Opposition wants tighter undercover police bill

Press, 15 September 1986, Page 5

Opposition wants tighter undercover police bill

PA Wellington The Opposition has served notice that it would try to tighten a bill to protect undercover police officers. Its spokesman on justice, Mr Jim McLay, told Parliament the police intended to “pull the plug” on any drug cases where judges asked for the identities of undercover officers. Under the Protection of Undercover Police Officers Bill, reported back to the House, judges would be allowed to ask for identities if defence counsel challenged the officers’ credibility.

“In those circumstances drug dealers will go free, not because they have been acquitted by a jury but because the prosecution can proceed no further,” he said.

Mr McLay (Birkenhead) said the police felt the criteria allowing a judge to ask for identities were “too low and vulnerable.”

The proper test should be whether evidence

could be pursued by disclosing an officer’s identity which would lead to an acquittal for the accused.

The Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, said that it was not always possible to legislate for what police officers wanted.

The bill was being reported back from the Justice - and Law Reform Select Committee to which, Parliament was told, undercover officers gave evidence without disclosing names.

Mr Palmer said Parliament’s role was to make a fair demarcation between the rights of the prosecution and those of the accused. The power was entrusted only to High Court judges and would be used in the most serious offences.

The bill was a fairly important incursion into the rights of the accused that could be justified only by a very serious situation involving serious crimes.

Undercover police did not have absolute protec-

tion from disclosure of their identity because a judge might rule it should be known. But if such a ruling were made and upheld on appeal, the prosecutor had the discretion to discontinue the proceedings to protect the policeman or policewoman. In those circumstances it was difficult to see how there could be much more protection, he said. The Opposition spokesman on police; Mr Nor-

man Jones (Invercargill), said the police had been completely protected until “some smart Alec barrister” questioned their credibility. Mr Trevor Mallard (Lab., Hamilton West) said undercover police lived in fear of being caught and had to live among people who regularly carried guns. He believed such a method of detection should be used only in the most serious of crimes.