A police officer who used his work issued iPhone to take grubby photos of a young, teenaged girl has been awarded name suppression, though he didn’t get the discharge without conviction he was hoping for.
The 48 year old man, who resigned from the Otago police shortly after his offending was discovered, took pictures of the young girl while she was showering.
During the trial
Prosecuting Sergeant Ian Collin said the defendant used his iPhone to film the victim in a shower.
He turned on video recording and placed the phone behind an object sitting on a shelf to conceal the handset.
The victim undressed, showered and was drying off when she spotted the phone. Realising video was recording, she played it back before deleting the file. She then raised the alarm.
Judge Coyle said the offending had cast suspicion on all serving members of the police in Central Otago but noted the man had resigned from his job.
“I cannot set aside that central to this is a young girl… whose life has been ripped apart because of the consequences of what you chose to do on that day in October.”
Lawyer Nic Soper said the effect of publishing the man’s name could be catastrophic. His client was attending sessions with a psychologist and he intended to apply for a discharge without conviction and final name suppression.
The defendant had earlier pleaded guilty to the charge, which arose after he used his police-issued iPhone to film a teenager showering. He was off duty at the time and resigned from the police soon after the charge was laid.
Appearing in the Alexandra District Court yesterday, the man was sentenced to nine months’ intensive supervision and 150 hours’ community work for what the judge described as “serious and premeditated” offending, involving a vulnerable victim…source
Police ‘definitely’ losing community respect (Otago Daily Times 12 Dec 2014)
A series of ”misconduct” events has eroded the community’s respect for Central Otago police, Mayor Tony Lepper said yesterday.
Mr Lepper said police would have to work hard to rebuild confidence after unprofessional conduct and alleged harassment by police involving two teenagers was highlighted this week.
Central Otago police were already in the spotlight as criminal charges were laid recently against two officers, arising from separate incidents…
A Central Otago police officer, who admitted making an intimate visual recording using a police-issued iPhone, appeared in the Alexandra District Court yesterday and was remanded to January 21.
The man, whose has interim name suppression, is seeking a discharge without conviction. He has resigned from the police.
Another Central Otago police officer has been charged with an assault at Cromwell and the case has been adjourned until January 19.
That police officer also has interim name suppression.
Comments left to the above article in the ODT:
Spot on Mayor LepperSubmitted by russandbev on Fri, 12/12/2014 – 12:29pm.
Mayor Lepper is correct in his views. The number of police in Central Otago that have been found to have acted at least inappropriately, or in some cases have been found to have acted unlawfully over recent years, is very disappointing. It is to be hoped that Senior Seargent Ian Kerrisk can break down the unhealthy culture adopted by those that have been exposed, or are yet to be exposed, and to engender a new working culture amongst those that have always done a good job.
Submitted by David 01 on Fri, 12/12/2014 – 9:20am.
As somone who has worked late night Dunedin for a long period of time the police do indeed have a tough jobs sometimes and I do praise the work they do.I have seen exemplary action taken by some officers but at others time less so.
The problem remains though that when the police step over the line of whats correct, little or no action is taken.
A lot of complaints are dismissed or seen as the “offender” trying to get away with it (because it seems to happen so much, geunine complaints get lost). Unless there is overwhelming evidence of a crime commited by officers (filmed) the complaint is usally dismissed.
Sometimes it gets to the point of conviction, but the officer is usally given a lesser sentence and thoughtout the years there have been many examples of this.
I have seen officers forceably restrain “offenders” who are co-opperating several times (in thier defence their may be a lot more to this than I know of from a public perspective), make drunken students clean up messes from spills with thier own clothing and goad drunken adults into fights.
I would like to know who these “overwhelming public responses” are because most pople I know and work with fear the police and any action they make take because in realilty they can get away with almost anything… as long as its not filmed.
Name and Shame
The Facebook page NZ Police Watch has threatened to name and shame the offender. People have already offered up two names, to which someone replied
Funny haha and i hope the cunt reads this .acussed me of heapsa shit i didnt do when i was younger woke up one morning to find him in my room looking for keys . acused me of being a criminal now look whos the crim . Karma got you fuck wit .
This shows the damage name suppression can do to innocent people. The Alexandra community already knows who this offender is, yet other men are having their names published in connection with his offending.
Is this about protecting his victim, or protecting the reputation of the police by preventing other victims from coming forward?
Disgraced drug squad boss Michael Blowers quit the police and lined himself up a lucrative ACC job when he was facing a police employment investigation.
Blowers landed an $80,000-plus-a-year job as an investigator for ACC just weeks before his arrest for stealing methamphetamine from secure police exhibit lockers and then selling the drug. As a Northland police sergeant he’d been earning between $76,236 and $103,144.
That deception meant that when he was arrested after just eight days’ work, ACC had to put him on leave on full pay for almost four months, landing Blowers about $30,000…
A Hamilton policeman has admitted stealing while on the job.
And it wasn’t just once that Keith Day, 60, helped himself – but three times.
Day admitted three charges of theft in Hamilton District Court last week.
The charges relate to offending between May 12, 2012 and September 3, 2014 with property valued at more than $1,000; and two charges – relating to stealing property worth between $500 and $1,000 – in two separate periods; September 30, 2013 and October 8, 2013 and August 23, 2013 and December 12, 2013…