formal investigation had been launched into her complaint. The re-investigation lead to the discovery that information had been concealed and disciplinary charges followed against the second police officer but the original offender had died in the meantime.
Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 3
Followup police handling: 4
Comment: I get the impression that the officer was blackmailing C for sex over cannabis possession. If C had known that she wouldn't be prosecuted for having dope then a conviction might have been obtained.
Complainant D: was allegedly raped by a police officer who was her partner at the time in 1996. She complained almost immediately and a full investigation ensued. The officer did try to influence the investigating officer but was unsuccessful. D was upset because she was confronted with inconsistencies in her statement and the fact that some personal items of hers were taken away for forensic analysis and never returned. There is a short mention that D had an undiagnosed medical condition which may have caused her unhappiness. No prosecution was made due to lack of evidence and when disciplinary proceedings over the original relationship were laid against the officer, he quit the force.
Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 4
Comment: The mention of the undiagnosed medical condition implies that D's evidence was unreliable.
Complainant E: claimed to have an consensual affair with her husband's diversion officer. When an internal enquiry was launched, the officer quit the force.
Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 1
Original police handling: 4
Comment: A police officer had an affair! Stop the presses!!
Complainant F: was allegedly raped in 1997 by three police officers (one recently retired). A detective, hearing rumours of the attack, contacted her soon afterwards but was told that only an indecency was involved. F didn't report the rape until 1998 at which time forensic evidence was lost. F remains unhappy about the police treatment of her but the police maintain it was professional.
Likelihood of original offending: 4
Impact of alleged offending: 5
Original police handling: 4
Comment: No outcome is mentioned of the case which implies lack of evidence. The fact that a detective actively investigated the case indicates that the "culture of silence" that Louise complained of didn't extend to serious offences.
Complainant G: claimed to have been searched very intimately while in police custody in 1997. The search should not have happened and the senior sergeant who had ordered the search was subsequently counselled after an investigation.
Likelihood of original offending: 5
Impact of alleged offending: 3
Original police handling: 4
Comment: I would have ranked the impact a 2. But then I realized that G was still upset about the incident to complain ten years later. Which makes it a 3.
Complainant H: alleged that in 2001 her partner, a police officer, had indecently assaulted a child. The police disregarded the practice (despite recorded submissions) of bringing in an investigator from outside the district on the grounds that alleged offender was involved in community policing and hence only nominally associated with the station. Although with hindsight, the police accept this decision did not look good. No prosecution was brought due to lack of evidence.
Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 4
Original police handling: 4
Complainant I: was originally investigated for being beaten up by Police Officers in 1986. In 2003, he claimed that he had been sexually assaulted during the same attack. A thorough investigation was carried out which lead to a no prosecution. I was however unhappy about a misunderstanding during the course of the interview,
Likelihood of original offending: 0
Impact of alleged offending: 4
Original police handling: 4
Comment: I can understand police beating up somebody and then lying about it. But male rape? I suspect I to be related to Louise Nicholas.
Complainant J: was a police officer who complained of sexual harassment in 1994. The police followed a draft procedure. Although the sergeant concerned denied the activities, he was transferred elsewhere within the station. J remained unsatisfied with the resolution of the event.
Likelihood of original offending: 3
Impact of alleged offending: 2
Original police handling: 3
Comment: Nothing dramatic here. The police followed a sexual harassment case and screwed up somewhat.
So of the ten cases, there is only one (that of complainant A) where the police buried the file. There is misconduct in the investigation phase of complainant C but that is a single officer withholding information. In the cases of B, D, E, G, H, I and J, the cases were investigated promptly as soon as a complaint was made. In the cases of C and F, the impetus for the investigation came from the police rather than the complainant.
So while there has been police misconduct, people seem to have forgotten that the original allegations and reason for the enquiry were that the police were refusing to investigate the criminals in their own ranks. That some of the cases are disgraceful doesn't even begin to warrant the flagellation that the police have been forced to indulge in on Helen's wishes.
posted by Peter Metcalfe at 5:11 pm
<< Home