Convicted Police

A police officer is facing dismissal after his conviction yesterday for drunk driving causing injury.

In Wellington District Court, Judge Geoff Ellis said no special reasons existed to justify discharging the officer without conviction, or avoiding disqualification.

Defence lawyer Des Deacon said police policy inevitably led to dismissal following a conviction for drunk driving.

Judge Ellis convicted him of causing injury while driving with almost twice the legally allowable blood alcohol level and careless driving causing injury.

On the first charge he was fined $1000 with $1000 emotional harm reparation, and on the other charge he was fined $500 with $500 emotional harm reparation.

The officer, with 17 years experience, had been suspended since being charged with the offences after the November 30 crash on State Highway 2 between Wellington and Lower Hutt.

He was driving an unmarked police car that rear-ended a Dial-A-Driver vehicle. The officer suffered a fractured cheekbone and eye socket, and two broken teeth. The other driver's nose was broken.

The officer had been drinking at a Wellington central police station Christmas party and had two ways of getting home without driving himself, the court was told.

The court was also told the officer was under a lot of stress for personal and professional reasons.

The officer said he had no memory of leaving the party or driving. Judge Ellis rejected a plea he had been acting as an automaton and had not consciously intended driving.

The judge thought it was more likely the officer drank too much when he was sleep deprived and suffering personal and work stress, and had an alcohol-induced blackout.

The court was told the officer had been working long hours and had accumulated more than 100 days' leave.

Judge Ellis said the loss of employment was a tragic consequence for an outstanding officer but that came from police policy not the court.

He also considered the impact on community perceptions if the court excused a police officer from the consequences of his behaviour

A businessman stopped on a drink-drive offence, asked the arresting officer to contact a detective of his acquaintance. Shortly thereafter, charges against the man were dropped in exchange for a $500 donation to the SPCA. The businessman then made the mistake of discussing this matter in a bar in the hearing of a senior police officer.

Wellington District Commander Gerry Cunneen said that one of his officers has either made a very grave error of judgement, or worse, has acted corruptly in contravention of his sworn duty. The businessman may face charges for having persuaded an officer from his sworn duty. The police officers involved, may also face corruption charges even though they did not benefit personally. An investigation is proceeding.

A great mystery
One of the great recent mysteries for the public this year has been why Wanganuis police district manager got himself into the position of losing his job, being convicted on 10 fraud charges, fined $10,000 and having to pay $4000 in costs.

For 60 years, there has been a convention in New Zealand not to name police officers involved in firearms incidents while on duty. However, the recent incident at Waitara saw the High Court rule that publication was allowed and the National Business Review, among others, published the officer's name.

The public both in New Zealand and Britain, by and large, appreciate that their police force are less intimidatory than most because they normally don't carry firearms.

I have drafted a private member's bill that would give police officers involved in firearms incidents while carrying out their duty, conditional name protection until a Police Complaints Authority investigation was completed.

In a small country like New Zealand, there is a risk that police officers or their families could be endangered by having their names published after incidents.

My interest arises from personal experience in the United States, where I was close to two police shootings. One involved a school headmaster using a walking stick. When he turned around on a footpath to observe two policemen who had hailed him, he was shot in the stomach.

The other incident involved an unarmed 18-year-old who was shot in the back while trying to evade his escort in the crowded x-ray room of a hospital at which I worked.

Both incidents were avoidable and unnecessary. These experiences left me with considerable respect for the conservative approach and extra risk taken by our unarmed police.

In the High Court ruling on the Waitara case (a plaintiff versus Wilson & Horton), it was stated: "There can be no right of privacy in respect of an action by a police officer in the course of his public duties in a public street." Therefore, the officer involved should not receive special protection. The High Court said the New Zealand Bill of Rights "had not seen fit to provide statutory limitation to the actions or omissions of police officers."

The police take on extraordinary risk in the course of duty and it is very much in the interest of the public to encourage them to take a conservative approach to firearm use.

In the relatively rare instances where firearms are used, natural justice dictates that the police and their families are not further penalised or endangered by having their names published - at least until the Police Complaints Authority has released its findings.

My proposed amendment to legislation does not represent a blanket escape clause for police. If a High Court judge determines that the public interest is best served by publishing the identity of a member of the police, name suppression would not apply.

It is important that the facts surrounding an incident are accurately reported after rigorous investigation. In that way, it is far less likely that a police officer or his family will be unfairly prejudiced in the heat and initial emotions that are generated at the time of a firearms incident.

Any judgment a police officer makes is subject to review by his or her superiors, external legal experts and by the courts, if necessary.

Police are armed with batons, pepper spray and, in some case, firearms. All use of force must be reported and accounted for. Use of deadly force, whether resulting in a fatality or not, is always investigated and is always subject to close scrutiny by more than one agency.

Extensive psychological research has concluded that being involved in the use of deadly force is one of the most psychologically traumatic events any police officer can experience. Officers involved will usually suffer prolonged post-traumatic stress disorder, require long-term counselling and continue to experience after-effects for their whole life.

There is almost always a public backlash when police use deadly force. Threats against police who have caused someone's death or injury are an inevitable occurrence.

If the officer's identity was publicised, there would be a real chance of retaliation against either the officer or their family by criminals with a grudge against police or by disgruntled members of the public, or by family or friends of the dead person.

If an officer's identity is publicly released in advance of a final decision on any criminal liability, it is probable that the officer will be forever associated with the event, however rightly and honourably the officer may have acted.

Recent events have shown that even if colleagues keep the officer's identity closed, the media can become aware of it through other means and will base the decision to publish on their own organisation's priority, not on the wellbeing of the officer.

There is no question whatsoever of providing any police officer with an ability to hide from the consequences of his or her action. It is simply a question of society affording a degree of peace of mind to police officers that they will not be subjected to a personal trial by media and public stigma, especially in advance of any conclusion about liability.

If it had been any normal law abiding citizen. they would have thrown the book at you!

One of the dubious daubs at the centre of the Paintergate scandal was destroyed before police announced yesterday that they would not charge the Prime Minister.

They ruled that Helen Clark committed forgery when she signed a painting someone else had created, but said prosecuting her was not in the public interest. - Complete Bullshit! Politicians and the Police Stuck together!

The police report also revealed that after the scandal became public, Labour Party member Simon Mitchell purchased the painting from Henricus van Dijk, who had bought it at the original auction in 1999 for $1000.

Mr Mitchell paid $5000 for the artwork and gave it to Helen Clark's Auckland executive assistant, Joan Caulfield.

Mrs Caulfield asked Helen Clark what she should do with the painting and was told to do whatever she liked. She and her husband burned the canvas on May 6, several weeks after the scandal became public.

In the investigation, police considered whether Mrs Caulfield, her husband and Mr Mitchell had attempted to obstruct justice by obtaining and destroying the painting but found that there was insufficient evidence to charge them.

"It might be argued that these three could or should have known of the possibility of the police investigation," said the report.

"They appear to have been motivated by a desire to get the painting out of the possession or control of Mr van Dijk, whom they saw as generating negative publicity."

A spokesman for Helen Clark said she had not been aware that the painting had been destroyed.

It took police more than two months to decide whether to charge the Prime Minister over the Paintergate scandal, which erupted in April when it was revealed that she had signed a painting by a Paraparaumu artist and passed it off as her own.

The painting was given to the charity Save Animals from Exploitation in 1999, when Helen Clark was Leader of the Opposition, for a celebrity auction, where it sold for $1000.

At a press conference in Wellington yesterday, Police Commissioner Rob Robinson revealed that he had decided against prosecution, although the officer who investigated had established that a prima facie case of forgery could be made against Helen Clark.

Under the Crimes Act 1961, forgery carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

Mr Robinson said police had also found the same charge, plus another for the "uttering of a forged document", could be laid against Dawn Bush, a former staff member who commissioned the painting for Helen Clark.

But Mr Robinson said it was not in the public interest to charge the two women because their offending was at the lower end of the scale, they were motivated by a desire to assist a charity, had made no personal gain and did not realise the significance of their actions.

It was also likely that if they had been charged, the court would have discharged them without conviction.

Mr Robinson said he made his decision after being "strongly counselled" against prosecution by the Solicitor-General.

The Police Commissioner refused to answer questions about his decision yesterday, including how much the investigation cost.

The Prime Minister told reporters on the campaign trail in Hamilton that she was pleased the matter was at an end.

"The police have done their job as they see it. I've apologised in the past for an error of judgment."

Helen Clark said she did not believe the issue of the painting or the release of the police report had damaged Labour's election chances.

"Absolutely not. I have found the general public is extremely understanding on this and understanding of the fact that all I ever sought to do was help a charity."

National Party leader Bill English said the investigation was thorough and objective and he accepted the decision not to prosecute.

But he said if Helen Clark had taken responsibility for her actions and apologised when the concerns were first revealed, it would not have become such a big issue.

Act leader Richard Prebble said the police decision would leave the public wondering whether there was one law for Prime Ministers and another for everyone else.

But Helen Clark said this was "certainly not" the case - police often used their discretion not to prosecute.

The Wellington anaesthetist who complained to the police about Helen Clark told the Weekend Herald he was satisfied his concerns had been dealt with. Graham Sharpe wrote a letter of complaint on April 17 because he was concerned that the Prime Minister was attempting to brush off the concerns about her behaviour. Yesterday, he said he was not surprised at the decision not to prosecute.

In his letter, Dr Sharpe asked police to establish whether an offence had been committed and whether Helen Clark should be prosecuted.

Both questions had been answered in a thorough and complete investigation, he said.

Dr Sharpe said he did not regret laying the complaint, but he had not been prepared for the reaction it had generated.

Lauren Fouhy, the ghost artist behind the painting, is relieved at the decision, but distraught that her work has been destroyed.

"The decision is the obvious thing to have happen. I guess it will still jump up and bite her on the campaign trail, but at least she won't have a criminal record from it.

"I'm just cut to the quick that my beautiful, beautiful painting has been destroyed."

Dawn Bush, the former member of Helen Clark's staff who commissioned the artwork, wants to put the issue behind her, but said she was happy with what she called the best outcome.

A police officer wept uncontrollably in the High Court at Auckland last night as a jury found him not guilty of sexually violating a brain-damaged former neighbour but guilty of assaulting her.

Andrew Richard Barlow, 31, a rookie police constable portrayed during the trial as a Jekyll and Hyde character who had the victim "in his sights", burst into tears when the guilty verdict was read. The jury deliberated for seven hours.

Barlow was cleared of sexually violating and sexually assaulting the 47-year-old woman, who lived in the flat upstairs from the St Johns home he shared with his wife, Sabina, and their two children.

Justice John Priestly remanded him on bail to his new home in Mt Maunganui, and he will be sentenced next month.

Sobbing loudly, Barlow was led from the dock to the public gallery, where his wife and other family members hugged him.

Last night his lawyers, Peter Kaye and Roger Chambers, said the outpouring reflected the incredible strain he had been under since his arrest in January.

The Police Commissioner would decide whether Barlow, who has been suspended on full pay since the incident last December 28, could stay in the police. NOTE: If he allowed to stay in the Police Force. True corruption will be known!

Barlow, who grew up in Samoa, was previously a woodturner and joined the police in 1998.

The victim, who has had two aneurisms removed from her brain and suffered head injuries in a motor accident in 1998, suffered a mild seizure while giving her evidence.

She became progressively fatigued and her language became fractured and confused as she spoke of the alleged attack.

The court heard that the woman moved into the unit in October last year. Barlow considered her a friend; she said she felt uncomfortable because he was always turning up unannounced and turning the conversation to sex.

She said Barlow talked about sex toys, sex acts he had seen while working as a police officer, and even described how he had once had sex with a burglary complainant.

She said Barlow seemed sympathetic about her head injuries, saying he had an uncle who had suffered brain damage after an assault.

The Weekend Herald understands he was referring to John Timmins, the Auckland lawyer bashed and left for dead in an Onehunga industrial estate in 2000.

The woman told the court that on the evening of December 28, after she had gone to bed, Barlow came to her flat. She said he began giving her a massage despite her pleas to stop, made her lie on a bed and fondled her breasts. She said she tried to run but Barlow chased her, pinned her to a wall and sexually violated her with his finger.

Barlow said the woman had asked him and his wife up for a Christmas drink. His wife went out clubbing with a friend, he said, so he went upstairs to tell the woman they would not be coming over.

She invited him inside, offered him a drink and told him she had broken up with her "bastard" boyfriend.

Barlow said she complained of a sore neck and shoulders and accepted his offer of a massage.

Barlow said she allowed him to fondle her breasts and then performed oral sex on him. He denied pinning her against the wall and violating her.

Barlow said he felt so disgusted at having cheated on his wife that he went downstairs and vomited.

Mr Kaye said he was guilty of nothing more than stupidity and gross indiscretion.

The morning after the incident, the victim called her sister and told her of the alleged attack, worrying that nobody would believe her over a police officer.

A police officer facing sex charges involving a brain-damaged woman was guilty of nothing more that stupidity and gross indiscretion, his lawyer told a jury in the High Court at Auckland yesterday.

Peter Kaye said that the 31-year-old constable, who is accused of molesting a 47-year-old woman neighbour, was not a sexual predator.

But in his closing address, prosecutor Roy Wade said that the constable, who has been suspended from duty, had the woman "in his sights" and took his opportunity when his wife went out for the evening.

Two defence witnesses gave the jury glowing references for the officer yesterday, but Mr Wade described him as a Jeckyll and Hyde character.

"They have only seen the good side ... Even on his own evidence there is a more sinister side to his character."

The accused had previously spoken to the woman - who he said was almost old enough to be his mother - about sex toys and sex.

Mr Wade said that was something of which some members of his family still remained ignorant.

The prosecutor labelled the officer a hypocrite who told his wife what had happened only when the game was up.

The morning after the incident, he castigated his wife for going clubbing with friends in Karangahape Rd until the early hours, rather than telling her he had done something shameful.

The complainant, despite initially fearing she would not be believed because the accused was a police officer and she had brain damage, went to court regardless of the stress and risks to her health.

The jurors had seen the woman for themselves. It was not possible that the officer did not know of her problems, Mr Wade said.

The defendant claimed the woman said he was a "hunk, a spunk and had a beautiful body" but the woman said that was "not my lingo".

If the accused had made up that phrase, Mr Wade said, that might help the jurors with their deliberations.

The officer denies charges of digital penetration, indecent assault and male assaults female.

He says she invited him into her flat, said she had broken up with her "bastard" boyfriend and offered him a drink.

She complained of a sore neck and shoulders and accepted his offer of a massage.

The officer claims that she allowed him to fondle her breasts and then performed oral sex on him.

She told the jury that she tried to run away but the officer pinned her against a wall and assaulted her.

The trial continues today with the final address by the defence and Justice John Priestley's summing-up.

A brain-damaged woman who claims she was sexually abused by an off-duty police officer told a jury yesterday how she tried to escape.

The 47-year-old woman said that the officer, who lived nearby, made her lie on her bed and he then started massaging her before fondling her breasts.

In often-disjointed language because of her brain injury, the woman told the High Court at Auckland how she rolled off the bed and attempted to run away.

But she said the constable caught her, pinned her against a wall and sexually violated her.

The 31-year-old constable, who has been stood down from duty, faces charges of unlawful sexual connection, indecent assault and male assaults female.

The woman said she had been woken by the officer knocking at the door around 8pm last December 28 after she had gone to bed, having taken various medications and after drinking two or three glasses of wine.

She told the court that the officer had often made sexual comments to her, including remarks about her underwear, so she stopped hanging her lingerie on the washing line.

In his statement to Detective Sergeant Gordon Crawley, the officer claimed that the woman had invited him up for Christmas drinks.

During the massage, he said, the woman allowed him to touch her breasts and then performed oral sex on him.

The officer denied an allegation by Mr Crawley during the interview that he had taken advantage of the woman's head injury.

Cross-examination of the woman by the officer's lawyer, Peter Kaye, was adjourned until today after she complained of feeling tired and fatigued.

A Hamilton police officer who allegedly choked a teenage boy in a stranglehold, will stand trial on assault charges next year.

Constable Ngaoire Glassie, a youth aid officer who has been in the police for seven years, appeared in the Hamilton District Court yesterday for a depositions hearing.

He is charged with assaulting a 15-year-old Fairfield High School student after an incident at Te Kooti Park in July.

The hearing lasted less than three minutes, as all evidence was handed in written form to the court.

In his statement to police, the student said he was in the park with friends when they heard a lady swearing at a some children.

One of the boys in the group yelled out at the woman and everyone laughed. About 10 minutes later they were confronted by an off-duty Glassie, who wanted to know "which one of you spoons swore at my wife".

Glassie's wife then appeared and identified the youth as the culprit, but the youth denied it.

Glassie produced his police badge and, when the youth kept denying it was him who swore, said "If you want to act like a punk I'll treat you like a punk."

The youth said the officer grabbed his left arm and twisted it behind his back until it reached his right shoulder. Glassie then allegedly grabbed the teenager around the throat with one hand.

"He put pressure on either side of my throat with his fingers and started to choke me. He lifted me off the ground as he choked me."

Afterwards the youth said he went to his grandmother's home. They then went to Glassie's home but the officer refused to give his badge number.

The youth was then taken to the hospital by his grandmother where a doctor discovered "a mottled appearance to the left arm and hand with slight swelling".

The teenager also experienced decreased sensation and reduced muscle power in an arm, a problem which continued for two months.

In his statement to the police Glassie said he did grab the youth's wrist and apply a wrist lock, but he did not put him in a stranglehold or use excessive force.

"I did not think that his arm was excessively forced up his back. I have used this hold ... numerous times."

Glassie said he went to the park, which backs on to his home, after hearing someone swearing at his wife.

He identifying himself as a police officer and warned the youth that he "could be arrested for using offensive language".

When the youth would not give his name and turned away Glassie grabbed his wrist.

It was one of the ugliest incidents of the 1981 Springbok tour. Twenty years on EUGENE BINGHAM investigates the bashing of three protesting clowns and why police closed ranks over the incident. An ambulance officer attending to one of the clowns assaulted by NZ Police

Former police inspector Tyrone Laurenson wants to talk about the best-kept secret in the police.

In 1981, he was a sergeant in the police Red Squad when three Springbok tour demonstrators dressed as clowns were bashed, one left unconscious, in one of the most notorious events of an explosive period.

Laurenson, now registrar at the National University of Samoa in Apia, is ready to speak out about an incident of police brutality that has left lasting scars for the accusers and the accused.

"I was clearly one of the suspects - they were looking for a male Polynesian, six foot tall, slim build, and I fitted the bill," Laurenson says of the incident on the day of the last All Black test in Auckland.

"But I didn't have a fat clue what the hell they were talking about at the time. I really didn't know what they were talking about. I said to them at the time, 'I was facing thousands of people who were throwing rocks ... and you expect me to be looking for people dressed as clowns?' "

Like others who served in the notorious squad during the 1981 rugby tour, Laurenson is adamant he has no idea who was responsible for bashing the clowns.

"Having been the focus of that inquiry ... I've wracked my brain and wracked my brain.

"If it is [the Red Squad] it would have to be the best-kept secret in the police. Policemen are notorious for rumours and in this particular instance, there has not been one scrap of information that I've ever, ever heard."

During a two-month investigation into the clowns incident, the Weekend Herald has tracked down former police officers, the man who led a gruelling internal inquiry into the assaults, one of the clowns themselves, and a witness to the events that afternoon in Dominion Rd.

What have emerged are some frank admissions about the lengths to which the squad went to avoid one of their number being singled out. In the face of a top-level internal police inquiry, they clammed up, denying all knowledge of the incident. To this day, they have never deviated from that denial.

Some would say the strategy has worked: the identity of the culprits remains a mystery. But the incident has had a long-lasting effect on everyone involved.

September 12, 1981, had some of the most violent civil unrest the country had ever been through. On the streets around Eden Park, the protest escalated into a riot. Late in the day, police had begun to restore order, particularly through the use of its crack Red and Blue Squads, specially trained for the tour protests. The Red Squad had been involved in a series of charges along Onslow Rd, where some of the worst violence raged.

In a tactical move designed to whip around behind the mob, members of Red Squad peeled off after one charge and ducked through properties that eventually took them on to Dominion Rd. They reformed in skirmish lines and marched down the road with their backs to the central city.

It was in this stretch that the clowns incident happened. Standing on Dominion Rd that afternoon, journalist Pekka Paavonpera saw several policemen break away from their group.

"They came running towards me and I thought, shit, this is going to be me. Then they saw these clowns and something set them off, so they headed for the clowns."

Throughout the day, a group of 11 protesters, mostly students, lurked around the fringes of the confrontations dressed in costumes. Most were clowns, others were bumblebees. Some handed out flowers and lollies to police and protesters, others brandished french bread sticks and staged mock battles using the baguettes as batons.

Their presence, says one of the clowns, was supposed to be peaceful. "We wanted to present a different face from your standard protester who had a crash helmet and a baseball bat ... [we wanted] to defuse tensions."

Whatever their intent, three of the clowns, two men and a woman, had become isolated from the rest of the group and were standing on the side of Dominion Rd by a hedge when three policemen rounded on them.

Paavonpera, who was covering the tour for the now-defunct New Zealand Times newspaper, watched as the policemen loomed over the clowns. The police were dressed in their greatcoats and wore full-face helmets. No identification badges were evident. They drew out their batons.

"They were vicious, raining blows all over them. The girl, she was on the ground and they just kept going. I ran over ... and yelled out, 'Stop it, for fuck's sake, stop it.'

"One of the [police] turned around and I shoved my press card forward but he took a swing at me and missed. The other two just kept beating," says Paavonpera. "I was convinced the girl was dead. I thought they had busted her neck.

"I went over to the [police] line and grabbed the most senior-looking guy and took him over to the girl. I pointed out the guys who had done it and he just dismissed me."

Lying on the ground, the three clowns had bruising around their torsos. The woman was lying unconscious. As the three policemen rejoined their colleagues, medics began treating the clowns while witnesses milled around, shocked by what they had seen.

Over the next few years, the witnesses would be called to repeatedly describe what they had seen . As well as the intense media interest the case attracted over the following months, the incident was the subject of a formal police inquiry that would last until March, 1982. It would also lead to a civil trial where the clowns sued the police department for exemplary damages.

Presiding over the 1984 trial, which led to a $10,000 payout to each of the clowns, Justice Prichard said there had been numerous and serious discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts of what had taken place.

"But in one respect, they all spoke with one voice," Justice Prichard said in his summing up. "They all said it was a brutal attack in which repeated blows were rained on the helpless victims, whether or not, as some said, they were stamped on as they lay on the ground."

Appalled by what he had seen, Paavonpera, who moved to Australia in 1984 partly because of the tour, was determined to identify the attackers. "I thought it summed up the whole tour: big burly policemen beating up clowns. I wanted to be so sure about identifying these guys because it was so cowardly.

"I had hypnosis to refresh my recall and it worked because the faces became much more vivid than they had been. But when you had several people looking the same, you couldn't make a positive ID."

He attended two identity parades but found "there was a lineup of clones. It was virtually impossible to pick them out."

The clowns were also desperate to identify the attackers. These days, they have all moved on. The one who attracted most publicity, Jacques Munroe, moved to Australia soon afterward. The other two still live in Auckland. One spoke to the Weekend Herald on condition of anonymity. He has established a professional career and would not want the events of 20 years ago to jeopardise anything.

"There was a high degree of concern and frustration that at least [some] of the police knew who was responsible - probably the commander of the day knew," says the clown.

Like the other two, he was subjected to abuse and intimidation during the investigation. But time has softened some of his feelings towards the police.

"At the time, we all lost faith in the justice system, but I guess in hindsight we realised that the police were caught between a rock and a hard place. While some of the riot police appeared to want to almost be making the most of their last attempt to enforce law and order, the bulk of them were just doing their job."

Of the police who attacked them, the clown's view remains strong. "Given that these guys appeared to show some propensity to punish what were obviously non-violent protesters, I would be concerned if they were put into a position of power. They went beyond the call of duty and for that reason alone, I would be concerned if they were at the front line of a protest."

Perhaps oddly, however, the clown does not feel any strong need for the attackers to be publicly identified. "I would be comfortable if the police commissioner indicated by way of apology that these particular cops would not be involved in that type of work again. I don't think there is necessarily a public need for them to be identified publicly."

Former chief superintendent Jim Morgan had the difficult job of leading the police inquiry into the clowns' complaints. Long since retired, Morgan looks back on his career with pride. But the memories of two major cases still make him uneasy.

In 1979, Morgan led the police team that had the gruesome task of identifying the victims of the Mt Erebus disaster. Two years later, he was in charge of investigating Springbok tour complaints against police in the north of the North Island.

"Of those two incidents, if I had to go through one of them again, I would pick the Erebus disaster."

Morgan, who held the rank of chief inspector at the time, says he was caught in heavy crossfire between public and police expectations. "The job was difficult in that a lot of members of the protest movement who were complaining were anti-police." Then on the other side: "Any police officer who had the task of investigating a fellow officer relative to a complaint in those days, well, you were outside the pale."

Morgan vividly recalls the day he was told that he would be involved in the investigations. After pondering, "Why me?" he resolved that he would conduct the inquiries rigorously. "It had to be done properly because, in the end, the reputation of the police was at stake."

Of all the investigations, the clowns incident would prove the toughest, not least because the complaint had been made against the Red Squad which had been given the job of engaging in some of the roughest confrontations of the tour.

"I made it quite clear that I would not condone any wink, wink, nod, nod." This had been the attitude up until then, says Morgan. But the clowns incident was a circuit-breaker because of the level of apparently undue violence against a group of benign protesters.

Morgan says the squad closed ranks quickly, making his investigation incredibly difficult. He emphasises, however, there was no obstruction.

"The squad exercised their legal right which existed at that time, but they put nothing in my way. There was not, from my perspective, any conjuring up of stories."

Initially, the squad refused to take part in any identification parades, so Morgan took the bold step of calling for a meeting with them at the Auckland central police station. During the meeting one member of the squad was doing all the talking - senior sergeant Ross Meurant.

Meurant told Morgan the squad members had a right to silence. "I used the cliche that you can't fight city hall. Politicians were starting to adopt changes of attitudes because of it and don't forget that there was an election coming up. Certainly, a strong core of senior police officers and rank-and-file were changing their attitudes to the Red Squad because of this investigation."

Faced with the squad's refusal to line up in an identity parade - for now at least - Morgan switched tactics. In a move that still rankles with Red Squad members, Morgan had one of the clowns escorted to a position overlooking the meeting. Unbeknown to the squad, the clown was there in a secret attempt to spot the culprits. After some time, however, he was spotted and some squad members placed towels over their heads as they left the building.

Early in 1982, the squad was ordered to take part in another informal identification parade, this time a run around the Auckland waterfront. Squad members were ordered to run in pairs, 10m apart for an hour. Clowns and other witnesses were at strategic positions along the route. The attempt to identify police, however, turned into a farce. Colleagues joined in the run, surrounding the Red Squad members.

Laurenson admits the whole thing became a joke. "Unbeknown to the investigation team, everyone in the police got to know about it so we were joined by squads, Otahuhu police, my police rugby league team, every man and his dog joined in," says Laurenson. "You would dive in the bushes to get changed and dive out again just to be ... well, if they were going to get smart, we would too. We thought, 'Since when are people ordered to take part in an identification parade?' "

Eventually, the squad agreed to take part in formal identification parades, but no one was singled out.

Morgan says in the end, the investigation could not be taken any further. "All we had was the evidence of the clowns. We had no evidence of identity. You needed some forensic evidence, you needed an eye witness or statement of admission or you needed some corroboration, and we had none of that.

"Had we had any evidence, we would have taken the course that we normally took and recommended either a warning or prosecution. Probably more likely a prosecution, because the situation was such that [a court] was the forum it should have been decided in."

While he believes that people within the squad would have firm beliefs as to who probably carried out the assault, Morgan accepts that whoever did it may not even know they had done it. "We did investigate other incidents, equally serious, where the police had no recollection of what happened."

There was, after all, a riot on. It was a tumultuous situation, summed up by Justice Prichard at the civil trial. "These were young men who had been subjected to several hours of nervous tension, and no doubt, real fear. And they had responded, as those films amply demonstrate, with disciplined courage. They were tired to the point of exhaustion, both physically and mentally."

Morgan says that generally during the tour protests, police discipline held. But he believes the Red Squad had begun to assume a life of its own. The clowns incident brought things back into perspective.

"The lack of co-operation relating to a serious complaint by what I would refer to as benign or inoffensive protesters did not do their professional reputations any good."

He has no doubt the Red Squad were responsible. "They were the only organised group on the streets. The clowns had enough recall to be able to describe an organised group of police officers coming down Dominion Rd.

"We had no evidence against any individual members of the Red Squad but we had opportunity, location, to a degree motivation - and if it wasn't one of them, then their stance relating to the inquiry is difficult to explain."

Early in the planning for the tour, police administrators decided to set up two groups of specially trained officers who would accompany the Springboks around the country. One, called the Blue Squad, was drawn from the ranks in Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.

Red Squad members came from Whangarei and Auckland and were led by Inspector Phil Keber. Of the two groups, this squad gained the most notoriety, partly because one of its two senior sergeants, Meurant, wrote a book about the experience and achieved prominence as an MP and, later, a local body politician.

These days, the Red Squad members have been scattered around the country and the Pacific. Keber, who is a manager at the Sky City Casino, politely declined to be interviewed for this story. Meurant spoke about the clowns incident, but said the Weekend Herald would be better off talking to other members of the squad.

However, he did comment on the way the squad was treated. "The rules that police have to follow in dealing with offenders were not always followed by senior police who were investigating the incident," he says.

Pressed about who he thought was responsible for the assault, Meurant says: "To the best of my knowledge, it was not Red Squad."

Others are even stronger. Paul Lacey, a sergeant in the squad who now runs a business in the Hawkes Bay, does not even believe the incident happened, let alone that the Red Squad was involved.

"In my mind, I know it didn't happen, but how do you prove a negative? I'm pretty sure it didn't happen. I'd be very surprised if in fact it happened. I think they're lying."

On the day itself, Lacey doesn't think he was even in the vicinity of the incident. But the reason he says he can be so sure that no one else in the Red Squad was responsible is that there has never been a whisper about it in 20 years.

"We shared everything. We had only each other to unload on to and if anything happened, we would have a few beers and have a yack about it. I am absolutely certain in my mind that nobody in the Red Squad assaulted the clowns."

Talking to Lacey, it becomes evident that he, like others, felt victimised throughout the internal investigation.

In the days immediately after the tour ended, the squad felt a sense of pride in the job they had done. In their minds, they felt they had seen off a threat of wide-scale civil unrest. To then be subjected to the investigation brought about by the clowns left them feeling betrayed. "We were devastated, to tell the truth," says Lacey.

At the time, Lacey led a controversial approach the Ombudsman to request an investigation into the investigation. The Ombudsman ultimately decided not to become involved, but Lacey believes it was worth it.

"We regained a little bit of credibility. We found that we had taken a step forward."

Lacey is not alone in contesting the clowns' version of events. Tim Carter, who was a Red Squad constable, says the clowns were not as passive as they would make out.

Carter, who has been out of the police for nine years, says he saw at least one of the people dressed as clowns throwing a rock at the Red Squad. And he admits that he used his baton to push one of them to the ground. Thanks to a rock that hit him in the foot, breaking several bones, Carter spent the last part of that September day hobbling along behind the rest of the squad.

"I saw our guys who had gone through and they [the clowns] were still fine. A couple of them started picking up rocks and chucking them. I yelled out for one of them to cut it out and one of them picked up a rock and was about to biff it."

Carter drew his baton and pushed it across the clown's chest. "It was not a swing of the baton or anything. I did it to look after the guys. I just kept going because I didn't want to get isolated."

During the investigation, the police concluded that the encounter described by Carter was a completely different incident. Carter is unsure where his encounter happened, but from his point of view, it demonstrates that all the events of that day need to be looked at within the context.

"I think our squad became the target of any allegations. In the heat of the moment, there were things done that we're probably not proud of but things had to be done."

Back in Samoa, Laurenson remembers the ugliness of the riots and the utter unpleasantness of being under investigation. He recalls feeling the pressure come on him after a holiday on the Gold Coast in December 1981.

"I was walking back through customs and there was a big [newspaper] billboard saying, 'Suspects identified'. I got home and about 10 minutes later, I got a phone call and I thought, 'Here we go'."

The formal identification parades were among the lowest points of his career. "I was dressed up in this uniform that I was once really proud of and I thought, 'Jesus, I'm wearing it so I can get picked out by some arsehole and get charged with assault.' I happened to be the last of the suspects to be paraded out. I came out of the building and went to walk up on the ramp and there were two of my typists out there crying ... it was like going to the gallows."

Laurenson says he was questioned over the next three years, including on one strange occasion during the 1984 civil trial.

"In the middle of the night ... I was called up to the Crown Solicitor's office by some high-ranking officers. They took us up to be interviewed and they said maybe I should be saying some things the next day as a witness that I hadn't said during the investigation. "I said, 'I'm not changing my story now - I never will.' They said, 'If you don't, we'll lose the case.' I thought, 'Not my problem, see ya.' They lost the civil case."

Asked if he thought he was being pressured into confessing to the assault or that he had seen it, Laurenson says: "By saying that I would have made myself to look an absolute liar for the previous three years and I thought, 'Get real'."

As for who did baton the clowns, Laurenson agrees that it is a possibility whoever it was may not even recall the incident - one of his fellow sergeants cannot remember one whole street of battle. But he is adamant that there is not even a possibility it was him and he does not remember.

"No. I can remember going down Dominion Rd and I can remember taking a shot at one person - he was not a clown. I saw him about to launch rocks, so I used my baton, whacked him and he fell back into the hedge.

"I looked back at him to make sure he wasn't going to whack me and kept running down the hill. I would have known if I had seen three people dressed [as clowns] in that short space of time. I didn't see them."

Out of everything that happened 20 years ago, there are some positives to be drawn, even for Laurenson. From a personal perspective, he became more involved in police union business, which he believes helped him win promotion through the ranks. He rose to the rank of inspector before leaving in 1997 alleging racism within the police.

The other positive aspect, he says, was the development of the Police Complaints Authority. The man who led the inquiry into the clowns incident, Morgan, agrees.

Over the past 20 years, the characters in the incident have bumped into each other in some strange circumstances. Paavonpera, the eyewitness, for example, jumped into a Sydney taxi one day a few years back and recognised the driver. "It was one of the clowns, Jacques Munroe," says Paavonpera.

Laurenson was reunited with Morgan after the tour, and it was no coincidence - as commander of the police college in Trentham, Morgan asked for Laurenson to be transferred there as an instructor. Laurenson says Morgan quickly made it clear there were no hard feelings.

"He said, 'You had a job to do in 1981 and it was unpleasant. So did I. Let's get on together and do our job where we are now.' Any pent-up frustration just went," says Laurenson.

"If I came face to face with the clowns, I wouldn't punch their lights out or anything. I'd say, 'Ah, you're the guys who complained.' But the memories of what went on, how it went on, are very, very strong."

37-year-old Mangakino Senior Constable Colin McLean, trialed for rape and assault

Former Mangakino police officer Colin McLean is negotiating a settlement with the police seven months after he was acquitted of rape following a trial.

In April, a jury in the High Court at Rotorua found Mr McLean not guilty of raping a woman at Tokoroa on December 12, 1997, and of assaulting her at Mangakino on February 7, 1998.

Mr McLean was originally found guilty last year and sentenced to five years in prison. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial.

The court was told Mr McLean's convictions should be overturned because the jury at his first trial became aware of a previous rape charge against him.

He was dismissed from the police when he was found guilty at the first trial and has never been reinstated. He is believed to be living in Tokoroa.

Mr McLean's lawyer, Murray McKechnie, said Mr McLean was negotiating a comprehensive settlement with the police but both parties had agreed not to talk about the negotiations until there was a result.

Last week the Solicitor-General took a contempt of court case against the New Zealand Woman's Weekly over a story it published which asserted Mr McLean's innocence of the charge.

The article was published in November last year, a month before Mr McLean was due to stand trial.

Last week's contempt of court case was heard before Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and Justice David Morris in the High Court at Auckland.

Mr McKechnie described the latest case as a "storm in a teacup" and said it would not affect Mr McLean in any way.

"All that story did was cause the trial to be put back a few weeks or, in fact, three months."

Also convicted a Rotorua Constable Wiki Waru, who took $595 from a tourist's wallet that had been handed in .

A "scumbag" rapist policeman will stay on the police payroll as long as his case remains before the courts, Police Minister George Hawkins has confirmed.

But, he said yesterday, Police Commissioner Rob Robinson would dismiss Mangakino policeman Senior Constable Colin McLean.

National police spokesman Tony Ryall questioned yesterday why McLean was continuing to receive his $1000-a-week salary while in jail after being convicted of rape. He is yet to be sentenced.

"How many tens of thousands of dollars of scarce police funding will continue to be paid into this convicted rapist's bank account while his victim receives nothing?"

Police had had at least 17 months to prepare for McLean's conviction and "a swift dismissal following conviction on April 3 should have been planned," he said.

Mr Hawkins said police dismissed officers with serious convictions but had to follow procedures.

He rejected Mr Ryall's objections, telling Parliament police were operating under "the same Police Act and employment conditions as the previous National Government tolerated and supported for nine years."

Mr Hawkins said he had asked Mr Robinson to look urgently at the system with a view to making changes.

"This Government believes that police officers in jail should not get paid. There's no way I'm going to tolerate that.

"There will be amendments to the Police Act and, if necessary, conditions of employment," Mr Hawkins said.

He was looking at an Australian system where police officers could be sacked if the Police Commissioner lost confidence in them.

"As soon as I get the information from the commissioner, we will move as quickly as possible."

Mr Hawkins confirmed McLean would be paid for "as long as it takes" for his case to go through the system.

A police spokesman said it was standard practice for an officer facing serious crimes to be stood down on full pay while his or her case went through the courts, including any appeals.

Mr Ryall suggested McLean would almost certainly appeal against his conviction but Mr Hawkins doubted this.

The minister also said McLean's victim had contacted his office and was satisfied with the action being taken.

Mr Robinson is also looking at provisions of the Police Employment Rehabilitation Fund (Perf) after McLean applied to leave the force under the scheme.

Mr Hawkins said he did not believe police officers convicted of serious crimes should be entitled to the benefits of that fund and he doubted McLean's application to Perf would be granted.

The Government was moving to ensure the Perf scheme was not misused by "a scumbag like McLean," he said.

Police media relations manager Jon Neilson said Perf was essentially a superannuation scheme and McLean, like any officer, would at least be eligible for his own contribution.

McLean, 37, was convicted of rape and assaulting a woman in 1997. He was found not guilty of rape and assault in a separate High Court case in Rotorua last month.

If his application to Perf were successful he could get about $300,000 for his 15 years' service - $200,000 paid by the taxpayer in the two-for-one subsidised scheme.

A judge has criticised the actions of two Whangarei police officers after they "misused" the court process, and in a rare move has ordered police to repay the Courts Department almost $5000.

It is yet another criticism of the Whangarei police, after a similar case this year where another judge threw charges out after police breached correct procedure.

Whangerei police have previously been accused of using excessive force, which prompted Police Commissioner Rob Robinson to order an inquiry.

However, the outcome of that inquiry - Operation Whangarei - has yet to be released and police have refused to speak about its progress.

The District Commander, Superintendent Viv Rickard, has ordered an inquiry into this week's case.

The aggravated robbery case was thrown out of the Whangarei Youth Court after Judge Heather Simpson ruled police had illegally questioned and interviewed the youth charged with the robbery.

They had also kept secret from the youth's court-appointed advocate that they asked the victim to identify the teenager through a peep hole in the door of a police cell.

Judge Simpson said the court process had been misused, saying the case "has involved unnecessary expenditure by the taxpayers to meet legal fees".

She ordered the Whangerei police to repay the Courts Department the $4750 it had paid the youth advocate, Kim Cohen.

The judge has jurisdiction to order such payments under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act but said it "is very rarely exercised".

Auckland Criminal Bar Association president Geoff Wells said that in his 25 years of youth court experience he had "never heard of anything like it".

The judge's criticism was aimed at the actions of Constable Mike Metcalfe, who stopped a 16-year-old on the streets of central Whangarei in February.

Mr Metcalfe drove the youth to the police station for questioning without explaining to him his rights, and he did not call the teenager's guardians immediately after arriving at the station.

Mr Metcalfe then began interrogating the teenager without further cautioning him of his rights and without offering him the chance to nominate someone to be present during the police interview.

Judge Simpson said Mr Metcalfe's actions were unlawful because they broke the rules of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act.

She also criticised Constable Turi Fricker, who had asked the victim to identify the alleged offender in a police cell through a peep hole in the door instead of in a police line-up.

Mr Fricker did not tell the accused's lawyer that he used this form of identification.

"In this case, there were no other witnesses, there was no admissible statement from [the youth] ... the charge should not have been laid," Judge Simpson said.

Ms Cohen said she wrote to the police after the depositions hearing, warning them of the problems with the case before it was heard in court.

A police prosecutor told her someone further up the police hierarchy had given the case the go-ahead.

Mr Rickard said Whangarei staff had since received training from a senior legal adviser on the rules of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act.

He accepted Judge Simpson's decision and described the officers' actions as "disappointing".

Meanwhile, Mr Wells said it was appalling that an improper process of identification was used for the accused, and the officer, knowing it was improper, did not disclose this before the hearing.

It would appear that the police prosecutor himself was aware of this, and was prevented from taking a proper course by directions by a superior officer.

Auckland Council of Civil Liberties chairman Graeme Minchin said a culture with Whangarei police senior officers needed to change.

"If they set a bad example they are encouraging lawlessness and illegal behaviour."

The mother of the youth said she was shocked over what had happened to her son and wanted an apology from police.

Whangarei police have been criticised by judges on seven occasions in the past three years.

Judge Heather Simpson throws an aggravated robbery charge out of the Whangarei Youth Court against a 16-year-old youth because of an illegal arrest and unlawful questioning by police.

Judge Laurence Ryan dismisses an assault charge against a 22-year-old woman in the Dargaville District Court. He finds that a Whangarei constable punched her twice in the head in the police cells last October.

Justice Peter Blanchard of the Court of Appeal says a Whangarei detective illegally questioned a 28-year-old woman then failed to keep a full record.

Five charges are dismissed in the Whangarei Youth Court after a 16-year-old is illegally questioned and arrested.

Whangarei police procedure comes under fire from Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. Details of the case have been suppressed.

Judge Michael Lance disallows confessions because a solo mother was threatened by police, leading to untrue admissions.

Justice Robert Fisher criticises the head of the CIB over the way he questions suspects in a murder trial.

The Police Complaints Authority is investigating the loss of police video footage of a protest in Christchurch during a visit by Chinese President Jiang Zemin last year.

The tapes included shots of police moving protesters out of sight before a delayed state banquet in honour of Mr Jiang.

Mr Jiang arrived, 90 minutes late, once police had pushed protesters around the corner from the Hotel Grand Chancellor.

In a November 9 letter to a parliamentary select committee investigating police actions on that day, Commissioner Rob Robinson said the loss of the videotapes had been the subject of an internal investigation. The file was also with the Police Complaints Authority.

The police probe had confirmed that when two tapes of the protest were forwarded for duplication, the technician misunderstood instructions and copied the first videotape onto the second, wiping it. NOTE: A load of horseshit!

That had been a particular disappointment to the police, because those who saw it said it confirmed the police version of events outside the hotel.

A select committee report released on Tuesday found that police should have taken specific care of the crucial footage "given that the conduct of the police in relation to the protesters was controversial from the outset."

In a letter in files given to the committee, Inspector Kieran Kortegast, who investigated the loss of the tapes, said the error could best be described as a "very embarrassing chain of events which reflects very poorly on the police and our professionalism."

He recommended "adverse comment reports" on the sergeant who taped over the video footage, and an inspector who failed to ensure that a back-up was retained.

But Mr Kortegast said there was no evidence of a hush-up, and it would be impossible to orchestrate the events that led to the footage being erased.

"It will probably lead to a conspiracy-type theory being formed by those who wish to make gain from this mess."

The Police Complaints Authority has told the committee that there have been a number of complaints relating to protests during Mr Jiang's visit.

But it warned that its investigations would not be completed before the select committee report was released. Because the majority of complainants had taken civil action against the police, the authority would not issue its findings until these were resolved.

Those complaints are likely to relate to five Wellington protesters who claimed they were wrongfully arrested. They are to get an apology and compensation from the police.

Meanwhile, Justice Minister Phil Goff has said the recommendations in the 72-page report are a step in the right direction.

The Government is due to respond formally to the report next year. But Police Minister George Hawkins, who returns from Australia today, wants an early meeting with Mr Robinson and senior police staff to discuss new guidelines for policing demonstrations.

The committee also recommended greater separation between the police and government written into the law.

Foreign delegations should be told of limits on Government powers under the Bill of Rights.

The committee criticised police actions during the Chinese President's visit, saying they infringed protesters' rights by shielding Mr Jiang from them. It also attacked the consistency and accuracy of police evidence and their attitude to the committee.

But Mr Robinson yesterday defended his staff, saying that while he agreed with the tenor of recommendations, police operational commanders "exercised appropriate and prudent judgment as they interpreted the facts they confronted."

In written comments on the final draft of the report, Mr Robinson said police gave evidence to the best of their knowledge and recollection eight months after the event.

Their evidence had been independently prepared rather than centrally coordinated. "I accept that process can lead to discrepancies, but I would have anticipated the committee would derive greater assistance from that approach."

He said police had taken into account that delegations to Apec in September last year had differing perceptions of security and dignity.

"In other words, we did not work to a single monocultural concept of personal security or dignity and simply apply it to all Heads of State," he said.

Meanwhile, Tim Stonhill, the manager of the Grand Chancellor, has denied claims by committee chairwoman Janet Mackey that his written and oral evidence were inconsistent. He wants her to apologise for the suggestion.

He had told the committee that the then Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, urged police to take action to move protesters outside the hotel. The committee found no evidence that Mrs Shipley and her officials improperly put pressure on police.

Christchurch Boys High seventh-former Lee Cunliffe stood outside his school with two placards and a couple of mates trying to send a message to the President of the world's most populous country.

But his efforts were frustrated by an over-reaction so absurd that it smacked more of the Keystone Cops than an appropriate police response.

The incident, played out in the leafy Christchurch suburb of Fendalton on September 15 last year has come to symbolise the ludicrous lengths police went to to protect the "dignity" of Chinese President Jiang Zemin during his visit to New Zealand for the Apec summit.

At 8.15 am, an hour before Mr Jiang was due, Lee Cunliffe turned up with his banners reading "Save Tibet" and "Honk for a free Tibet."

Two Chinese protocol officers approached and asked what he was doing. Several police officers then came up and, he said, laughed at him, told him his protest was stupid and that he would have to take the sign down before the President arrived.

They stood in front of him, threatened him with arrest and then moved him across the road, where two other students joined him.

Police asked for their signs and said they should move and be escorted back to school. When they refused, they were hemmed in by an illegally parked 10-tonne bus and two vans, blocking their view of the road entirely.

About 10 police were standing nearby, so the students stayed put in their vehicular jail. They did not see President Jiang, and he did not see them.

The chairwoman of the parliamentary investigating committee, Janet Mackey, said Lee Cunliffe's treatment had had a significant impact on members of her panel.

"It was such an extreme example of overbearing police tactics, it was so blatant that it opened our eyes to the decision-making in other areas.

"One poor little blue-kneed schoolboy who had already had to remove his jacket and tie on a freezing cold morning having three vehicles parked around him. In no way could he be construed as a threat to the Chinese President."

The committee's report is highly critical of police actions and credibility, and recommends changes to the Police Act and police operating instructions dealing with demonstrations and communications with visiting dignitaries.

Among its findings, it said police were not always impartial, did not give due weight to the right to protest and have that protest heard, infringed fundamental civil rights and at times gave inconsistent evidence.

Discrepancies tended to undermine the credibility of police evidence, and the committee was concerned that the police took too "casual" an approach to accuracy.

The committee was particularly concerned at the accidental wiping by police of crucial video footage of a protest outside the Hotel Grand Chancellor in Christchurch on September 14.

There were no communication logs covering events outside Government House in Auckland, and the committee had initial difficulty getting other evidence.

"We were not impressed with the attitude of some senior police officers to the discrepancies in their evidence, and contradictions with video evidence, all given under oath," the report said.

The committee found the evidence of the police officer at the site of Lee Cunliffe's protest, Acting Sergeant John Armstrong, "unconvincing and inaccurate."

On the broader front, the committee found that the police did not have a predetermined strategy to suppress Free Tibet protests.

In Auckland the response varied. In Wellington there appeared to have been an explicit predetermined intention to prevent Mr Jiang from unwanted exposure to protesters.

Operational instructions in Wellington had stated that the President "had a certain sensitivity in respect of both visible and audible protest" and police would "make every effort to minimise the impact of protest" on his visit.

Police in Christchurch took an intermediate (although still unacceptable) approach by using buses and sirens to block a protest that had delayed the start of the state dinner the evening before Lee Cunliffe's protest.

Acting Sergeant Armstrong said in an internal report that at a debriefing after the state dinner, "we were informed that the policy towards protesters was now to be that they were not to be seen or heard by the President and that they were to be arrested or removed wherever justifiable."

The committee found that Free Tibet protesters were targeted over other groups, and buses and sirens were used to frustrate protest.

Although there was no nation-wide policy to use arrest to shut down and limit protest, "we do consider there is evidence of a police strategy to use arrest to remove protesters from a particular location, without proper grounds," the committee found.

There was also evidence of police threatening protesters with arrest if they did not comply with police directions, even when the protesters were within their rights to refuse.

The committee did hear from police who admitted that responses had at times been inappropriate. Commissioner Rob Robinson told the MPs that on occasions the police did not strike the right balance between protecting citizens' rights and freedoms and carrying out their legal responsibilities.

However, some frontline staff still insisted that their decisions were appropriate.

The inquiry was carried out by Mrs Mackey (Labour), Wayne Mapp (National), Stephen Franks (Act), Kevin Campbell (Alliance) and Nandor Tanczos (Greens).

Mrs Mackey yesterday criticised police for their attitude to the committee and for some of their evidence.

Police appeared to think that the inquiry was not "terribly important" she said.

"We had to really drag evidence out. We requested things, we had to wait, and sometimes we had police officers who just stood up and swore that this was what had happened and then we found out that they weren't actually there."

She said that when she asked the officer in charge at Christchurch Boys if he was saying the bus just happened to come out of nowhere, cross the centre line and park on the wrong side of the road and it was purely by coincidence that it was in front of a protester, he said, "Yes."

The committee found that protecting freedom of expression meant that visiting dignitaries could expect a robust expression of views.

"We consider that, in the New Zealand context, protection of dignity does not require that a head of state be prevented from seeing messages opposed to his or her political beliefs or from being offended by protests."

But leaders should not be humiliated or subjected to messages that would be defamatory or otherwise illegal.

"In the case in question, the police did more than was necessary to protect the dignity of the President."

Perhaps the most politically charged element of the whole visit was the suggestion that the Prime Minister of the day, Jenny Shipley, had become involved in the police actions ahead of the Christchurch state banquet, which was delayed by 90 minutes when President Jiang refused to appear while protesters were present.

The MP's found that there was no evidence of express or implied threats to police to move protesters back around the corner from the Hotel Grand Chancellor.

But the committee warned that it was important at such times to ensure that the boundaries were not blurred.

A majority felt that the police did not have grounds to move the protesters, and that their use of buses and sirens was unjustified, although not necessarily unlawful.

There were plenty of people involved in the protests against President Jiang, but in the end the strongest impact was from that protest outside Christchurch Boys High on a cool spring morning.

Christchurch doctor Morgan Fahey, imprisoned yesterday for sex crimes against patients, had a contract with police that required him to examine rape victims.

Fahey was a police medical officer in Christchurch between the late 1960s and the early 1980s.

Police documents give one of the duties of a medical officer as "obtaining medical evidence from the clinical examination of alleged victims of sexual and other assaults."

Other duties include medical examinations at suicides, taking blood from intoxicated motorists, giving evidence in court, giving medical check-ups to new recruits and caring for people in police custody.

In the High Court at Christchurch yesterday, Justice Hensen sentenced 68-year-old Fahey to a total of six years' imprisonment for 13 sex crimes against 11 women over 30 years.

Last week in court the silver-haired doctor, former Deputy Mayor of Christchurch and community worker, bit back tears as he pleaded guilty to one charge of rape, one of sexual violation and 11 of indecent assault.

Yesterday, several people in the packed public gallery held their heads in their hands as a police summary read to the court told how Fahey raped a heavily pregnant woman who came to his surgery for advice on neo-natal care and childbirth in 1970.

The sexual violation charge relates to his digital penetration of a woman who sought his advice in 1994 about a red vein running from her groin down her right leg.

The 11 counts of indecent assault from 1966 involve using a vibrator on female patients, touching their breasts and genitals, holding and kissing women and forcing a woman to hold his penis while he ejaculated.

Christchurch Detective Sergeant Mark Bouvet said the charges Fahey faced were "the tip of an iceberg."

Fahey, a Christchurch City councillor for 20 years, fathered at least one child from his crimes.

More than 20 years ago, a woman who claimed he raped her gave birth to his daughter. She made a police statement but did not want to take the matter further.

Maggie Leask, police media liaison officer for Christchurch, confirmed that Fahey was a police medical officer who stopped work in the early 1980s.

"There were never any concerns about him - he left of his own volition," she said.

Asked if his job involved examining victims of sex abuse, she said: "He would have probably, yes."

Another police representative said that during the 1970s, three or four doctors would have had contracts with police in Christchurch.

"They have a panel of doctors they can call on. When something like a rape happens and the police need to examine somebody, they bring in one of those doctors who they know and who understands what the police process is about."

Maggie Leask said that during the 1970s, medical examinations of rape victims would have been done with a nurse in the room, although a retired Christchurch detective from that period said he could not remember that happening.

Maggie Leask said all police records from that period were now archived in Wellington.

A police staff member is to appear in court following an internal probe into an armed offenders' incident involving former Reefton farmer Brian Terry in 1999.

Three months ago, Tasman area police commander Superintendent Grant O'Fee ordered an internal inquiry into the armed offenders' incident on the Terry farm, which resulted in Mr Terry being admitted to hospital with broken ribs.

A West Coast policeman has been charged with injuring with reckless disregard over an armed offenders squad incident at Reefton three years ago.

The officer, whose name has been suppressed, appeared before a registrar in the Greymouth District Court last week. He was remanded to appear for a depositions hearing next Thursday.

The charge follows an internal inquiry into the incident, which occurred on land formerly owned by brothers Brian and Robert Terry. Brian Terry was hospitalised with broken ribs and later sentenced to 10 months in jail for threatening grievous bodily harm and possessing what appeared to be an offensive weapon, a molotov cocktail.

Disgraced former police superintendent Alec Waugh was working for disgraced former deputy speak Ian Revell at Parliament. Mr Waugh resigned as Wanganui police chief last year after pleading guilty to 10 fraud charges.

He was the highest-ranking police officer to be convicted in a New Zealand court. Mr Revell hired Mr Waugh as a researcher in his parliament office late last year to give him a second chance. Following Mr Revell's resignation, Mr Waugh was given his notice and will lose his job if the next deputy speaker decides not to keep him on. Yesterday, Mr Revell declined to comment publicly on Mr Waugh's employment. Mr Revell, a former policeman, had known Mr Waugh professionally for several years. [Press 2/3/99]