Inquiry into cop who lied in court
By Jared Savage
Patrick O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work. A criminal investigation is under way into an undercover police officer's confession that he lied in court and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
Patrick O'Brien wrote to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and former Police Commissioner Howard Broad admitting to perjury, saying he was racked with guilt after carrying a "dreadful secret" for more than 30 years.
He was an undercover agent in drugs operations in the 1970s, immersed in the criminal underworld and the star Crown witness in the resulting court trials.
But Mr O'Brien says he lied on oath every time he testified, and sent a confession letter in November 2007.
The police hired Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate.
He interviewed Mr O'Brien in July 2009, and reviewed court files dating back to 1974. Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.
He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago.
His terms of reference were to confirm the truth of Mr O'Brien's allegations and determine whether police should investigate.
Now, the file has been handed to Detective Inspector Bruce Scott, head of the Waitemata district CIB, to look further into the perjury claims.
Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote.
"I have read the report produced by Mr Squire and also read the interview conducted with you. I have further looked at the evidence that you gave in Court from the transcripts that were available to Mr Squire.
"I am wanting to know if there is any other information that you have that may assist me in determining any criminal liability, or are there other persons that you consider need to be spoken to that could assist an enquiry relating to these matters?"
Mr O'Brien said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and plead guilty to any charges.
In his confession, he said he could not guess the number of people who were convicted and imprisoned "because of my lies" as he stopped counting arrests at 150, halfway through his three-year undercover stint.
"In every case I lied to the courts and I lied to the juries to obtain convictions against my targets.
"Telling lies was easy - 'policemen don't tell lies' - and my targets never stood a chance."
Mr O'Brien said he was often high on drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin and LSD, during undercover operations. But he denied this when questioned at trials.
He now considers he was a drug addict at that time in his life.
In some cases, Mr O'Brien said he directly lied and said people sold him drugs - when they did not.
Tampering with evidence was also common, he said. Often the exhibit before the court was not the drugs he bought from the target.
The shame and stress of the work broke Mr O'Brien. He resigned from the police and fled New Zealand, "haunted, traumatised and scared".
"My life since has been a tragic waste; running, always running, but never able to lose the demons that rush around in my head."
Mr O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work by former Governor-General Sir David Beattie, who as a judge presided over a series of drug trials in the High Court at Hamilton in 1974.
Sir David wrote a glowing commendation of the young constable to Police Commissioner Ken Burnside, describing him as a credible witness.
But Mr O'Brien confessed to Dame Sian: "In every case and on every charge, I lied to Sir David and I lied to his juries."
What he did
Patrick John O'Brien was an undercover police officer between 1974 and 1977. He says he committed perjury by telling lies while giving evidence at trial, and that he:
* Was often high on drugs while undercover, but denied ever using drugs when giving evidence at trials.
* Asked a suspected burglar to help break into a pharmacy in Hamilton but told a jury the man invited him, and he denied "entrapment".
* Told a jury that an accused drug dealer sold "buddha sticks" to him. The drugs were actually sold to someone else.
* Tampered with evidence by skimming drugs from bags for his own use.
What a trail of crap the public are being fed here. Patrick O'Brien has confessed, to the Chief Justice, a Former Commissioner, no doubt to Bruce Squire QC and more evidently to the public.
The head of CIB in West Auckand "Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote. Has been asked to enquire into the matter. That will make at least 2 Police Officers (including an ex Commissioner,) the Current Chief Justice, a QC, and about 1 million New Zealanders. Patrick has admitted perjury and other crimes when working as a police officer, has said that he will plead guilty if charged. One can hardly wonder what more proof the police need, maybe a Royal Commission of Inquiry?
Every police officer in NZ knows what to do when somebody confesses to a crime, but in this case we see years of dithering. I accept the police have been made to feel uncomfortable by one of their ex-members, but discomfort or not they're obliged to act, particularly in a case which is so straight forward. It would seem that some senior police view this as a case to be ignored in the belief that it might go away. Those with that view add to the difficulties of a police force already under public scrutiny, they should show leadership to give both serving police and the public confidence. Patrick should be charged with every crime he has admitted. There was once a practice (and probably still is) where compliant convicts admitted a cluster of outstanding crimes (whether they might have done them or not) in order to help police clear unsolved crimes, in return they were rewarded in some way. Disposing of unsolved crimes in a convenient way hasn't been an aversion to police in the past, why one must wonder do police, QC's, Judges the lot ignore a compliant confessor of crimes against justice - the very core of that which those concerned are sworn, or warranted to uphold.
Nothing personal about Patrick O'Brien here, he seems to be very troubled by what has happened in his life, hardly a survivor of having taken the risk to work undercover. What might be odd is that he has the moral compass to feel defeated and in debt to what he did earlier in his life. In fact he probably simply expedited the imprisonment of crooks, cut corners, saw the prevailing wind was that the ends justified the means, went along with things, taking advantage of what he could for himself along the way, acted no differently than other colleagues of his. I wouldn't wish an hours imprisonment on him. The guy is a hero for the truth and he's calling out loudly that the king has no clothes, but the king dithers uncomfortably at the wretch who calls out. The king is uncomfortable with the truth.
Remorse, contrition and honesty. A belated attempt to repair his honour, and a willingness to take the consequences. Prosecute, yes. Punish? I suspect he has lived his punishment already. I think his sentence should be hours of community service: those to be spent working to assist in the clean up of the Police culture that the new Commissioner is supposed to be doing. That would make some sense of it all.
ReplyDelete"In fact he probably simply expedited the imprisonment of crooks, cut
ReplyDeletecorners, saw the prevailing wind was that the ends justified the
means, went along with things, taking advantage of what he could for
himself along the way, acted no differently than other colleagues of
his. I wouldn't wish an hours imprisonment on him."
You lost me on that last line
Many of his targets were probably young kids who may not have escalated higher.
I have just read his whole confession he travelled extensivly about
the country staying often only days in one town or city to expediate
convictions via their drug squads
He admits using heroin acid coke dak to various degrees and planting
evidence for convictions
After leaving in 1977 has progressed rapidly downwards under
psychiatric care and is now 35 years later homeless and penniless
Truth is hes better off in jail
I haven't read the whole confession, point taken about the young kids which is shocking. He obviously was engrossed in his own needs and didn't give a stuff about who he might hurt, surely his handlers must have seen the obvious - yet they honoured him. But I still applaud his bravery in speaking out.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me is the dithering in charging him, today's police force don't need this kind of thing hanging around because it raises old doubts about cover ups. One would suspect there may be an effort to say that he isn't fit to plead, or his evidence (against himself - shudder!) is unreliable. It needs to be tidied up quickly.
I think the dilemma for police is that they will find it hard to find some one to investigate Mr Patrick O'Brien's confession who has not lied and manufactured evidence at some stage during their miserable career. The person taking on the task with have a history and that history will taint his/her approach and have a protect at all cost element to their decision. Cops don't get to the top because they are honest. The best they could possibly do is had the matter over to a recruit who has not already been exposed and converted to the paranoid culture within police.
ReplyDeleteActually the Foran case earlier this year seems to have been a bit of public watershed that shows that current police are taking a stern view concerning offenders within their ranks, and willing to give evidence against them.
ReplyDeleteThe OBrien case, needs to be dealt with quickly otherwise good progress in the police gets once again clouded by unresolved issues from the past and that's unfair.
Your point about the (hopefully) previous route to the top of the police needs to have a line drawn under it, and again dithering with the O'Brien case doesn't instil confidence that the police are in a new era. I think it's impossible to say that there could possibly be any more evidence against him than that which he has supplied himself - that's a glaring problem.
Do you have a current email address for Patrick O'Brien?
ReplyDeleteNo I don't, but I know the head of the Waitakere CIB does because that was reported in the Sunday papers. Maybe Patrick might make contact here.
ReplyDeleteA reporter from NZ Herald was contacted by me for an email address a week ago. O'Brien has a facebook page, but I do not do facebook.
ReplyDeleteFor several years I have thought about Patrick's struggle within himself and that part of his struggle is exposing the police system as it has failed him. He is right about how cops conceal the truth. What I find so striking about Patrick is how he has been involved in concealing the truth (perjury) and now exposing how his perjury is still being concealed. Patrick obviously does not condone his ex employer (NZ Police) meandering with the truth.
Perhaps it is a simple as Patrick having once believed that what he was doing (perjury and so forth)was necessary and normal for policing at the time. Proably normal, because of what he might have the felt, and been convinced were the type of people that he was dealing with, and the relative excitement of being one of the good guys fighting the good fight. Later, when he reconciled that it wasn't right, he was partly destroyed by the thought of what the police had 'allowed' him to do, and saw that it was them (specifically his handlers and the hierarchy of undercover operations) who had entrapped, then turned away from him.
ReplyDeleteCops do not up hold the law by breaking it. Once this line is crossed, the police need to be held to account and to take responsibility for not up holding the law.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. But in the shifty world of working undercover, and the drug scene generally, it would be fairly easy to convince oneself, or be convinced that crossing the line, as you put it, was all in day's work. That I think could be what Patrick can't reconcile, that's why, unpopular as it might sound, I called him a hero for speaking out.
ReplyDeleteI think the police leadership should be dealing with this decisively, now - not sending him emails asking him if there is any other way in which he can help them with the inquiry. For crying out loud what more could he do, than what he's already done, by admitting he perjured himself - even saying that he'll plead guilty. This inaction is unprecedented, particularly when most people realise suspects are arrested and charged in short order, even before all the evidence is in, and a statement from Patrick would see him convicted, as he says because he would plead guilty. It's crazy.
Broad was a bozo when it came to my case which has some similar aspects to O' Brien. My case dates back to the mid 1970s. Until a barrister is assigned to go through my police file, the cops who have crossed the line are not being held to account.
ReplyDeleteHas there ever been a commission of inquiry into the claims made by undercover cops? A term of reference would need to look at the cause of their PTSD and why the PTSD has remained. No amount of specialist counselling will substitute for a commission of inquiry, so the PTSD is prolonged and intensified.
Can't recall any Commission of Inquiry. From the little I know about it some of those that volunteered for that work have spoken out at various times over the years about the problems it has caused them. If you were in fact one of them you will probably recall some cases which were publicised in the 90s and which also went back to the 70s.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there is enough interest to drive an Inquiry, additionally there is probably an overwhelming desire for the authorities to see those, such as yourself, remaining silent - which, to an outsider, seems bloody cruel. Like all things in our society that are not just, recognition needs to be given to them. I've always thought somebody who had once worked undercover would need to work overtime when back in the ranks to seen as 'unaffected' by their stint undercover. But an additional and more damaging problem is how to recover from living such a lifestyle, in fact as happened to some, becoming absorbed into a life they would never have otherwise chosen.
It's a deeply conflicting situation to be placed in when in fact you were serving your country. Why somebody like Patrick, or indeed others in his situation, should be so alientated from the system they once served is a travesty. As far as I know the undercover system as such has never worked in any country without a surplus of problems, and has often leant itself to a type of immunity for crimes for those contracted or working within 2 systems. The officers sworn duty is to prevent crime, not remain silent about it, or committ it in the belief it's ok because those being dealt with are ratbags.
Patrick has taken a step out into the sun to get something off his chest, but it may take him and others to decide to empower themselves as a group and take their situation to the Courts - I think a lot of people would welcome that. We have a class action for Lake Alice survivors, belated recognition and a remaining battle for Vietnam veterans and those subjected to radiation 'experiments,' all, like undercover cops, nzers who haven't been given a go and whom it is wished by some will just go away. You guys are treated no differently that nzers who might suffer mojs, the maternal state watches you in silence, like carrion eaters. For my 2 cents worth I say rise, take your situation to the Courts, justice and truth make no distinction that mere 'mighty' men should dabble with from distant towers.
Identifying the issue/problem is one matter.
ReplyDeleteGetting those in authority to accept that they are part of the issue/problem is another matter.
Allowing the issue/problem to fester because an organisation is unhealthy/cowardly is unacceptable to a person with PTSD.
It is the cops who have crossed the line, which is so unacceptable and this has caused the PTSD. No doubt undercover cops as individuals have their own personal shame. What can an individual do when they know that an organisation is rotten concerning a specific issue/problem? This is not an employment matter, this is the blue code of silence.
This is right outside my experience, but I would be very cautious judging that a single issue would be the cause for PTSD, although it might have come from a single event and complicated itself over time. As to your question what can an individual do when that an organisation is rotten concerning a specific problem?
ReplyDeleteAn individual could do nothing, remove him or herself from the situation, take the organisation to task, bring proceedings if necessary, cut a track and thereby cut losses, be 'selfish' and decide they are worth more than the problem and so forth.
I don't know what time context you are talking about, but many people would now agree that if there was a 'code of silence' it is begining to crack as it should, and should never have existed. That relies on the hard work and integrity of those that say no, or speak out recognising that is what is required. The navy has been through it and is coming out the otherside, it still exists in some 'elite' schools.
I think also for those that may have been effected by serving under a 'code of silence' should be cut some slack because at the end of the day they were victimised as well into thinking that it was necessary and acceptable. I like to see some of the old die-hards, front up and tell the truth particularly about cases where corners were cut. But I know many of them will die with their secrets, probably trying to believe none of it happened or that it was their 'job.' There was a notable case where a retired senior officer went into pi work during the passage of which he was asked to investigate an investigation, he commented publicly about it, later claimed to be 'satisfied' with policing the police and completely either ignored or shut-out the things he criticised others for he'd been a master of himself.
A person either has PTSD or they don't have it. In the DSM - IV the only deviation of PTSD is DESNOS. I am hoping that the DSM - V has a category of complex PTSD due out in 2013.
ReplyDeleteFor further information on PTSD see
http--www.bullyonline.org-stress-ptsd.htm
The difference between mental illness and psychiatric injury, there is a good comparison.
It needs to be recognised that undercover work in the 1970s or even 1980s is a lot different since the 1990s to now. Some lessons have been learned.
I expect some undercover cops from the 1970s - 1980s are still on ACC. This is telling isn't it?
Glad to hear the undercover work is different in more recent times. I've certainly read that some undercover cops from earlier are on ACC. I recognise they operated in an environment that wasn't deeply considered for what its effects might be, also that among their number were those that succumbed to drugs, exposure to a nasty side of life, a willingness to cut corners as Patrick did, prejudice from others when they went back to normal duties and difficulties in re-adjusting. But I also recognise that perhaps the cracks haven't appeared in the more modern operatives - yet.
ReplyDeleteI've often thought that some of the conduct of Rotorua police in the 80s and 90s might have been adopted from a figure or figures who worked under cover around the gang scenes.
Link I posted above was incorrect from the favourites, try this one.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm
I have never been a cop, but I have known some cops in my time and been given an insight into the dark side of policing. Also I have a lot of experience with PTSD and senior cops concealing the truth.
"Telling isn't it?" NZ police management have dealt with the concerns of undercover cops in the 1970s and 1980s by giving them an ACC income. The good thing is that psychiatry has now caught up with being able to explain the psychiatric injury which undercover cops and others (in next paragraph) have. An overseas trauma psychiatrist needs to see every undercover cop with PTSD and up date their diagnosis. A experienced psychologist in psychoanalysis is also required; I know of one with 35 years clinical experience in the North Island who finally confirmed what the police did to me.
I expect that Dame Bazleys inquiry into the sexual conduct of police and Operation Austin would not have been easy for ex undercover cops. Note that Patrick wrote to Chief Justice Elias in November 2007 and the then PM Clark in October 2008. Transference (an unconscious redirection of feelings passed from one person to another person) can be intense when a similar event occurs e.g. dirty cops being exposed.
Dame Bazley's inquiry failed Nicholas and Garrett as their cases were not covered by her. C. Rickards was an undercover cop and the life style he led would have caused him to have crossed the line. I consider crossing the line to be when a cop conceals the truth which would have occurred in his role during undercover, or senior police concealing the truth because of wanting to protect the image of the police. My case involves C. Rickards defamatory response to me in 2002.
I have enjoyed my chat with you.
This link makes my point about the difference between PTSD and Complex PTSD and the part that the NZ police play in holding a person psychologically captive because the truth is being concealed by them due to inaction.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.suite101.com/content/what-is-complex-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-a154007
I'm have an interest in the term 'inaction' at the moment, relating as to whether a 'specified act' can be 'inaction' in the witnessing or failure to intervene in the presence of a 'specified act' by others. I think a lot of other recognised law enters, such as omission, failing to act, party to an act, aiding and abeting and so forth, that, it seems, is to what you rightfully object - inaction is silence when there should be none.
ReplyDeleteIn article I wrote about earlier by Chris Birt in North and South magazine June 2011, he refers to the Commissioner of Police Bob Walton writing to an Auckland CIB Chief Brian Wilkinson in 1979 telling him not investigate a positive sighting of the woman who apparently fed baby Rochelle on her parent's farm. When interviewed about this in May 2006 Walton at first denied the letter, then when give a copy couldn't explain why he would have written such a letter. Later when Birt was leaving he (Walton) asked that should Birt see Wilkinson again to ask him why he (Walton) had effectively given the instruction and to ask what the reason was.
Walton is now dead, Wilkinson for his part has said that he wished he asked Walton why he'd made the order, and pointed out that '(but) you don't usually go about questioning the decisions of the Commissioner of Police.' Leaving the question as to why you don't usually go about questioning a Superior. That might show a common feature across a wide-range of difficulties that result in mojs.
Burnside and Walton have a lot to answer about the Colin Moyle inquiry, their trip to Parliament on 5 November 1976 told me that Muldoon had the police where he wanted them in regard to the statement Moyle made in the House on 5 November 1976.
ReplyDeleteMy views on certain senior police and the Moyle inquiry seems to be mentioned more frequently due to my view on historical police failures and the ongoing injustice this causes.
I have stated that Broad is a bozo and so is Robinson. What was Broad thinking in 2008 when he got Squire to look into the O' Brien allegations? In 2004 Robinson got Squire to look into the allegations of undercover cops. This is lousy policing because as far back as 2004 the matters that O' Brien raises in 2007 - 2011 (perjury) should have been dealt with in 2004 because perjury was mentioned.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554083 also see 3554195 and 3555078
I know that I can only advance my case if a barrister familiar with ACC is appointed, because of my reaction to a 1979 CIB interview. Walton was the then police commissioner and had he not been told about me threatening the cop involved in the Moyle incident (think he is still a cop today) with going to the newspaper. The police are now answerable to the NZ public because Moyle was told by Walton in June 1975 that the police would be held to account were the matter to be revisited. Walton had to have been up to dirty tricks with the CIB inquisition.
My case involves senior cops going back to 1979 and up until 2008. ACC was approached again in 2008 and something very upsetting arose when I was assessed by the psychiatrist, it involves the police. The thick psychiatrist thought he could just ring up the police and the police would tell him the truth. Well a very well known psychologist rang the police up in November 1991.
What went on in the 1970s is still going on, if a persons case was covered up then, of course it is still being covered up now. I think that the police need to go and look up what their best practise is and to familarise themselves with the Trappitt police guidelines.
Another option I have to consider very carefully is to approach Marshall. I have a question for Robinson. What did you do with the 30 attachments I mailed to you in May 2002? The file was handed to C. Rickards who had the empathy of an ice cube. My question to C. Rickards is. Why did it take you only 13 days to respond to me? Your response has now caused three current superintendents to repeat your defamatory statement (and their additions) to the last three ministers of police.
My final question is to the cop L.R.C. Why do you not save police resources and finally admit that you told me in March 1976 about the Moyle incident when I was only 16 years old and that you wrote to me in 1977 (twice) probbing me?
I invite the police commissioner to take me to court if anything I have said will not be finally proved.
Yes, Rob Muldoon had a strong grip on power reminiscient of earlier times. He crossed the floor to vote for the abolishment of capital punishment and basically released Arthur Thomas from prison, probably using what would be now seen as an unorthodox use of power. His decision on the Thomas case wouldn't have gone down well throughout parts of the establishment.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why Broad made the decision of who should look into either the allegations of the undercover cops or later, those of O Brien. The result was unsatisfactory which leaves a number of suggestions of what Broad's motivation might have been, unanswered.
Walton is gone now of course and with him the answer as to why, or who instructed him to write Brian Wilkinson ordering him not to investigate the 'positive' identification of a woman likely to have feed Rochelle Crewe, and which would of, at least in part, freed Vivien Harrison from part of the disaster the false imprisonment of Arthur visited upon her.
I'm sure both yourself and Patrick O Brien have a clear target of what you want to achieve and also realise the clartiy of that target should be made easily understandable and proveable to gain momentum.
For some reason I was able to pick from news reports that Schollum and Shiptom were already imprisoned at the time of their last trial. I'm sure some effort was made to have that revealed as a propensity to 'similar offending' and conclude that attempt failed. But something which didn't fail was the public seeing Rickards front in police uniform on the first day of the trial when he already knew, at the very least, his conduct around the time in question, hadn't been to the expected standards. He wore his uniform in a manner of contempt and a display of power, the same power he misused earlier.
But it was post trial, in the televised interview, that many of the public saw for the first time why the country is fortunate this man didn't go on to become a Commissioner of Police. He was angry, but not for anything other than his own predicament. He was unable to realise that the public generally were horrified at how he and the other two men had conducted themselves with vulnerable individuals. He had no capacity to say sorry, for even being sorry would not have been an admission of guilty, but rather an acknowledgement of his misconduct as a police officer and how that had impacted on others. For me that might be the worst part - his disconnection with the fact that there was general abhorrence at how he had misused his power and was indifferent to the suffering it had clearly caused.
If nothing else, that disconnection showed (along with spoken support then of Schollum and Shipton) their views of entitlement and inability to grasp that the country was on the cusp of having to absorb that some among our police were pack rapists, and among others that there was no shame for that and no concern for those used and hurt. A lot of it reminded me of gang culture, and even after my own experiences, stunned me somewhat.
Unlike some of my old friends, I remain optomistic that steps taken such as yours, O Briens, the mothers recently acknowledged as having fought against mojs and got their sons home from false imprisonment, culminate and strengthen even the most fragile voice in the halls of intimidating silence. That's special and it gives hope that things do improve, people finally listen (even if forced to) while sending out a message that the old ways have had their days, a police force with greater accountability begins to exist and (hopefully) with growing and stronger representation of women, because it appears to me part of what has always been wrong was the absence of women.
What does mojs mean?
ReplyDeleteMiscarriage of Justice.
ReplyDeletePat Booth was the reason that Muldoon did a U - turn on Thomas.
ReplyDeleteBroad became police commissioner in April 2006; for some reason Broad also chose to appoint Squire as Robinson did. It is my view that a different barrister needed to be appointed to look into the O' Brien 2007 allegations.
I gave Vivien Harrison a thought when she passed over, that she was denied by the police of having her name removed from the file, slandering her as the person who fed Rochelle.
Sometimes it can be hard to be specific about a particular point due to the complexity of the situation, due to a whole series of related incidents. E.g. The 2009 (not 2008) ACC psychiatric assessment being sabotaged. Either the psychiatrist believes me about my cycles of complaints to the police or he doesn't. Two questions are asked in the assessment, basically any other significant traumatic incidents and is this related to the specific claim? More to say on the ACC psychiatrist and the claim but to a barrister.
Chief Justice Elias is one smart cookie. In September 1977 a group of Auckland lawyers had this to say, "It is disquieting that, as far as we are aware, no action has been taken in respect of that aspect of the matter." This was to do with the police breach into the Moyle incident 17/06/1975.
Regarding moj. What do you say to a person whose course in life has become a hard one and changed how they see those in authority because of how authority have misused the power of an organisation over you again and again and again.
Not much gets past me, to do with corrupt police practise in the media.
The fact that Muldoon had the capacity to do a U turn impresses me. Howard Broad had the opportunity to do a U turn as well, particularly when it was revealed there was anecdotal evidence to connect undercover work to the later offending of Rotorua Police, but he took an easier route for himself despite by then it was understood his previous support for one of the deposed. We see a failure for leaders to 'front up' when necessary, they duck shove to the point that so many do it that it has somehow become cliched or acceptable when it's not.
ReplyDeleteWhen I questioned that PTSD was related to a single event, it was because I understand that not to be the case from life experience. However, with victims of PTSD even if they may have a background of potential contributing factors, those other factors cannot overcome the specific inquiry into a specific event or events where normal rational would presume resulted in PTSD. More particularly, where the PTSD has arisen fully or in part from institutionalised stress of some sort, say offending by action or inaction of police or other civil servants, it is unjust that previous circumstances rise above that because as, has been noted to me recently, you take the victims as they come. The victims are not somehow anticipated to be anything more than their life experiences to that point, whilst not forgetting that in practice 'compliant' or 'damaged' victims may be chosen for that very reason as has been the case in institutions worldwide including NZ. To screen them for other 'contributing' factors that might have led in part to their PTSD is unjust, probably bloody obscene, as it seeks to measure earlier damage to mitigate the damage for which the state may be responsible. The very reason of their vulnerability rachets up the culpability of the State.
At some point I'll answer your question in the punultimate para if you are asking me personally.
PTSD is variable e.g. underdiagnosed due to a complete psychological history not being taken, can be life long, can be delayed and triggered by a similar incident(previously in Vietnam and then son goes to war). There is a specific criteria which is used to diagnose PTSD. A person can have a multiple diagnosis with other features seen in anxiety disorders e.g. OCD, phobias, generalised anxiety.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me is that a diagnosis of PTSD is quantified by the event/s which meets the criteria. When it comes to contributing factors e.g. threshold for stress, family history of depression, bi - polar, suicide, these conditions are not events which usually cause PTSD to develope.
When it comes to the DSM-IV TR Multiaxial Diagnosis ACC told me they only look at Axis 1 (the PTSD), however Global Assessment Functioning (current)does look at contributing factors in Axis II-IV. The interpretation of contributing factors can also be a separate event which on its own can cause PTSD or trigger fully blown PTSD. An example of this is being sexually abused during childhood, dissociating the abuse and appearing to cope with the sexual abuse (asymtomatic), then being silenced and bullied by the police, then appearing to have generalised anxiety because the sexual abuse history was not taken or it was overlooked (written down in the file), then years later being assessed for the sexual abuse and being diagnosed as having PTSD which was caused by the sexual abuse. As well a psychologist telling you that, had the sexual abuse not have occurred, being silenced by the police would not have impacted as it did, or had not being silenced and bullied by the police, the sexual abuse would not have impacted as it did.
So where does this leave a person who was silenced and bullied by the police because they were going to expose perjury and developed severe symptoms after the police incident (threatened by CIB), but had a history of being sexually abused when a child?
I note your last paragraph in your last comment and it is up to you on whether or not you give a personal answer and/or an objective answer.
To me, the current understanding of PTSD is shrouded with a lack of common sense, too blinking scientific. If it was only recently accepted that there can be multi contributors to PTSD instead as was previously thought only one, I would have little confidence. That's particularly so with ACC's involvement because after all like any insurer they're only trying to find a reason not to pay, or to pay less, they have their own preferred operatives to help them achieve that. The graphic example of this is the degenerative bone argument they run. If for an example any 50 year old is examined, x-rayed and so on there's every liklihood bone and joint degeneration will be found because it happens to all of us all of our lives. So the 50 year old labourer who damages his back already has degeneration existing which may later be blamed for him not having a 'full' recovery in ACC assessments or entitlements, for that to be fair we wouldn't be allowed to have anybody in the work force because they were at risk of having an injury they might already have compromised by the aging process. It's blinking nuts.
ReplyDeleteSo is any argument surrounding contributing factors to PTSD in relation to victims of the type of events, essentially at the hands of the state, that you have described. To quote what you say 'telling you that, had the sexual abuse not have occurred, being silence by the police would not have impacted as it did.' I agree that is probably true but if that were used to argue some sort of mitigation as to what it is alleged the police had done, and that the consequences therefore would have been 'less' I totally disagree for the same reason I said yesterday - in the circumstances like that you take the victim as they arrive, with or without pre-existing symptoms that might have resulted in a heightened PTSD and accumulate responsibility for them, particularly if they (the antagonist) are employees of the state.
So in answer to your question of where it leaves a person who was going to expose police misconduct and developed symptoms as the result of that not being handled appropriately (threatened, ignored, fobbed off,) but who also had a history of sexual abuse as a child, it leaves their existing condition as the responsibility of the police and for the state to put right, of course that person might well need help and an advocate to document those events to (probably) on the balance of probability standard. That is what it seems to me, and the surrounding circumstances as you have revealed, enlarge a picture of how the person's vulnerability was used against them in a deliberate way, the same reason for which I say, when and if state employees offend, omit to act, and so forth in that way, the state inherits all that has gone before in that person's life which may or may not have contributed to their PTSD. In reality it goes beyond the ACC umbrella and into duty of care, and personal damage under civil law.
I've probably answered the question I deferred yesterday. But would add to it, to question what that person may have achieved, what more they may realistically hope to achieve, to touch stone family and friends so as to make sure the events have not taken control - because they can't be allowed to do that, absolutely not. The person must rise above them and be in control, gradually, or more definitively.
I am familiar with ACCs view on degeneration.
ReplyDeleteA diagnosis of complex PTSD would explain how and why the CIB inquisition impacted.
I need to read up on what ACC assesses in the AMA assessment from the Multiaxial Diagnosis. Due to the psychiatrist wanting proof on my police allegations, I chose not to go for the AMA assessment even though the psychiatrist believes that I was sexually violated. There is no time limit from when the psychiatrist assesses you to when you go to the AMA assessor, but ACC declined my claim a year after seeing the psychiatrist.
Are your views any different than as in the above, (authority having power over an individual) on expecting a person with PTSD (fully blown, intensified and prolonged due to the police) to have to have the police investigated, without the resources or influence?
My case is just not an ACC issue, it is a civil matter.
Yes your case is a civil matter. However, any ACC decision is reviewable under Judicial Review? I've not read that ACC decisions are exempt from review?
ReplyDeleteAs to suing for damages what elements are there?
At least these:
A pattern of behaviour by some particular police that was predatory toward females.
A concealment or fudging of complaints by the victims.
Convictions against some members of the police that was part of a predatory pattern that was allowed to contiue, or which was ignored as being ok on the basis of 'who' or 'what' the victims were considered to be.
High Court defences, under oath as to the conduct of police facing historical charges - in essence what the police charged claimed happened, was that sex was consensual, and in breach however of a duty to protect/care, in a moral breach, and in all the circumstances what a reasonable person would see as exploitive.
The covering up, or fudging of complaints heightens the damage to the individuals involved but also betrays the culpability and willingness of some police to cover up what can be legally described as the activities of pack rapists, and others who were at the very least on the civil standard predators.
When Rickard spoke out after his trial, he gave a clear indication of what he thought was okay in terms of police conduct toward women, distinction there - police conduct. So, like the cover ups, we see the reason for the coverups as inherent in at least some serving officers of attitudes of the time to what was ok as police behaviour. The police as an institution it seems are invariably trapped: serving officers, conduct during on duty time, the wearing of uniforms, the use of police vehicles and the list goes on. Police on duty can't just disappear, these guys were allowed a particular freedom.
As I wrote earlier, Rickards anger post trial showed his inability to grasp the gravity of what had happened and what hurt it may have caused. It was the anger of entitlement and the further belittling of people no police officer should have considered taking 'advantage' of.
So yes, pretty strong stuff there. Some of the police may have been convicted or acquitted as individuals, but there are also convictions for covering up the crimes of some of the offenders in all of that the police have been linked with the particular acts of damage, by allowing them to happen without seeming to have any checks on what officers are doing while on duty, covering up, moving officers around, pressuring complainants etc which make the individual acts and the actions of the police as an organisation intrinsic.
It really is something that needs to be tidied up in its broader issues. The historical 'cull' of rotten wood, isn't sufficient but is quite clearly where vested interests wish to see it lay.
Sorry if I've got some of the details incorrect, but I think I may have the overall architecture about right.
Yes you are perceptive indeed. Dame Bazley's recommendations appear to be seen as not being a priority by NZ Police bosses.
ReplyDeleteI have learnt this about dirty cops, do not go down the same failed path as others have in trying to expose their ignorance.
The ACC psychiatrist's assessment is what needs to be reviewed. The time limit for this has now expired. I now need to approach the Health and Disability Commissioner because of the effect the assessment had on me. Go and look up the "Martha Mitchell Effect." In 1980 and 1981 I saw a psychiatric registra and in 1986 - 1991 I saw a very experienced clinical psychologist and in 2003 - 2004 I saw another very experienced clinical psychologist and none of these people ever even questioned marked being psychotic. Where does this leave the psychiatrist? He either believes me or he does not believe me about my cycles of complaints to the police. I sent the psychiatrist (18 months ago) 110 pages to mull over and I did not recieve a response from him.
Organisational systemic dysfunction of historical police complaints is still occurring at PNHQ. O' Brien is proof of this. It is insufficient for the same old Auckland detective which the police allocates, to investigate O' Briens perjury admission and complaints against the police in how the undercover programme was conducted. Three years undercover in the field would destroy most people.
People need to understand that my main problem is(POLICE CORRUPTION) and that I am determined to expose those who have covered up my cycles of police complaints.
Thank you for your support and I apologise if I have diverted from the topic of Patrick, but I feel as though I have a lot of empathy for him as the police have wasted my life as well.
Oblivious is the word for police corruption.
ReplyDeleteAlso the psychiatrist who did the ACC assessment had to really think about the devious behaviour of the police, because a clinical assessment, or a text book could not verify my allegations. To think he could just ring up the police was unwise as he may have jeopardised a future civil case.
The ridiculous thing is that a lot of what has happened is coincidental or accidental. In many ways there was/is a single failure, then the propensity, pervasive code of covering up. ACC are still covering up perhaps, but for different institutional reasons risen from any insurer's tenet to only pay out reluctantly.
ReplyDeleteExample, a recruit volunteers to go undercover. He has a certain coldness or hardness about him that seems to create a feeling in others to take him seriously. He appears almost dangerous, a controlled danger. He could go into the gang scene for example, he's big and formidable enough - might already have been in it in a peripheral way, or gone to school with some in that scene already.
When he is introduced to the scene, say by a paid informer, someone doing a deal to get out of some sort of trouble, he's seems a perfect fit, easily able to withstand tests of how macho, or aggro he might be. He consumes drugs and drink readily, obviously been involved in the same type of sex scene as his new companions, in fact he may even have an appetite for it and for cold violence.
He gains sucessful prosecutions, is still up front enough to convince his superiors that they need not worry about his 'exposure' to the lifestyle he went into undercover. He is probably regarded as a man's man and when their are other 'opportunities' for sex with 'compliant' women unlikely to complain, or who might not be adverse to it - he finds others within the police willing to join him, possibly encourage him in the 1st place having heard something of his reputation.
By the time the 'small' troubles begin he's already considered a future leader, and any complainants are soon agreed to be 'flighty,' or 'touched in the head.' Small co-incidence that they are of particular, perhaps vulnerable type, generally compared to what they're claiming, and against who, not really credible, or simply needing to be 'handled' into silence.
It's about there that the trouble has got out of control. No police officer was intending to turn a blind eye to gang rapists within their ranks, so misgivings are put aside and compared to the 'character' of those whom complain. A systematic fault has begun to take over, some are simply caught in because of misguided loyalty, others probably fear or desire to not rock the boat - all the way along, who the complainants are, or what they are, is played out to allay any misgivings.
A sad situation but possibly accurate. Sad for those directly hurt by it, and sad for the modern police force that a Minister of the Crown, a Prime Minister, a powerful advocate or an inspired lawyer has wiped the whiteboard of this darkened page. MOJ's seldom go away, and it is the mistake of the misguided who believe they will.
You realise I hope there is no onus on you to do anything more. Although you don't have to let this go, you must know you can. You must find the power within yourself to know that you can, to be sure that you can. You didn't cause this, others did, the problem is theirs and I'm sure you aware how much it already has bitten them.
The brain is wired to recall a bad experience so as to not repeat it. The brain also compartmentalises the trauma/s so the rest of the personality remains intact. Even though a person has flashbacks and nightmares which are so vivid about the traumatic event/s they are aware that the flashbacks and the nightmares are about a past event/s.
ReplyDeleteThe police are not psychologists and this may partly explain why they cause so much damage. An example of this is the case of the Christchurch man with aspergers who has OCD thinking when it comes to light fittings. Even if he did not have aspergers, the way he has been treated and how the police have handled his case is not appropriate.
Do the police think they have the right to inflict pain on an individual when they have over stepped the line? Every organisation has to have a code of ethics of, do no harm. Where harm has been caused by an organisation, the organisation has to be held to account for inflicting the damage regardless of it being coincidental or accidental.
When it came to Bazley's inquiry into police conduct, Operation Austin and the loft files I was left feeling between betrayed and disappointed that psychological imput was lacking e.g. the psychological effect on the complainants due to the code of silence within the organisation. Those who protect a nark/whistle blower are those who have something to hide. Police procrastination over the O' Brien case is doing harm to O' Brien, much more harm than what O' Briens confession to Chief Justice Elias has done to the image/reputation of the police. When will the police learn?
Correction last paragraph, line 5, second word, insead of protect, dismiss is what I meant to say.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the police won't learn until there is specific legislation to do with their training and conduct, along with the appropriate auditing system. Maybe it's totally naive to believe the correction can occur from within, when in the Arie Smith case Head Office says it is not appropriate to comment, followed by free comment shortly after by the area commander - maybe I'm misreading what I thought were undeniable signs of improvement and they might be cosmetic, or not applying across all districts.
ReplyDeleteInteresting read.
ReplyDeletePatrick hasn't been charged for a number of reasons, one being they can't find the court transcripts and the major reason is of course if he goes they will also have no choice but to prosecute his superiors, those still alive as it would be very difficult for them to leave them alone. Patrick did not come up with the term 'simulate' that was taught by the actual U/C program.
The fact was raised that the police have charged the program how? look at the Red Devil's debacle There it is clear that a conspiracy to defeat the course of justice occurred and although on going i will bet nothing will happen.IMO U/C work should only be done for intelligence purposes, like a cop as a nark. Nothing should require him/her to appear as a witness. Evidence gain be gained by electronic methods or the good old fashion leg work .
The PCA is a joke, it only reviews police files.
In closing I saw a post that said maybe Patrick caught some young drug offenders who haven't offended again? To my knowledge low level offenders weren't part of any targets.Some may be picked up in later inquiries but the waste of resources on small stuff wasn't smiled upon. Almost all U/C operatives I knew did it for a sense of duty, almost all have a jaded sense of Justice nowadays and almost all have been abandoned by the Department they served. I will stand by Patrick always he did what he perceived was his duty, it changed the very essence of the man but he has the resolve to at least try and get some form of 'Justice' out of it.
Hi Mike, gosh you actually read the thread.
DeleteAre you aware that O'Brien has recently written to the Queen?
I can see how a U/C operative would want to serve his master (duty) and protect (serve society). The U/C programme leaders are answerable to the U/C operatives when an injustice needs to be put right e.g. perjury, PTSD/Complex PTSD, ACC entitlement to exemplary damages. There needs to be some kind of public apology and financial settlement for the U/Cs who have remained disconnected because the injustice has been covered up for so long and this has mainly contributed to staying traumatised.
It is the inaction from the Office of the Commissioner of Police re historical complaints which disturbs me the most as they are seen as covering up, (not up holding the law), when it comes to them being held to account for their misdeeds.
Rod Drew dropped the ball when it came to the Red Devils debacle and I think that the police are reviewing the decision of the court. It is possible that Drew was an U/C in the early 1980s. Those who were U/C cops are now the ones running the programme and would not want to risk their big income or put their retired mates on the stand.
Just last week through the carelessness of the police, they have endangered the lives of U/C cops and informants as the electronic data was not photo copied onto paper and then sent to a lawyer.
I am also troubled by how many errors the police have made in relation to policing matters pertaining to Dotcom.
An interesting thread ...
ReplyDeleteIt's now official — New Zealand police will not release the findings of their "independent" inquiry into my perjury, evidence tampering and related criminal offending.
Here's a brief summary of these events (with a selection of relevant Links) that I've posted to my personal Blog:
http://disidento.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/secret-inquiry/
Thank you
Patrick O'Brien
Hi Patrick, could you please email me Elyse.sivyer@gmail.com
Delete