Mr Thompson defends undercover programme

Press, 23 June 1986, Page 3

Mr Thompson defends undercover programme

PA Wellington The Commissioner of Police, Mr Ken Thompson, has defended the police undercover programme from blame in the Haussmann case, and challenged parts of the Court of Appeal judgment critical of selection and post-operations welfare procedures. He said some of the facts set out in the judgment demanded comment because they implied a "heavy responsibility” by the police for the predicament Haussmann got into.

“If I believed the facts were not open to challenge then I would accept them gracefully,” Mr Thompson said.

"But I believe that the people who have worked on the programme and the efforts that have been made to ensure to the greatest possible extent that the members of the police deployed on this important duty don’t become victims should not be lightly set aside.”

He said comments in the judgment that society was normally held responsible for creating criminals, but in this case the State was responsible “points the finger fairly and squarely at those of us in the New Zealand police who have had some responsibility for the undercover programme.” Much had changed in the administration of the undercover programme in the 10 years since Haussmann served on it, but "selection procedures were considered at that time to be adequate.” It had been a “vintage period” for undercover

recruits, with many proving “very, very good operators.” Most had come out without problems, and the over all result justified confidence in the selection procedures then in force, Mr Thompson said. The judgment said: "In retrospect it is all too obvious (Haussmann) was an unwise choice as an undercover policeman,” and mentions a heavy drinking problem from about the age of 18. Mr Thompson said the existence of a drinking problem was startling, and could have been expected to show up in prerecruitment assessment. The police had led other Government agencies in their attitude towards alcoholism and did not penalise people for it, trying instead to help them rehabilitate. Mr Thompson said he refuted totally a statement in the judgment that Haussmann had only one hour-long session of psychological counselling before being transferred to ordinary police duties at the end of his 18-month stint undercover. Haussmann was seen on a number of occasions, Mr Thompson said, although he could not specify how many. The follow-up action then was not as extensive as now, but a psychiatrist had assessed Haussmann as well-adjusted and fit to resume full duties, Mr Thompson said. The undercover programme could not be criticised for its support from psychologists, psychiatrists and other specialists.

“But you can have in place all of these things and if an individual chooses not to avail him or herself of it then you can’t really derive the benefits from it.” Support services were better now, but there could be no suggestion that the police were “heartless” in their deployment of undercover agents back in 1976, he said. Mr Thompson said there was nothing to substantiate the claim that Haussmann started using heroin while working under cover. The judgment said: “It has not been questioned that it was at that stage that he formed the habit.” Mr Thompson said there was nothing in files he had read to back up the suggestion in the judgment that Haussman was a frequent user of hard drugs. He said he would be “absolutely amazed” if Haussmann could have been a frequent user of hard drugs in the eight years he spent in uniformed branch after leaving the undercover programme without being detected by experienced police officers. A legal source in Wellington said the findings made by in relation to Haussmann’s drinking, psychological treatment and subsequent use of heroin would almost certainly have been based on material placed before it when the Court considered the appeal.

Both the Crown and the appellant would have had the opportunity of putting facts before the Court or

disputing them, the source said. A Christchurch lawyer, Mr Nigel Hampton, who represented Haussmann both in the High Court and the subsequent hearing in the Court of Appeal, has confirmed submissions on Haussmann’s drinking, counselling after coming off undercover assignments, and heroin use were not substantially opposed by the Crown. That Haussmann had been a heavy drinker since his late teens had not been contested at all in either court, Mr Hampton said. The Crown had challenged Haussmann’s claim of only having one counselling session during the appeal hearing, but had only produced evidence of regular sessions while he was under cover and the single hour-long session after his return to normal duties, Mr Hampton said. The Crown lawyers had maintained that there was no record of Haussmann’s heroin use either while under cover or in subsequent years, but had focused on showing he was not required to take the drugs as part of his cover, and seemed to accept that he had started to use heroin nonetheless. Haussmann’s heroin use was clearly apparent when he came under investigation for importing and supplying the drug, and at that time he was still employed by the police, Mr Hampton said. His poor work performance, consistent with drug use, was also a matter of submission to the Courts which the Crown had not contested.