The decision not to prosecute the Prime Minister for passing off somebody else's painting as her own is to be welcomed. Not because it exonerates her, for it does not. In fact, for the Prime Minister the result is possibly worse than a trial might have produced. It is better to be found not guilty than to have a prima facie case of crime hanging over your head.
The police investigation has found a prima facie case for bringing charges of forgery against Helen Clark and one of her staff but Commissioner Rob Robinson, on the advice of the Solicitor-General, has decided not to lay the charge. Mr Robinson took account of the intention of the act - to support a charity - and the fact that none of those directly affected wanted to make a formal complaint.
Those are not considerations that would necessarily have swayed a jury. A deliberate deception does not become innocent of a criminal intent simply because it is committed for a charitable purpose. The perpetrator may not act for personal financial gain but there are other forms of profit. Donors to charity, particularly if they are politicians, can expect kudos for their contribution or, at the very least, avoid any discredit that might occur if their refusal to contribute became widely known.
And the lack of a complaint from those directly affected need not have precluded a prosecution. The police investigation was based on a complaint from a member of the public, Wellington anaesthetist Graham Sharpe, a previous Labour supporter as it happened, whose action was arguably more worthy because he appears to have had no personal axe to grind. He was acting in the public interest as he saw it.
He was appalled not only by the act but by "the Prime Minister's attempt to brush it off as something frivolous". He was not alone. The response of some of the Prime Minister's sympathisers was worse in a way than the act itself.
She at least expressed regret for her action as soon as it was exposed. Unfortunately, she also claimed that the deception of charities was standard practice in her profession. But that was nothing to the excuses offered for her in the ensuing public debate.
Some blamed her victim, the man who bought the bogus painting in good faith, for enjoying her embarrassment. Some blamed the other victim, charity auctions, for trading in the false art of celebrities' doodles. A surprising number decided that a signature was all that a buyer of celebrity art was seeking anyway, and that Helen Clark's signature at least was genuine. And all, of course, accepted her word that others do it, though no other has admitted it.
In the face of so much sophistry and cynicism, it has become a matter of public interest that a certain standard of behaviour is reasserted. Dr Sharpe set out to do exactly that, and he has succeeded. In finding a prima facie case, the police investigation has challenged the claim that deceiving people in this way is somehow trivial and innocent.
At the same time the decision not to prosecute is the right one, albeit made no easier by the offender's accusation that the investigation was "an elephant act in the strawberry patch."
She seemed to think her mistake could not be considered in criminal terms. Well, yesterday she discovered differently. A prima facie case means there was sufficient evidence of a crime to put to a jury. In deciding not to do so, the commissioner has judged the public interest best served by going this far but no further.
The Prime Minister has admitted her mistake and will continue to be reminded of it. It would be out of all proportion to take the case to trial. This was a case for the court of moral standards rather than the criminal law, and the higher standard has won.
<i>Editorial:</i> Tried in the higher court of morality
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.