Govt rejects allegations

Press, 13 December 1989, Page 4

Govt rejects allegations

By OLIVER RIDDELL in Wellington The Government rejects claims that a situation has been engineered deliberately to pass legislation so the police and traffic officers can pursue drinking drivers on to I private property. “Such allegations are unhelpful and have no foundation,” the Minister of Justice, Mr Jeffries, I said yesterday. He was replying to accusations from the Opposition spokesman on justice, Mr Paul East, and the chairman of the Council for Civil Liberties, Mr Barry Wilson. Mr Jeffries also said extravagant criticism of traffic officers “only encourages thugs and law breakers to view the officers as fair game to commit cowardly assaults.” Lack of action from a crowd of people in New Plymouth to help a traffic officer who was badly beaten last week-end was “disgusting,” he said. This incident had occurred after the officer had approached a man who had earlier failed to stop for a traffic officer in a patrol car and had fled on to private property. The officer had required hospital treatment after being badly bruised and shaken by the attack. “It is appalling that people would not help the young officer, but it is more horrifying that some people chose to stand and watch while he was beaten to the ground,” the Minister said. One young man had tried to come to the aid of

the distressed officer, but had been dragged away by his mates. “What kind of nightmare society do we live in when people- watch while others are assaulted and would-be rescuers are stopped from assisting the victim?” he asked. This had been only one of a number of attacks recently on traffic officers, and in Wellington last week-end an officer’s home had been vandalised deliberately. “Those who make emotive and extreme criticisms of traffic officers to the public must bear a heavy share of the blame for inciting incidents such as these,” Mr Jeffries said. “People who sadistically watch while others are hurt, or who make irresponsible comments that indirectly lead to another’s injuries, are just as much to blame as the attacker. “Extravagant comment on the behaviour of a few officers distorts the solid road safety work carried out,” he said. Some lawyers were saying there had been a campaign by the Ministry of Transport to create a situation with fleeing drivers to bring pressure for a change in the law. But the Transport Amendment Bill No. 4 now before Parliament was designed to correct a lack of clarity in the law about the powers of traffic officers to enter private property. Mr Jeffries said the Ministry had been able to cope with the occasional offender who had fled

from traffic officers in the past. But the wide publicity given the Derby case on the North Shore earlier this year, and when District Court Judge Nicholson had found the officers to be illegally on private property and said there was a pressing need to do something to clarify the law, led to significant numbers of people trying to see if they could escape from traffic officers onto private property. “People are now seeking sanctuary on private property in such large numbers that a law change is needed urgently,” he said. “This situation cannot be tolerated.”

But the legislation protected the rights of individuals. It applied only to people who were suspected by. traffic officers to have committed an offence under Section 66(4) of the Transport Act — relating to failure to stop or remain stopped for the police or a traffic officer. Powers that officers could use on private property were limited to those already there for breath testing, Mr Jeffries said.

If after testing no drinkdriving offence had been established, then the officer would have no more powers than at present to stay on private property. Before a traffic officer could enter private premises they must be satisfied the person being pursued is on the premises, he said, and the bill gave no general right of entry to traffic officers.