Undercover bill to protect police

Press, 9 July 1986, Page 8

Undercover bill to protect police

PA Wellington The Government yesterday brought in its promised legislation designed to protect the identities of undercover police in court cases.

The Court of Appeal ruled last month by a majority of three to two that an undercover policeman called to give evidence in criminal proceedings could be compelled to disclose his true identity. The Protection of Undercover Police Officers Bill now before Parliament outlines special procedures allowing defendants to apply to a High Court judge to ask questions which could disclose an officer’s real identity. The Commissioner of Police will also have to sign a certificate designed to establish the credibility of a witness giving evidence under an assumed

name. The Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, said last month that an officer’s credibility could come into question, possibly because of conduct in previous cases of a similar type, and lead to the question of identity becoming an important issue.

Mr Palmer yesterday told Parliament the special procedures would only apply in “reasonably serious cases.”

They would also only apply to cases that started after the bill was passed into law.

Mr Palmer said the Court of Appeal’s decision had confronted the Government with an immediate law enforcement dilemma.

“The police left us in no doubt that the Court of Appeal decision had serious implications for their undercover programme.”

Once an undercover agent’s identity became known, he became an immediate target of retribution from criminal offenders.

“Both he and his immediate family are likely to be placed under severe psychological pressures from threats of physical harm.”

The Opposition would support the bill’s introduction, said Mr Winston Peters (Nat., Tauranga). It believed the police needed Parliament’s support in countering serious crime.

“The job of an undercover police officer is an extremely dangerous one,” he said. “He or she is constantly under pressure.

“The law should therefore provide for the protection of his or her identity and more of the family of that undercover officer”