POLICE MANAGEMENT SPIN ON TAUMARUNUI POLICE STATION:

What’s the story in Taumarunui? “Misconduct plagues police force” was the banner headline on a Sunday Star Times feature story on 23 May. Using an internal police report from 2002 into issues at the Taumarunui police station as a starting point, the paper investigated “whether a malaise” has set in to New Zealand Police. Fair enough question. Police are accountable and the public has a right to know if officers are acting unprofessionally and not delivering the quality of service that’s expected of them. And you can’t blame a journalist for swooping on a report however it’s conveyed to her. Right now allegations of police misconduct are hot news and the story was a gift. But here’s the rub. If you are one of the 24 or so staff at Taumarunui and you see a national newspaper bagging your station with no apparent attempt to see what things are like 18 months on from the quoted report, or to have a chat to community leaders to get their perspective, you’d be a bit grumpy. So Ten-One decided to spend a couple of days in Taumarunui to see what else the Sunday Star Times could have reported had they visited the town and put the allegations into context. We’re not claiming everything is rosy but we did find plenty of support for police, the job they’re doing and the way they’re doing it. And lots of commitment and a sense of pride in their achievements from staff themselves. Behind and despite the headlines, Taumarunui is ticking over nicely. Reported crime in the Ruapehu Area, of which Taumarunui is a sub-area, has dropped 29.6 percent in the past five years – making it among the top three performing areas in the country. To achieve these kinds of results, policing in Taumarunui went through a lot of change. Inevitably this brought tensions. The current Taumarunui team seems functional, focused and they get on well together. As Central District Commander Superintendent Mark Lammas says, you can’t achieve the sort of results that Taumarunui has turned in if you’re at each other’s throats. One of the things that irritated Taumarunui staff and community leaders about the Sunday Star Times story was the negative impression the old allegations created of current policing and of the town itself. This inevitably has spin-offs for recruitment. Taumarunui station has historically been hard to staff. The council, hospital and school also have trouble attracting staff and poor media coverage reinforces the negative perceptions that put people off working there. Police staff elsewhere in the country were a case in point. After reading the Sunday Star Times story, several phoned up mates in Taumarunui to commiserate and ask: “Why would you want to work in a place like that?” There are plenty of reasons, according to Acting Area Commander Senior Sergeant Steve Mastrovich. He says Taumarunui has a lot to offer but he can understand why someone working in a big city might not think so. “ When you’re working in Auckland for example, you think there might not be a pulse outside. People worry that if they’re not at the cutting edge, they’ll get left behind. But that’s not the case at all.” The opportunity to gain experience in a bigger range of policing activities than in the cities is one of the attractions. “ Here, you get to have a go at everything. For example SAR – if you want to get involved, we will provide work time and send you on land SAR and other courses. The squad is always crying out for members and it’s an important part of the job here.” Newly grad-uated constables can also expect to assume greater responsibilities in a wider range of work earlier than their city counterparts. But perhaps the biggest difference is the style of policing. “ Here, you’re able to breathe,” says Steve. “You’re not chasing your tail. You follow things through to the end and you’re involved in solving community problems. It’s quite refreshing.” He says many cops are keen to maintain the anonymity that goes with city policing and that’s another factor that puts people off working in small towns. “ You don’t have to stand up and be counted in the city. Some people say that’s a good thing and I used to think like that. But working here makes you take ownership. You’re more focused on doing a good job and creating a resolution to problems. You work to make sure you don’t get repeat victimisation. “ People don’t come charging in here complaining about police attitudes, because you are immediately accountable.” Sergeant Paul Francis agrees. “ You tend to take more responsibility for your community because you are an integral part of it. Small town policing is more friendly – we’ve got a good, supportive community here.” And despite what you might read in the paper, the police staff like and support each other too. “ We’ve got a good team here. We’ve got high calibre cops and ethics, and we get on well together.”

Do As I Say, Not As I Do [click on to enlarge]

The Police Department's solution to the exposing of corruption within their organization is to resort to threats.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do [click on to enlarge]

The Police Department's solution to the exposing of corruption within their organization is to resort to threats.

Yeah Right!

dodgycopsnz@blogspot.com

dodgycopsnz
dodgycopsnz@blogspot.com

Here's some more 'dodgy' dealings.......

Click on the MP3 link below this text to hear Inspector Kerry Watson- New Zealand Police, confirm a corrupt drugs set-up by Constable Sharyn Sain-Tumataroa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cbcVFSajOM

Excerpts from Recent Trade Me m.b

Lala73 that police Inspector Attempted to have me charged internally within the Police because I "lawfully" requested information pursuant to the Official Information Act that would of helped a person that had been arrested at that Inspectors Station, by his mates. In the end the Office of the Commissioner directed him to supply the information, and that person was found NOT guilty. That Inspector that you defend without knowing the FACTS has in my opinion acted in a very childish, corrupt manner, and basically more senior Police Officers ordered him to pull his head in, but he still remains a Police Officer, what else has he been up to that we have no knowledge of?

Lala73 You cannot not state "unbalanced persons rantings" without you personally knowing the FACTS of that matter. I can assure you, your reference to "unbalanced persons rantings" is completely wrong.

I have spoken to the Blogger [abridged] Because of the truth of his claims, Police have tried almost everything to shut him up, and as far as that Inspector is concerned I have personal knowledge of his behaviour which is presently a small part of a rather large inquiry into Police behaviour.



SOME MORE INFORMATIVE LINKS CRITIQUING OUR 'FINEST' ARE:

Bent Cops » An exposé of corruption and perversity in the New Zealand Police.


http://policewatch-nz.blogspot.com?


WHO POLICES THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE ?

dodgycopsnz@blogspot.com

dodgycopsnz

dodgycopsnz@blogspot.com
dodgycopsnz.blogspot.com
dodgycopsnz

About Me

Name: threesimians

View my complete profile

Previous Posts

---

dodgycopsnz

dodgycopsnz@blogspot.com

dodgycopsnz@blogspot.com - Link to Corrupt Drugs Set Up - scroll down & click on link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cbcVFSajOM



SOME MORE LINKS CRITIQUING OUR 'FINEST':



Bent Cops » An exposé of corruption and perversity in the New Zealand Police.


http://policewatch-nz.blogspot.com?

The Counties Manukau Police 'Dirty Tricks Brigade' in action once again!

THE 'THREE MONKEYS' , OR SHOULD THAT BE THE 3 STOOGES?


Police pressured into 'inaccurate' statements

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/print.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10384920

Sunday June 4, 2006 By Jane Phare

Senior police officers have been accused of pressuring a young constable to make "inaccurate" statements against his boss as part of a vendetta which ruined the careers of both men.

In a landmark decision, the Employment Court has allowed former Counties-Manukau Sergeant Mark Creedy to pursue a personal grievance case against police - despite the claim being well outside the usual 90-day filing period.

In 2001 Mr Creedy was found guilty of 31 internal disciplinary charges including disgraceful conduct, sexual harassment and pepper-spraying a fellow officer.

He quit the police in December that year under the Police Employment Rehabilitation Fund (Perf) scheme, citing stress, before police decided what disciplinary action to take.

Since then he has been battling police over his right to pursue a personal grievance, claiming he was forced out of the police as part of a long-standing vendetta against him. He claims his reputation and career as a policemen was destroyed and the stress ruined his long-term relationship at the time. He said he now wanted to get on with his life, get his job back and be awarded compensation.

The Employment Court found there were several reasons that warranted Mr Creedy being allowed to raise a personal grievance - including the fact there had been communication issues with his lawyer.

Mr Creedy claims to have affidavits from police officers saying they were pressured by senior staff to make incorrect statements about him.

He claimed one high-ranking police officer, who had a "meteoric rise through the ranks", told him "they came to me four times and put a very persuasive offer to me why I should give evidence against you".

Brett Stonyer, a former police constable, told the Herald on Sunday he was promised his "stripes" - promotion to sergeant - if he signed a statement against Mr Creedy.

When he expressed concern that the statement was not a fair account of what happened, he was pressured to sign. "I was too concerned about my career to see the wood from the trees."

Mr Stonyer, who is now a customer relations manager for an international bank, denied that he had gone as far as lying in his statement but said "you can lean the evidence to strengthen your case".

He claimed he was told to "push the boundaries of telling lies under oath and I wouldn't do it".

But what he did do was sign a statement that was misleading. "It was worded in such a way that implied a major sexual come-on, when in fact it was just mucking around.

"I tried to say to them that this was not right, that the whole place does it. But they told me to sign it."

The resulting statement, which Mr Stonyer now says was inaccurate and exaggerated, effectively helped to end Mr Creedy's career.

The statement incident followed an informal complaint by Mr Stonyer to his supervisor, about the level of violence used by police when apprehending offenders, and harassment of a young female constable which had got out of hand.

Yesterday Mr Stonyer said he despised the way the police had behaved and dealt with both the Creedy case and his own. Mr Stonyer eventually left the police in 2002 after he felt he could no longer do his job safely.

He alleges he was assaulted by a sergeant and other police for being a "snitch" and that staff would not work with him because they knew he would not be given backup in dangerous situations. Mr Stonyer has since taken his own personal grievance against the police and has settled out of court.

Mr Stonyer says he would like to return to the police but would not on principle.

"I could have been an asset to them but they chose to perform in this manner because they wanted to use me to get to another guy who they had issues with."

A spokesman from Police National Headquarters said police were not in a position to make comment while there was a case possibly pending.


UPDATE:

The matter has gone to the Court of Appeal as the Police have sought leave to appeal the earlier decision of the Employment Court. The Court of Appeal will re hear the matter in early 2007.

Latest:

Police ‘vendetta’ appeal aired in court

14 June 2007

A battle between police and a former sergeant who claimed he was forced out of the police in a vendetta has been heard by the Court of Appeal.

The Commissioner of Police was granted leave to appeal whether the actions of a police tribunal should be reviewed in a personal grievance hearing in the Employment Court.

The Court of Appeal is to determine whether the Employment Court’s conclusion as to “exceptional circumstances” was wrong in law.

In 2001, Mark Raymond Creedy was found guilty of 31 internal disciplinary charges including disgraceful conduct, sexual harrassment and pepper-spraying a fellow officer.

Crown lawyer Christina Inglis said 39 charges had initially been laid and considered by a tribunal inquiry set up under the Police Act.

The tribunal reported its findings to the commissioner who told Creedy he was considering dismissal and sought submissions.

Creedy, who had been a sworn member since 1989, quit the police in December 2001 under the Police Employment Rehabilitation Fund scheme before a decision to dismiss was made.

His lawyer at the time wrote to the commissioner in April 2001, before the tribunal hearing, intending to raise a grievance. The letter was insufficient to raise a grievance. This was due to an unreasonable failure on behalf of the lawyer, Ms Inglis said.

After discussions between Creedy and his lawyer, Creedy believed that enough had been done to raise an unjustified dismissal grievance into the future.

The lawyer thought Creedy was referring to a disadvantage grievance, relating to the disciplinary process to date.

No grievance of either type was raised during the 90 days specified in the Employment Relations Act, Ms Inglis said.

The tribunal decided whether the charges were proven. The commissioner, as the employer, decided whether it was suitable for the employee to remain in the police.

The crown said one of the issues on appeal was whether the definition of “personal grievance” was applicable. It said the term had restricted definition and must relate to an action of an employer.

Further, the test for exceptional circumstances was high and something more than a “mere misunderstanding”, such as that which occurred between Creedy and his lawyer, was required.

Creedy’s lawyer Alex Hope said his client was given permission by the Employment Court to raise his personal grievance outside of the 90 day period.

Regarding the discussions between Creedy and his then lawyer, the court held that it was an exceptional circumstance that Creedy and the lawyer “talked past each other” in the context of a high degree of reliance by Creedy on his barrister.

Mr Hope said the lawyer had come over from Australia to work solely on this case and was living with Creedy as a boarder.

The main issues included questioning whether a police tribunal inquiry was part of the commissioner’s investigation into allegations of misconduct, Mr Hope said.

Another issue was whether the court should give leave to the commissioner to pursue its appeal in respect of the “exceptional circumstance” issue.

Further, did the Employment Court apply the proper test to determine whether or not “exceptional circumstances”‘ existed such that the court could grant leave to raise a personal grievance out of time.

Justice William Young said the court would advise of its decision in writing at a later date.

More dodgy dealings from our boyz in blue: Click on the LINKS in green below:

Inspector Kerry Watson New Zealand Police

Constable Sharyn Sain-Tumataroa


UPDATE-SUPREME COURT DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF FORMER SERGEANT MARK CREEDY AND OVERTURNS COURT OF APPEAL DECISION:


Guilty officer can take grievance case
The Dominion Post | Monday, 12 November 2007

A policeman given a $190,000 payout despite being found guilty of 31 disciplinary charges - including sexual harassment and pepper-spraying a colleague - has won the right to continue a personal grievance case.

The Supreme Court has granted former sergeant Mark Creedy permission to appeal after a series of conflicting judgments in the lower courts.

Mr Creedy left the police in December 2001 with a $190,000 payment under the "perf" scheme - the police employment rehabilitation fund.

His resignation followed internal disciplinary proceedings in which he was found guilty on 31 of 39 charges.

Proven charges included asking a co-worker for sex, throwing a file at a colleague, and pepper-spraying a fellow officer.

Mr Creedy quit before disciplinary action was determined, but lodged a personal grievance against police nearly two years later, well outside the 90-day limit for such grievances.

The case moved through the courts, with the Employment Relations Authority refusing Mr Creedy leave to pursue the grievance, but the Employment Court later allowing it.

The Court of Appeal also denied leave to appeal, suggesting that Mr Creedy had not proved "exceptional circumstances" for the delay in launching the appeal, but the Supreme Court has now approved it.

Mr Creedy claimed he had not known about the 90-day requirement for the grievance because of miscommunication with his lawyer.

The Supreme Court ruling said the appeal could cover the Court of Appeal's judgment about "exceptional circumstances", as well as the Employment Court's jurisdiction to review internal police misconduct charges.

R.I.P