Drink-drive police get off charges

Half of all police officers caught drink-driving in the past three years have beaten the charge, raising allegations of one law for police and another for the public.

Three officers are still fighting their cases in the courts, including one caught driving while more than three times the legal limit.

Even the police's top personnel manager admits it is hard to secure a conviction against an officer.

The average conviction rate for all drink-drivers in the past three years was more than 95 per cent, compared with less than 38 per cent for police officers.

Figures given to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act show that just five out of 16 officers on drink-driving charges have been convicted since the beginning of 2006. The 16 include the three whose cases are still before the courts.

Police human resources general manager Wayne Annan said judges and juries could feel pressure not to convict because a conviction would end a police officer's career. "I think it's the high stakes that are involved. It is very difficult to gain conviction against a police officer."

Megan McPherson, of the group CrossRoads, which campaigns against drink-driving, said judicial rulings should reflect the higher standard expected of police.

"If anyone should know about the horrific consequences of drink-driving, it's the police."

Of the eight officers who were not convicted, four had their cases dismissed, three were discharged without conviction and one was acquitted.

To be discharged without conviction, the applicant has to prove the impact of conviction would outweigh the seriousness of the offence.

A case can be dismissed for reasons including failings in police procedure, and inadmissible or insufficient evidence.

Chief Judge Russell Johnson said statistical comparisons should be made with care.

"If it appears that some police officers have had lenient treatment, this would likely be attributable to the merits of the case. There must have been some other factor at play to do with the way their case was presented or defended."

Senior Constable Jono Erwood was discharged without conviction after he faced a drink-driving charge in Taranaki in 2006. He garnered widespread support in the small town of Mokau after it emerged that he had rushed to a fatal road crash with the town's only oxygen bottles.

Police Association president Greg O'Connor said the Erwood case showed why each case should be "taken on its merits".

However, Wellington defence lawyer John Miller said police officers, with their knowledge of the law, were in a better position to challenge police procedures, which could explain the lower conviction rate.

Superintendent Graham Thomas refused to take a breath test after he was seen driving erratically from a police bar in December. Thomas was within his rights to refuse as he was approached at home, outside the bounds of a pursuit.

Auckland constable Matt Hooper failed a breath test in December but avoided an evidential blood test by injuring himself in a police station toilet.

In September, Detective Sergeant John Gualter was convicted for driving from the Police College bar in Porirua while nearly three times the legal limit. He is facing a code of conduct inquiry and could lose his job after 23 years in police.

Mr Annan, of police human resources, said that, since the merger of traffic and general police duties in the early 1990s, police had adopted a strict policy against employees convicted of drink-driving.

"Anybody who's convicted don't stay working for us. We expect police officers to enforce the law and we expect them to obey it. We do treat it very seriously."

- © Fairfax NZ News