KEY POINTS:
A police officer who failed to prosecute the driver of a car involved in a crash which killed his passenger has had his appeal against disciplinary action dismissed by the Employment Relations Authority.
Sergeant Rodger Hough complained to the authority over an "adverse report" put on his file over his handling of a fatal car accident in Upper Hutt in 2004.
Adverse reports are used in the police internal disciplinary process and remain on an officer's file for four years.
Mr Hough challenged the delays associated with the disciplinary process, which he said had disadvantaged his employment.
The authority heard Mr Hough, who has over 35 years experience with the New Zealand Police, was employed as a sergeant in Upper Hutt in the road policing unit in January 2004.
On January 31, 2004, 16-year-old Adam Paterson died after the car he was travelling in hit an earth bank on Parkes Line in Upper Hutt.
The driver, also aged 16, survived the crash.
Mr Hough took over the file several days after the accident.
One of his tasks was to consider what charges, if any, should be laid against the driver.
No charges were laid.
In December 2004, an investigation by Inspector Paul Berry into the file management of the fatal crash found the file had sat on Mr Hough's desk for three months without action. There were no notebook entries or job sheets on the file.
Mr Berry also found the driver should, as a minimum, have been charged with breaching the conditions of his restricted driver's licence; lacking a warrant of fitness and registration for his car; not wearing a seatbelt; and having cut-down suspension springs.
He also found the driver could have faced a charge of careless use of a vehicle causing death. The time for prosecution had lapsed due to inaction on the file.
Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope reviewed the file, and ordered an independent peer review from the then district commander of Central District, Superintendent Mark Lammas, who recommended Mr Hough be issued with an adverse report.
Mr Pope made his final decision in October 2005, and the report was given to Mr Hough in December 2005.
Mr Hough complained about the delay in giving him the report, and the lengthy disciplinary process.
Delivering the determination, authority member Paul Stapp said Mr Hough had never complained about any delays during the investigation and disciplinary period, and said he was not satisfied the delays had disadvantaged him.
Mr Stapp agreed the police had failed to communicate fully with Mr Hough throughout parts of the disciplinary process, but said the process was fair overall.
"I am prepared to accept that it was open to Deputy Commissioner Pope to make the decision he did on the basis of his experience in policing and on, overall, the fairness of the process he employed," Mr Stapp said.
The authority further found Mr Hough's employment was not disadvantaged by the investigation.
It dismissed Mr Hough's claims.
- NZPA
