• Full Story

Calls for harsher penalties for attacking cops

Print

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 7:55a.m.

Calls for tougher penalties for those who attack cops after a shooting early Tuesday morning

Calls for tougher penalties for those who attack cops after a shooting early Tuesday morning

By Angela Beswick
 
The shooting of a cop on routine patrol in South Auckland in the early hours of Tuesday morning has prompted calls for consideration of harsher sentences for those convicted of attacks on police.

High profile criminal lawyer, Barry Hart, is against the idea - saying they are already dealt with more harshly than those who attack anyone else.
 
However Police Minister Judith Collins is backing harsher penalties. She says there is an increasing disrespect for the law from a small sector of the community, "who think it's fine to take pot shots at our officers".
 
"The police represent the rule of law in New Zealand," she says.

"They are not simply the individuals, they represent something much bigger than that, and I think it's absolutely important that we, in upholding the rule of law, acknowledge that and give them their due respect." 
 
Mr Hart says the Minister's suggestion is hasty and unnecessary.
 
"It's a knee-jerk reaction. There is adequate framework in terms of charging - I personally don't think it's necessary".
 
But spokesman Jonathon Krebs says the Law Society is backing Ms Collins' call.
 
"Police officers help us sleep better in our beds at night. I think the public should respect that, and the people that challenge that safety should be subject to greater penalties."
 
Constable Jeremy Snow, 28, was shot three times - once in each leg and once in the elbow - as he and a colleague approached a car with its hazards lights flashing. One round hit his femoral artery, causing heavy blood loss.

Three firearms were later discovered by the police - a shotgun, a rifle and a high-calibre pistol.
 
A 28-year-old man appeared at a special hospital court sitting on Wednesday charged with the attempted murder of a policeman.
 
The man, who has interim name supression, was remanded to appear in Manukau District Court on January 12.
 
He was admitted to Middlemore Hospital after receiving police dog bites during his arrest after the incident in Papatoetoe about 4am yesterday. 
 
Police said they wanted to speak to another man in connection with the incident.

He was Darren Thomas Court, 43, for whom there were outstanding arrest warrants over unrelated matters.

Detective Inspector Mark Gutry said Court was believed to have been at the Buckingham Cr address at the time of the shooting.

3 News
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

27 Dec 2009 09:30p.m.

Mark from Wgtn wrote:

Unlike some of the respondents earlier, I prefer to believe that the average policeman is actually not corrupt and does not abuse their power. Sure, it happens, and it's disgusting when it does. Corruption is one of the starting points and big facilitators for all sorts of crime, as a visit to any seriously corrupt country can show, even with a tourists' insulated and quick look. A policeman sent to prison is going to have a tough time of it, no doubt. Jail time for such a person will be fraught. So it could be argued that sentences for "cops that go bad" are intrinsically more punitive than for regular offenders, if jail time is involved. But the thing is, these people are, by nature of their profession, more likely to be in the firing line than the average citizen. And I have no issue at all for tougher sentences being mandated for those that would attack the folk who are charged with keeping the peace. Bring it on. One of the earlier posters mentioned that some of the sentences handed down recently are a joke, and really do little to give the public much confidence in the justice system as a whole. In many cases I rend to agree Perhaps it's time we looked at what we are trying to achieve, with a view to overhauling the justice system considerably.

27 Dec 2009 11:37a.m.

nigel wrote:

Why do you think the penalty for attacking a police officer should be any greater than for attacking a member of the public, none of you are making any sense! Attempted murder is after all, attempted murder and it makes no difference at all if the victim is a police officer or not. What are you suggesting that the life of a member of the public has less value than that of a police officer? We should punish murderers less or more depending on who they murder? Are you saying that if someone murders your mother or brother they should do less time than if they murdered a police officer, someone you do not even know? Am I to believe that the life of a police officer is more valuable to you than the life of your own father? Of course the above is precisely your position when you advocate differential punishment. Don’t be so obtuse the lot of you Hart is right, I do not know what Collins did in her previous life before becoming a minister, but she is none to bright in my opinion!

26 Dec 2009 03:28p.m.

Chris wrote:

Police state?? Not in this mixed up little banana republic! Too many wet liberals whining about the rights of career crims and their lawless offspring, and too many lawyers getting rich keeping them out of prison. Who in their right mind would want to be a cop in NZ? I imagine it would be like trying to clean a very expensive rug that has been vomited on by a drunk, with one hand tied behind your back. Sure, there have been instances of corruption/bad behaviour on the part of the police, but the fact that the cop in Chch received jail time shows that this kind of thing does not go unpunished. Can we say the same for the lawlessness and anti-social behaviour that it becoming increasingly common in our society? Yes, the line between enough power and too much IS a fine one, but I don't think we're in danger of crossing it anytime soon.

26 Dec 2009 03:05p.m.

cynical wrote:

Warren, you sound like Hart. And all your arguments are horrendously flawed, twisting the story around, ending up with the creation of a Police State. But one day, you will need them, and let us hope that there are any left. I wonder what the shot Police officers think of the sort of comments you make, that is the ones who have survived.

26 Dec 2009 10:30a.m.

Warren Matthews wrote:

Reply: "Allen 25 Dec 2009 10:37p.m. I agree that harsher sentences for attacks on the police are needed. It is naive..." First just be a little careful when calling people naive. Naive: Marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience. I would think taking the Police at their face value purpose without question would be regarded as naive. Not the stance I have chosen to take in acknowledging that the Police are just people and like 'normal' people there is a certain percentage of the population that is susceptible to corruption and perversion of its intended cause. Your argument of defense over this 'special' group is flawed. Quote: "They actually take an oath for their job..do you?" What is your point? Here we are prosecuting a Policeman for using his position for leverage in that sex scandal recently. I can't believe they sent that guy to jail, doesn't that judge know the cop took an oath? He would never do that... There are laws against insider trading, why? Because it happens. The Police take some sort of oath of allegiance, why? Because they are entrusted with the power of the State, a power much greater than that wielded by your average criminal or citizen, a power open to abuse. There is a very fine line between enough power and too much. It is wisest to acknowledge this almost paradoxical situation and strive for that balance. I am open to being shown as incorrect, however I would encourage you first too read up and understand 'Police State' and how both that and Anarchy have positive and negative repercussions for any given society.

25 Dec 2009 11:06p.m.

Mark wrote:

I think they should just hurry up and arm the police because I've seen cops who only just make it out of brawls with people in Wanganui

25 Dec 2009 10:37p.m.

Allen wrote:

I agree that harsher sentences for attacks on the police are needed. It is naive, as Warren and Shane suggest, that Police are not special. Well, sorry boys they are. They actually take an oath for their job..do you? The oath also means they cannot strike for pay, conditions etc. Just this alone means that are different to a normal citizen. However, I agree with Felicia. Given their role in society, if police break the law they should also be given harsher sentences for breaching trust. Fairs fair.

24 Dec 2009 09:28p.m.

Ty Williams wrote:

Well said Felicia.

24 Dec 2009 01:37p.m.

cynical wrote:

Hart does not mind if the Police gets shot and may be even killed - after all, he then gets even more work, to fill the fat pockets of the legal profession. He does not mind if nobody wants to become Police anymore, because it is too dangerous. He rather has more anarchy and violence - if there was none, he would be out of work. If it was up to him, lawyers would patrol the streets, unarmed, and advise the criminals of their rights. More money on this gravy train, less jail time, more victims. It is the typical farming syndrome - he wants to farm more victims. More victims, more work. Shame on the legal profession for not protecting the protectors of our society. The Justice system is on notice to start delivering Justice.

24 Dec 2009 01:17p.m.

Felicia wrote:

Harsher penalties for criminal acts against police should go hand in hand with harsher penalties for criminal acts BY police. Remember Louise Nicholas and other victims of police violence.