The police have been a running a concerted campaign against licenced firearms owners to label them as irresponsible. This operation has been running for years and predates the gun register. The issue is straw-buyers: where supposedly a legitimately licenced firearms owner buys guns with the intention of on-selling them to criminal elements. They’ve made quite a fuss but the results of these years-old investigations shows it isn’t quite the issue they touted it to be.
So, it was quite a surprise to see an announcement from the Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCA) about a police officer who was unauthorised and illegally accessing police computer systems (hacked) so he could find legitimate licenced firearms owners and then buy guns under their licence...and here is the best part...so he could hide the purchases from his missus.
Yes, it’s a real eye opener:
The Authority oversaw a Police investigation into allegations that an officer had acted unlawfully in acquiring firearms and interrogating the Police computer system.
The essential allegations were that the officer had committed offences:
• under the Crimes Act 1961 and the Arms Act 1983 by acquiring firearms remotely in the names of third parties when – from start to finish – he was the real purchaser. This, it was said, was done with the intention of deceiving the vendor and Te Tari Pūreke Firearms Safety Authority New Zealand; and
• under the Crimes Act by interrogating the Police computer system for non-work-related reasons.
Following their investigation, Police concluded that the officer had not committed any offences and there were no grounds to proceed with a disciplinary process of any sort.
So, the police marked their own homework. Ahh...yup. There’s a word for that, can’t put my finger on it right now...starts with c...and...um...ends with something like orupption.
Surprisingly, for once the IPCA found against the police.
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 computer system.
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 computer system, the 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.
Seriously? The police bought that story. That is literally a ‘the cat ate my homework’, or ‘I’m washing my hair tonight’, or ‘I forgot to set my alarm’, or ‘my cousin died and we had to go tangi’, or ‘I was away yesterday...women’s issues’, or ‘not tonight darling: I’ve got a headache’.
Honestly, I’ve heard six-years-olds give better excuses that that one.
It holds as as much hot water as a chocolate teapot. I’m surprised there wasn’t a catastrophic health emergency that eventuated when the investigating Police officer heard that load of nonsense and had an asthma attack after hyperventilating with derisive laughter.
And if you think that is appalling, wait until you hear Mike McIlraith’s posturing covering for this bent copper. He is literally the Irish dancing on a pin.
Let’s unpack that for Mike ‘Behind the Wire’ McIlraith, who can’t seem to see the looks of utter disgust on everyone’s face right now.
It may come as a surprise to Mike, but the Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes a hack as:
to gain illegal access to (a computer network, system, etc). In the last decade they have hacked computer networks in Estonia, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, France, and Bulgaria – often stealing data. – The New York Times… perhaps I would have become one of those lost souls wandering the basement of MIT playing with computers and hacking the telephone network. – Lee Smolin
Mike McIlraith beclowns himself with justifying the illegal actions of this police officer.
Then he has the temerity to say the offence, not that Mike says it was an offence (and making you wonder why this copper isn’t in stainless steel bracelets), occurred before the register existed.
Perhaps he neglected to mention that the only things that were registered before the new gun register were collectors’ items, restricted weapons and pistols. So, Mike, what items was this cop buying that necessitated him accessing the NIA?
Looks like Mike has dug himself quite the hole there.
No other news media have covered this...the NZ Herald at one point did have an article up for a short time but has now been memory-holed. I wonder why that is?
Is it because it goes against the narrative of police, Te Tari Pūreke and the Police Association about straw buyers? Is this yet another case of police doing one thing while saying another.
They’ve moved to change regulations regarding storage of firearms and ammunition in cars despite the only cars where firearms and ammunition have gone missing from are police cars.
Now we have a gun register to stop straw buyers, when it’s actually police doing these crimes.
Mike McIlraith should not be making excuses; he should be saying very loudly that this police officer is now going to be prosecuted very harshly, the same as any other firearms’ licence holder would if they weren’t in the police being protected by senior officers.
Because the way the police have acted in this case rather suggests we are talking about a senior officer. I doubt a lowly constable would get away with a lame excuse like that and soft soaping the story by Mike McIlraith.
Te Tari Pūreke now look like exactly as many shooters believe they are: police lickspittles who give police offenders a soft touch and demonise every other firearms owner.
If this were a civilian, there would have been charges, prosecution, imprisonment, guns taken and they would have been declared to no longer be a fit and proper person.
Any last vestige of confidence in police to administer a firearms register is now shot to pieces. And it’s rather ironic that it was Mike McIlraith who shot their feet off with his previously unused Bushmaster rifle.
