Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ

[Crakka]

Gotta feel sorry for this cop right? Poor bugger "misjudged the amount of alcohol he drank before driving". :roll:

Drink-driving cop escapes conviction
1:00 AM Saturday Jun 12, 2010
NZ Herald

A senior policeman who drove drunk has escaped a conviction after a judge said it was more important he stay on the job.

Sergeant Jason Lamont, 39, was nearly one and a half times over the legal alcohol limit when he was pulled over last August.

His reading level was 113mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.

He admitted a charge of driving with an excess blood alcohol and pleaded guilty in North Shore District Court in April, the New Zealand Herald reported.

Judge Phil Gittos discharged Mr Lamont without conviction and said his role and experience outweighed the importance of the conviction.

His lawyer Steve Bonnar told the paper the judge took the view it would not be in the public interest for an experienced and well-regarded senior police officer to be out of a job and the public was better served by him staying in the police.

In spite of the discharge Mr Lamont was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay court costs.

Mr Bonnar said his client had misjudged the amount of alcohol he drank before driving.

Source - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651411

[Crakka]

Longer version posted 3 hours later follows. Gotta keep the dogs out there working the herd right? Can't let the farm go to pack!

Too good to lose drink - drive cop let off
By Rachel Tiffen
4:00 AM Saturday Jun 12, 2010
NZ Herald

A senior policeman who admitted driving while nearly one and a half times over the legal alcohol limit was let off after a judge decided it was more important he stay working.

Sergeant Jason Lamont, 39, was pulled over last August with a reading of 113mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.

The Auckland officer was charged with excess blood alcohol and pleaded guilty in the North Shore District Court in April.

But Judge Phil Gittos discharged Mr Lamont without conviction, saying his role and experience outweighed the importance of the conviction.

"The judge basically took the view that it effectively wouldn't be in the public interest for an experienced and well-regarded senior police officer to be out of a job," defence lawyer Steve Bonnar told the Weekend Herald.

"That the public's better served by having him remain in the police."

Mr Bonnar applied for the exemption under Section 106 of the Sentencing Act, which says any person charged with an offence, who is found or pleads guilty, may be discharged without conviction unless "by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence".

However Judge Gittos did disqualify Mr Lamont from driving for six months and ordered him to pay court costs, as the act also allows the court to make "any order that would be required to make on conviction".

Mr Bonnar said his client had misjudged the amount of alcohol he drank before driving.

"The facts were a little bit strange," he said. "It was a situation where he'd only had a couple of beers, but he'd had a family gathering earlier in the afternoon. He believed he was perfectly fine and he was only just over the limit."

The rules on whether police officers are automatically dismissed after a drink-driving conviction are unclear.

A police national headquarters official said a convicted officer "would be the subject of an ongoing investigation".

Auckland City Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty said Mr Lamont was still "a serving member of the Auckland city police" and was the subject of a code of conduct inquiry.

Mr Lamont could not be reached for comment yesterday, but when the Weekend Herald phoned the main switchboard, the call was transferred to the Mt Wellington community policing team.

Mr Bonnar said it was up to judges to determine whether the consequence of conviction outweighed the offence.

In Mr Lamont's case, Judge Gittos had found it did not.

The case follows the recent conviction of a Northland officer for drink-driving.

Senior Constable Ross Kneebone, 53, pleaded guilty to drink-driving after blowing 733mcg of alcohol per litre of breath at a checkpoint last September.

He applied for a discharge - hoping to remain working as an unsworn officer - but Judge Duncan Harvey said he should not be treated differently to others. Police also opposed the application.

Meanwhile Senior Constable Craig Fraser, formerly of the Auckland serious crash unit, is back in court next month on a drink-driving charge.

The 47-year-old has been charged in relation to an incident in the carpark of a North Shore fast food restaurant last year.

It is understood an off-duty Mr Fraser backed into a stationary car and drove off.

He was later breath-tested by colleagues.

Yesterday he told the Weekend Herald he would not return to policing because he had broken "the code of honour".

DRINK-DRIVING BLUES

* Taranaki, 2008 - Constable Hamish Hardy, 29, resigned after crashing a patrol car while drunk
* Wellington, 2008 - Superintendent Graham Thomas, a former police national prosecutions manager, refused a breath test. Police clear him but the Independent Police Conduct Authority said his behaviour was misconduct.
* Auckland, 2008 - Constable Matt Hooper avoided a blood alcohol test at the station by emerging from the toilet with a head injury and going to hospital.

[The law says blood taken in hospital for alcohol testing can't be used in court unless the person is there because of a car crash].

Source - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651389

[Crakka]

And here's the editorial that followed, posted in the early hours of this morning. Please try and hold the vomit back as you read the heading! As you may already know, in my opinion The NZ Herald's not even worth using to clean dog poop up with but I thought this was worth taking a look at for those that missed it...

Editorial: Police officer's discharge tests public's faith
3:59 AM Tuesday Jun 15, 2010
NZ Herald

The 2002 Sentencing Act states that an offender should not be discharged without conviction unless the court is satisfied the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

This, said Judge Phil Gittos, was so in the case of Sergeant Jason Lamont, who admitted driving last August while nearly 50 per cent over the legal alcohol limit. The police officer's experience and standing in the force meant it would not be in the public interest to have him convicted and out of a job.

Mr Lamont remains, therefore, a serving member of the Auckland police, albeit the subject of a code of conduct inquiry. He should consider himself fortunate.

It is easy to see why the framers of the sentencing law thought it necessary to provide this sort of out clause.

They would have been thinking of professional people, leaders in their fields, who would be barred from undertaking important public services if they were convicted for relatively minor offences. But for such latitude to be shown, the consequences must surely have to be set in stone.

That is not the case with Mr Lamont. The rules on whether a police officer is automatically dismissed after a drink-driving conviction are unclear. The police, themselves, can assess an officer's value and the punishment warranted by his conduct.

The nature of the offence would be part of that process. In this instance, it is one that the police have campaigned against unstintingly for many, many years. Drink-driving has, in fact, been a focus of their efforts to lower the road toll.

This suggests police officers should be particularly careful about their consumption of liquor. Mr Lamont's lawyer said his client simply misjudged the amount of alcohol he drank before driving. "It was a situation where he'd only had a couple of beers, but he'd had a family gathering earlier in the afternoon. Her believed he was perfectly fine and he was just over the limit."

That is hardly satisfactory. Police officers, particularly, should be concerned about how much they drink. They know that, given the publicity surrounding drink-driving, their infringements will be highlighted.

They also know they would not cut any slack to a member of the public who was well over the blood-alcohol limit but believed he was "perfectly fine". And they know that, after several unsavoury episodes, the force is having to rebuild its reputation, and high standards of conduct, ethics and integrity are demanded.

Judge Gittos's decision flies in the face of the recent conviction of a Northland officer for drink-driving. Senior Constable Ross Kneebone pleaded guilty but also applied for a discharge. Judge Duncan Harvey said, however, that he should not be treated differently from others. Police also opposed the application. That course should have been followed in the instance of Mr Lamont.

Letting him off does not stand scrutiny on several grounds. Inevitably, it also raises the suggestion that the Sentencing Act provides the foundation for different classes of citizenry. That, clearly, was not the intention of those who passed it. Decisions such as this serve only to open the justice system to popular scorn and derision.

People who appear before the court should not, except in the most exceptional circumstances, expect favoured treatment because of their occupation.

In the case of the police, this is especially important because they can do their job effectively only if they enjoy a bond of trust with the public. That is endangered if the police do not receive proportionate sanctions for their offences and misjudgments.

In this case, an officer has benefited from a disproportionate slice of judicial largesse.

Source - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10651883