Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
August 2015
Manager Investigations & Reviews
Independent Police Conduct Authority
28
The emails confirm that after my initial complaint to the IPCA, Colin Blackie was
appointed to oversee the police investigation. It appears that on completion of
his investigation, a report was prepared which was submitted to Anna Tutton, for
a legal opinion on whether charges should be laid against any Corrections staff.
final report and; (ii) he had prewarned you it was going to be substandard. I have
to say, given the history of this case, I was again gobsmacked by this approach.
It should have been recovered and redone and I have discussed this matter
with superintendent Coster.
Email to Colin Blackie from (name blacked out) 22 November 2013
Hi CJ, no need to apologise. It had just reached the point that I had to record the
ongoing issues. Ive had two legal advisers say theyve never dealt with a file
that is anything like this one - and theyre not talking about the legal issues.
They have both had to do a whole lot of work of a type that legal would not
normally go anywhere near because it is the role of the operational staff.
Two emails from (name blacked out) yesterday confirmed that she needs
assistance and guidance to get the file to the end. Steve is going to call me
today.
Email from Stephen McGregor to Gregory Sparrow, 5 December 2013,
22:17
The issue is not as simple as (name blacked out) having submitted a
substandard report.
I began reviewing the report that night but didnt complete it. There is no point
in trying to sugar-coat it, the report was substandard on a variety of fronts. I
contacted CJ And encouraged him to recover it and redo it. He ignored my
advice and did not recover the report and redo it to an appropriate standard.
(Name blacked out) manager police Legal Lower Nth/Sth confirmed CJ had
made contact as above, but she took that warning to mean the submitted report
would be suboptimal as opposed to substandard. She was not happy!! It turns
out that not only was the report substandard, but the submitted file was
significantly short of all the necessary documentation.
Given the history behind this case, including being the subject of an IPCA
complaint, the situation should not have occurred, but that responsibility sits
with CJ, not (name blacked out). He should have addressed that process quite
differently and listened to the advice given!
The poor standard of the report and file submitted with it (which I am sure does
not reflect the standard of the actual investigation) created a number of
problems for the lawyer who was contacted by police legal to review it. So much
of a concern that (name blacked out) raised it as a risk at a recent lower Nth/Sth
meeting, which is unfortunate given AC Nichols chairs that meeting.
D/Supt Read has reviewed the report and agrees it is substandard and should
have been redone by CJ.
Despite all the above, the legal advisor beavered away trying to work through it
and from time to time had to call on (name blacked out) to provide further
documentation or follow-up on an issue. As the weeks have gone by, more
problems arose with the service (name blacked out) provided, to the point where
I got a call from (name blacked out) frustrated at the lack of appropriate support
from (name blacked out).
Email from Stephen McGregor to Andrew Coster 31 January 2014 08:07
Hi Andy, just a quick update on the Op Crioch (Jai Davis death at OCF), and to
signal to you that legal will have some negative feedback in relation to the
standard of the case presented to them. While A/DI Blackie indicates he has had
previous discussions with (name blacked out) about providing a less than ideal
file, (name blacked out) has indicated that at worst, she expected an 8/10 not a
1/10.
Anna has almost completed her peer review. A contracted lawyer (name
blacked out) was used to review the file and provide a legal opinion. She
completed that very recently and it has been with (name blacked out) for about
a week to peer review and finalise. As you are aware both (name blacked out)
and (name blacked out) have been very critical of the poor standard of the
reporting in the file that was presented. The time taken to review has been as
long as it has because numerous questions from (name blacked out) needed
follow-up and additional documentation provided. Through (name blacked out) I
am aware this caused considerable angst.
Given the history of this matter, for which DI Geoff Jago is now reviewing
relevant to the IPCA complaint, this outcome is less than ideal. It is also
disappointing because there has been some very good work done in the
background by the staff involved getting it to the point of reporting, and falling
at the last hurdle could have been avoided.
Given the recommendation of no prosecution, it may make the above issue
around the quality of the prosecution file presented more problematic.
Email from Stephen McGregor to Anna Tutton 8 February 2014, 11:41
Hi Anna ... As for the separate report, thats fine. I suspect it will be along the
lines we have discussed to date. I strongly suspect there will be some key
learnings from this. One key issue for me where this fell down was that the
correct channels of command were not followed as it should have been meaning the appropriate checks and balances before the file went to legal were
not followed. I can only assume that what was presented to you (blacked out)
was not checked and reviewed as being to the required standard again before it
went out. None of that is acceptable!
does not reach the evidential sufficiency test under the Solicitor Generals
guidelines, on the basis that a conviction is unlikely.
Email from Stephen McGregor to Andrew Coster, Peter Read and Anna
Tutton, CC Greg Baird and Jason Guthrie dated 7 March 2014, 09:50.
With DSS Blackie unexpectedly going on leave, Detective Sgt Greg Baird will
pick up the role of reporting the interim findings in relation to those inquiries
identified in the latest legal opinion. Many thanks Greg! He has completed a
number of inquiries himself already and will confirm the outcome of those
inquiries tasked to DS Kate Bartlett. There are a couple of issues relating to the
sleep expert and sound analysis (bold added) to be done by the ECL that
need to be concluded but they are in train.
Analysis
The request for further enquiries relating to the sleep expert and sound
analysis stem from statements made by Corrections Officer Fred Matenga who
came on duty at 11 p.m. on Sunday 13 February, 2011. Mr Matenga told police
and the coroner that each time he checked on Mr Davis during the night (from
11.00pm till 5.00am), Mr Davis was snoring.
However, Mr Daviss last movement on the video recording was at 10:01 p.m. on
Sunday 13th. The time of death was subsequently estimated by forensic
pathologist, Prof Martin Sage to be between 10.01pm on Sunday 13 and 1.00am
Monday 14 February.1 In other words, Mr Davis may have been dead before Mr
Matenga even came on duty.
The emails reveal that in regard to Crimes against the person (Part 8 of the
Crimes Act), legal only considered a prosecution for manslaughter and only
considered such a prosecution against Fred Matenga. Given that Jai Davis
swallowed the tablets which eventually killed him, and may have already died
before Mr Matenga even came on duty that night, it seems highly unlikely that
the evidential test for such a prosecution would ever be met.
The decision not to prosecute Fred Matenga for manslaughter therefore seems
totally reasonable. But there was much more to this investigation than an
improbable manslaughter charge. There is considerable evidence supporting a
potential prosecution against a number of staff under section 151 of the Crimes
Act for failing to provide the necessaries of life. But the emails show that once
the investigation was complete, no consideration was given to this at all.
This omission appears to stem from two key factors. The first is the substandard
report provided to legal which was also significantly short of supporting
documentation. As Stephen McGregor said in his email of 23 September, 2013:
Request
I therefore request that the IPCA investigate:
1) The failings of the police which led to the provision of a significantly
substandard report to the lawyer tasked with making a decision about
whether the evidential test for prosecution was met.
2) Whether the agreement of the police to allow a contracted lawyer who
was unfamiliar with the case to conduct the review, combined with the
provision of a substandard report (with no reference to the legal issues
that are on the table) to that lawyer contributed to the omission by the
legal team to consider a prosecution for failing to provide Jai Davis with
the necessaries of life.
3) Whether the substandard report (with no clear links back to the key
issues) contributed to a perception by the legal team that actions and
omissions by nurses, managers and prison officers were indicative of
Roger Brooking,
PO Box 29075,
Ngaio, Wellington