Opinion
Police face a dilemma when they find one of their own breaking the law in mitigating circumstances. They will be damned if they prosecute and damned if they do not. The case of the constable in the tiny North Taranaki town of Mokau who has been charged with drink driving
when answering an emergency seems to be a classic.
Jonathan Erwood, sole policeman in the village, drove just 2.5km to take oxygen to those attending the collision in which two people died. He was breath-tested by another officer, then voluntarily took a blood test and was suspended from duty. Eventually he was charged. On Thursday he appeared in the New Plymouth District Court, entered no plea and was remanded to August 17. The case will be followed with interest.
On the facts reported so far, it appears outrageous that the constable should be charged. He had allegedly been drinking, but he had the only oxygen tanks available. The town siren had sounded. The accident was serious and it was a very short drive away. The decision of police to breath-test him, let alone follow up with a prosecution, seems so extraordinary in these circumstances that we, the public, probably do not yet know all the circumstances.
The Police Association, which will know all the details, is supporting the constable's defence and the decision to prosecute him. That suggests this is a more finely balanced issue than it appears so far, and one that carries considerable public interest.
In general, it can be said, the police should not shield their own from the consequences of possibly criminal misbehaviour, but nor should officers face the ordeal of court proceedings for something so excusable that any other citizen would be let off with a caution. The decision can never be easy. This case may be illuminating for all concerned.
