EXCLUSIVE: Graeme Axford – My IPCA complaint about MP Todd Barclay

Minister of Justice

Amy Adams

 

Via email: a.adams@ministers.govt.nz

    selwynoffice@parliament.govt.nz

Dated: 18 July 2017.

Dear Minister of justice, I have a complaint about the IPCA and a few comments to make about them to you as well.

I heard on Radio NZ that the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) of New Zealand has dropped my complaint into MP Todd Barclay.

While I have no doubt as a fellow National MP you will be please to hear this given he is a colleague of yours.

I am unhappy about two aspects of the IPCA handling of this.

Firstly: I was alerted to this via the media first and not the IPCA itself as claimed by them,

Therefore I contacted the IPCA over that as follows:

From: Graeme Axford

Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:44 AM

To: ‘case.resolution@ipca.govt.nz’; ‘enquiries@ipca.govt.nz’; ‘communications@ipca.govt.nz’

Subject: Your complaiknt to the IPCA – Ref: 16-2546, Todd Barclay case

Dear IPCA Excuse me!

I have not at all been notified of this “IPCA won’t pursue Barclay investigation complaint” and would very much like to see the proof you have..

The first I heard of this is via the media and not the IPCA.

Once you have notified me officially I will be writing back with a few comments

Graeme Axford

 

I then found this online:

At 11:04 am today that I saw the heading:

“IPCA won’t pursue Barclay investigation complaint”

In which it stated:

“It has notified the complainant and the Police Commissioner, and has closed its file.”

The IPCA claims they emailed me about this: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 7:49 AM, Subject: Re: IPCA Ref: 2016-2546.

Again I did not receive this and nor was it caught up in any spam filter anywhere we can find from my end.

It would be great if the email the IPCA claimed to have sent me was forensically examined to see if that was so as it does seem somewhat convenient for the IPCA to claim this after the facts.

So between the IPCA sending me the email and them going public were only a few hours. Why was that?

I can’t see what the rash was and the need for them to have done that so quickly without first making sure I was updated before they went public.

I can only assume the IPCA wanted to do the Government a favour going public at speed which might help take the heat away from the Todd Barclay issues for them given Parliament is sitting next week.

I bet this is the week when Todd will make an appearance?

The public seem to have taken the fact the IPCA closed their investigation into my complaint about the Police handling they have been cleared of wrongdoing.  

Yet we don’t know on what grounds that assumption has been made by the IPCA at all.

If the IPCA is implying there was no misconduct owing to the fact the Police have “discretionary powers” that would be rather revealing.

If that is the case and I don’t know that it is for sure but while being legally correct that raises a moral issues of bias. It would show favouritism towards a MP that’s not afforded to those outside of Parliament by the National Police force.

The IPCA also gave no reason for closing the case other than the Police have reopened it if that’s the predominant issue.

Did the fact the Police reopen the case mean the IPCA can’t go looking any further for evidence of misconduct therefore the investigation halted solely on those grounds?

Or did the IPCA ask the Police to do their own investigation into themselves again as has happened in the past and already admitted goes on. (See links)

 

Secondly: is the perceived preferential treatment of MP’s.

This is not the first time a MP seems to have been treated more favourably.

It just happens to be when I complain to the IPCA about MP’s the Police conveniently happen to just re-open the cases again.

This is not the first but rather the second time this kind of thing has happened and I bet not the last either.

The first instance being when I also complained to the IPCA about John Banks seemingly being given a free pass the Police reopened that case again.

The question being is it because the Police just happen to reopen a case that the IPCA received a complaint about they have to automatically shut down their ongoing investigations outright. How very coincidental –Not!

Despite the fact the court eventually cleared John Banks another colleague of yours is not the point Minister.

It’s for the Court to weigh up the evidence not the Polices job to fail to investigate things so as to stymie the courts ability to test the evidence instead.  

It seems sometimes the Police are playing judge and jury by default because they let MP’s go rather then put them before the court as they are meant to like anyone else.

The fact that Graham McCready took a private prosecution against ACT Party MP John Banks and won is the point here.  He did the Police’s job for them.

I am very puzzled as to how and why the IPCA didn’t see issues with the Polices lack of action in comparison to what has happen in the Bradley Ambrose so called “teapot tapes.”  They are very similar circumstances.

The Police executed a number of search warrants over the teapot tapes but did nothing like that in the case of MP Todd Barclay.

It seems the Police did not want to go looking for evidence that they might then have to put before a Court.  If there is another explanation I would really like to hear it please.

There has been no satisfactory explanation as to why the Police failed to do this in the case of MP Todd Barclay.

The IPCA seems to have come to a conclusion without having to say why and how they derived at their judgement on matters.

It seems the IPCA just want me to just trust and take them at their word they claim the police have done nothing wrong.

I mean really just like they claimed I was sent the email notifying of their decision in the Todd Barclay complaint.  Their word means little to me in light of this.

It seems like going to the IPCA is metaphorically much like a wife going to the father-in-law to compline about her husband who just happens to be the favourite of the family.

This perception has been voiced before and in fact their boss Sir David Carruthers stated:

“Sir David also acknowledged there was some public perception that the IPCA was “police investigating police” because many of its staff are former police”

By Simon Bradwell. Published Wednesday February 20, 2013 Source: ONE

Amen, isn’t that the truth and a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one…

It seems to me the IPCA is not a watchdog but rather a toothless lapdog and a purported avenue of redress, rather than a real one and seen as a token gesture instead.

Sir David Carruthers said the IPCA did not have enough powers or money which are the two things most needed to be able to do thorough investigations.

So I mostly blame the Government of the day for their plight.

It’s hard to believe that the IPCA does not consider the political ramifications should they show the Police up really badly for giving MP’s a free pass.

The fact all Police complaints systems are set up by Parliament and “accountable to Parliament” then funded by them via the taxpayers says it all really.

There is the potential for what some might see as an unconscious bias favouring the Police and Parliament.

From the Inception of a Police Complaints authority they have been set up to fail the public and favour the Police.

History can attest to this from when the Police Complaints Authority was established in 1989, and then replaced by “The Independent Police Conduct Authority “in November 2007

The New Zealand public have not been well served by any so called “Police Complaints Authority over the past 28 years.

The IPCA model needs to be done away with but doubt any self-serving and corrupt Government would want that as this could create problems for them and their Police force.

While slightly off-track there is a pattern emerging which points to some irrefutable facts which I find disturbing.

Most public watchdogs like the IPCA, Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC), Office of the Ombudsman, and even the Office of the Privacy Commissioner were all underfunded and also not fully empowered by law either.

They all lack resources and left to be monitors rather than fully empowered and functional investigators in their own rights. (See links)

Metaphorically speaking some Governments both financially and jurisdictionally clips all their wings for their own benefit I believe.

In fact John Key seemed to threaten the Human Rights Commission funding when they got off side with him. (See links)   

That was seen as a warning shot across the bow of anyone who got offside and required taxpayer funding via Parliament.

Alfred Ngaro National List MP also seemed to make similar comments about the need to toe the line or else. (See links)

So no surprise no one wants to upset the Government of the day as that could really cost them for doing so.

If you doubt that follow the link at the end of this document.

The only logical conclusion is the Governments set up lapdogs and not watchdog for their own and not the publics benefit.

I blame the Government for the plight of the IPCA rather than the IPCA itself.

In the very words of

“…But he was confident the IPCA operated extremely successfully within limited means.”

Accept in my view they lack the will and intestinal fortitude to take on the Police and by doing so risk upsetting their Government of the day.

I look forward to the Minister of Ju$tice reply and this letter has already been made public.

 

Graeme Axford is a Human Rights Advocate & Qualified Social Worker.

 

 

Links and references about funding and powerlessness.

John Key threatens Human Rights Commission funding

OPINION: Political roundup: Questions raised by Alfred Ngaro’s speech

Privacy Commissioner short of funds

Children’s Commissioner report highlights continued underfunding of CYF

THE NEW ZEALAND OMBUDSMAN – UNDERFUNDED AND COMPROMISED: THE AUDITOR GENERAL SEES NO NEED FOR ACTION

Police conduct authority funding tight

Lack of funding could affect Independent Police Conduct Authority – report

Police watchdog IPCA skips investigations due to financial pressures

Fears police investigating themselves will deter complainants