The police officer lied under oath when testifying in defense of the brother; IPCA, the judge finds

A police officer lied in court to protect his brother, who had been charged after assaulting his two neighbors, including a woman.

The Independent Authority for Police Conduct said today that the officer, who was off duty at the time, broke up a fight between his brother and his neighbors, a woman and her son.

Both the authority and a judge determined that “there was a clear attempt by the officer and his brother’s wife to protect his brother by minimizing his actions.”

Superintendent Jill Rogers, commander of the Manukau district of counties, said that while police acknowledged the IPCA findings, they could not comment as their own criminal and employment investigations had not yet been completed.

The incident occurred on May 12, 2018, when the officer’s brother was involved in a physical altercation with his neighbors.

“The officer was off duty at the time and only participated as a witness, although he separated the parties,” said the president of the authority, Judge Colin Doherty.

“His brother was accused of assaulting two of the neighbors, a mother and her son, and using threatening language. The brother pleaded guilty to assaulting the son, but denied the charges of threatening him and assaulting his mother.”

The officer, who worked in Pukekohe, chose to be a witness for the defense, completed a written statement and gave testimony in court.

“The presiding judge rejected the defense evidence and found that there was a clear attempt by the officer and his brother’s wife to protect their brother by minimizing their actions.”

Doherty said that based on his own investigation, the authority found that the officer lied in his evidence to the court to minimize his brother’s behavior and protect him.

“Furthermore, he violated the police conflict of interest policy by not properly informing his supervisor of his participation in the trial.”

Furthermore, the Pukekohe prosecutor should have transferred the file to Manukau and filled out a conflict of interest form, he said.

The authority also found that the prosecutor’s conduct in dealing with the victims “was at odds with the policy and practice statement of the Police Prosecution Service.”

“Our own independent evaluation of the evidence led us to the same conclusion as the court regarding the officer’s intentions to protect his brother.

“The differences in the accounts between the witnesses are such that there is no way that either side can simply be wrong and we further conclude that the officer lied to the court in an attempt to protect his brother.”