An independent inquiry has criticised the way the police hierarchy handled the investigation of a senior officer who refused to take a drink-driving breath test.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority yesterday released its recommendations after investigating the police response to the actions of Superintendent Graham Thomas in December 2008.
The Herald revealed that Mr Thomas was stood down after he refused to take an alcohol breath test at his front door after driving home from a police bar.
He was followed home by a volunteer community patrol team which alerted police to a suspected drink-driver.
A police officer knocked on Mr Thomas' front door and asked him to take the breath test. After refusing, Mr Thomas was spoken to by officials at police national headquarters.
He was placed on annual and sick leave, but an internal inquiry cleared him of any criminal behaviour.
He was later removed as the head of the national prosecution services but has kept his rank of superintendent.
The authority found that Mr Thomas's actions may have been lawful, but fell short of the standards expected of police, particularly senior officers in his position.
His behaviour amounted to misconduct, it said.
While the officers who responded acted appropriately, the authority said it was concerned about some aspects of the investigation into possible criminal offending.
"The police decision that no criminal charges could be laid against Superintendent Thomas may ultimately have been correct, but it appears to have been made without a thorough investigation having taken place, or independent advice being obtained."
The authority was also concerned that it was not alerted to the incident for almost three months.
It has recommended:
That police should thoroughly investigate possible criminal offending or serious misconduct before dealing with it as an employment issue.
Any employment investigation should be completed before any agreement is made to a full and final settlement.
The authority be told in a "timely way" of potentially serious misconduct that is internally reported.
Police national headquarters refused to answer questions yesterday, but a statement from Commissioner Howard Broad said police would consider the report.
"I am pleased that the IPCA believes that the officers who attended the initial incident acted appropriately and that the decision not to lay criminal charges was correct."
However, Mr Broad wondered at the authority's questioning over whether police exhausted all avenues of a criminal inquiry before starting an employment investigation.
"The officers involved in the investigation on the night discussed the matter with their supervisor," he said.
"Their decision was then referred to an inspector for review. This inspector's report was subsequently reviewed by the district commander who occupied a more senior role than Superintendent Thomas.
"It is not clear to me, or my legal advisers, what additional investigative options could have been available, and I will be following this up with the authority."
Questions over police handling of officer's case
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.