[ad_1]
WARWICK SMITH / Things
Matthew John Butland was found not guilty of raping a woman who was brought home from Shooters nightclub in Palmerston North in May 2015.
A man found not guilty of raping a woman in a car would never have gone to trial if the police had correctly removed his DNA from their database.
However, his illegal action did not annul the trial because the Court of Appeal determined that the DNA evidence was too important to ignore.
The police rape can only be revealed after Matthew Butland was found not guilty in Palmerston North District Court Tuesday of raping and raping a woman.
The woman said she was raped and raped in a car in May 2015 after a man offered to drive her and a friend home from Shooters nightclub after a night out in Palmerston North.
READ MORE:
* Man found not guilty of raping a woman in a car after stealing her money
* Man accused of raping a woman in a car says his DNA got stuck on him during a date at a nightclub
* Woman ‘anguished’, welcomed by strangers after alleged rape in car
Butland, 37, denied taking the woman home and raping her.
The key evidence was semen found on the woman’s pants and underwear, which tested positive for Butland’s DNA.
She said he got there during the rape, while Butland said a woman performed a sexual act with him on the Shooters dance floor.
The trial was told that police obtained Butland’s DNA during a property crime investigation.
But the full details are contained in a 2019 Court of Appeals ruling, rejecting Butland’s attorney Hugh Leabourn’s attempt to exclude DNA evidence from the trial.
The DNA was obtained from Butland after he and three friends were arrested on Christmas Day 2000 near a car park in Penrose, Auckland.
Butland, 17 at the time, voluntarily gave police a blood sample for DNA profiling purposes.
SUPPLIED / RNZ
The Court of Appeal found that the police illegally kept Matthew Butland’s DNA in their database, but the evidence was too crucial to exclude her from her rape and rape trial.
He pleaded guilty to theft and was released without conviction after donating $ 300 to charity.
A former police officer he lived with at the time helped him compose a letter, sent in September 2001 to the Police Complaints Authority, complaining about police conduct after the Christmas Day arrest.
Problems mentioned in the seven-page letter included searches without inappropriate clothing, smoking in police vehicles, racism, and failure to provide food and water.
Butland wrote that he only gave police a blood sample to get out of the station faster.
“Now I regret this and I retract my authority to the police commissioner.”
Anyone who voluntarily surrenders their DNA to the police has the right under the Criminal Investigations (Body Samples) Act to withdraw permission to keep the DNA profile in the police database.
There are some exemptions, but none apply to Butland.
That request must be made to the commissioner.
The authority released its findings to the commissioner, but did not refer to Butland revoking permission for police to retain his DNA.
Butland told the Court of Appeal that he thought the former officer would send a letter to the commissioner to destroy the sample.
But he did not, after seeking legal advice.
A district court judge found that the line in the letter to the authority was sufficient to destroy the DNA sample, as the authority was a division of the police.
Its next and current incarnation, the Independent Authority for Police Conduct, is separate from the police.
Illegally obtained evidence generally cannot be part of a trial, but DNA evidence is due to its importance.
In the Court of Appeals decision, Judge Sarah Katz said it was a case of inadvertent failure by the police rather than deliberate or reckless conduct.
An effective justice system must not tolerate inappropriate police conduct, but improper maintenance of Butland’s DNA must be balanced against the key to the case, he said.
The case against Butland would not proceed without the DNA evidence.
“This would undermine the public interest in bringing violators to justice.”
