Police refuse to give name of undercover officer

Press, 5 December 1985, Page 5

Police refuse to give name of undercover officer

PA Hamilton Undercover police may have to be identified in future court appearances, as a result of a High Court test case in Hamilton.

The police said they would seek urgent changes to the law because officers could not work under those conditions.

Mr Justice Gallen discharged a man accused of drug supply charges after the police refused to give the true name of an undercover police officer. Hamilton’s top detective said the decision laid undercover police and their families open to retaliation from people in the drug world. The acting Hamilton C. 1.8. head, Mr Rex Miller, said he was surprised at the decision because undercover police had been giving evidence anonymously for years. Undercover agents were guaranteed their identity would be kept secret throughout their operation. It was an established condition of their job. Mr Miller said a report on the case would be sent to the police legal section in Wellington immediately, seeking an urgent law change to right the problem. The police had no right of

appeal against the decision because the law under which the accused was discharged did not permit it, he said. Counsel for the accused, Mr A. L. Hassall, had asked a Hamilton drug squad detective, Garth Dutton, for the undercover officer’s name. An objection by the Crown prosecutor, Mr C. Q. M. Almao, led to discussions in chambers. Mr Justice Gallen returned and said that it had been submitted by Mr Almao that if the true name was revealed the constable and his family could face real danger. Also, undercover officers were seconded on the understanding that their names would not be revealed, he said.

Mr Hassall had said that it was not possible to contest the credibility of the witness if his name was not available, his Honour said. He accepted that the concern of the Crown was genuine but ruled that the question of the officer’s name could be put to Mr Dutton. Mr Almao said that the Crown would not call any further evidence and his Honour discharged the accused.