On Wednesday afternoon Police Association boss Chris Cahill went on The Platform to defend the lack of prosecution of a police officer who illegally accessed the Police National Intelligence Application in order to locate firearms licence details of third parties so he could use their licence details to hide his purchase of firearms from his missus.
We already covered this, after the IPCA ticked off police for ignoring two obvious crimes. Remember the police, and Chris Cahill in particular, have been banging on about “straw buyers” as they push, via their media lickspittles, straw buying as the justification for the new and failing gun register.
Watch this video and be astonished at the behaviour of the police union boss as he seeks to provide cover as to why he was not prosecuted.
Apparently it’s not straw buying, because it didn’t go to a criminal without a license. I think it is straw buying, because the person purchasing is a front for the receiver regardless of whether they are licensed or not.
But we heard a new defence: that this corrupt cop needed to access the NIA so he could look up the firearms licence details of his mate, who was buying some shotguns on behalf of the cop, who apparently didn’t have a Trade Me account.
Unbelievable. Funny though, because none of this detail was revealed by the IPCA. The IPCA says he was doing it to hide it from his wife, while Cahill says it was because he didn’t have a Trade Me account. I trust the IPCA ruling that he was intentionally being deceptive and Cahill has a habit of being dishonest which is kind of alarming considering he is a sworn police officer.
Here is what the IPCA said:
The Authority took a different view, concluding that there was sufficient evidence upon which Police could consider charging the officer in respect of both allegations, and that the public interest favoured prosecution. We also concluded that there were proper grounds for Police to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings.
In particular, the Authority concluded that the Police analysis of the case proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the law applying to both the acquisition of the firearms and the interrogation of the Police database.
The key difference between Police’s conclusion and our own in relation to the firearms offences concerned whether the officer had the necessary criminal intent when acquiring the firearms. Police accepted the officer’s evidence that he used the names of third parties because his wife did not like him acquiring firearms. Our view is that that analysis confuses motive and intention, and whatever the officer’s motive may have been, he clearly formed the intention to deceive in proceeding as he did.
In relation to the use of the Police database, Police concluded that the officer had not received a benefit from accessing the system and therefore had not committed an offence. Our view is that the law is now clear that it is not necessary for a party to secure a financial benefit, and as the officer secured real benefits of a non-financial sort, they committed a series of offences.
IPCA
Cahill’s insane response reveals the police strategy of protecting the gun register at all costs, even if they have to lie to do it. Cahill lies, Mike ‘in the rear with the gear’ McIlraith lies...they are all at it: all to protect the register.
It is a police strategy, because here is McIlraith lying in writing about the same case. Protect the register.
Cahill’s response mentions things that the IPCA never mentioned. Why is that? Did he make it up? Or did the IPCA not think it was relevant? Again, I believe the IPCA.
Here’s the question that no one but us and COLFO are asking: if a licenced firearms owner did the same, using a third party’s licence to obtain a firearm and deceitfully hiding ownership, would he expect to be prosecuted?
Neither Cahill nor the police will say what happened to the firearms. Cahill suggests there was nothing at all wrong with what happened here, yet the IPCA disagreed with police and said this officer should indeed be prosecuted.
The IPCA is not known for its true independence yet here they are saying this is wrong and the police officer should be charged. And the police union boss is thumbing his nose at the IPCA.
This whole episode stinks, especially when there are people currently before the courts being prosecuted for essentially the same behaviour.
Police have a long way to go before firearms owners will ever trust them again and this episode shows how little they care.
