Tuesday, October 21, 2008

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.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Yeah Right!

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Dodgy Cops N.Z

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

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


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.


Bent Cops- An expose of Corruption & Perversity in the New Zealand Police










Sunday, June 04, 2006

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


Police pressured into 'inaccurate' statements


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.


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.


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


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.


Saturday, April 08, 2006


Wednesday, March 29, 2006

P.C.A- Performance Consistently Atrocious ?

Saturday, March 25, 2006

P.C.A- Performance Consistently Atrocious? doc 4

P.C.A- Performance Consistently Atrocious? doc 3

P.C.A- Performance Consistently Atrocious? doc 2

P.C.A- Performance Consistently Atrocious? doc 1


As anticipated, lies flowed freely from the rats mouth, the cornered rat squirming in anticipation of his fate.

The promise of the 'CLOWNS' -Crown Law protection evaporated swiftly as the sinking ship was scuttled.