The Authority oversaw a Police investigation into allegations that an officer had acted unlawfully in acquiring firearms and interrogating the Police (National Intelligence Application) database. For clarity, the officer did not access the Firearms Registry database.
The essential allegations were that the officer had committed offences:
• under the Crimes Act 1961 and the Arms Act 1983 by acquiring firearms remotely in the names of third parties when – from start to finish – he was the real purchaser. This, it was said, was done with the intention of deceiving the vendor and Te Tari Pūreke Firearms Safety Authority New Zealand; and
• under the Crimes Act by interrogating the Police database for non-work-related reasons.
Following their investigation, Police concluded that the officer had not committed any offences and there were no grounds to proceed with a disciplinary process of any sort.
The Authority took a different view, concluding that there was sufficient evidence upon which Police could consider charging the officer in respect of both allegations, and that the public interest favoured prosecution. We also concluded that there were proper grounds for Police to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings.
In particular, the Authority concluded that the Police analysis of the case proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the law applying to both the acquisition of the firearms and the interrogation of the Police database.
The key difference between Police’s conclusion and our own in relation to the firearms offences concerned whether the officer had the necessary criminal intent when acquiring the firearms. Police accepted the officer’s evidence that he used the names of third parties because his wife did not like him acquiring firearms. Our view is that that analysis confuses motive and intention, and whatever the officer’s motive may have been, he clearly formed the intention to deceive in proceeding as he did.
In relation to the use of the Police database, Police concluded that the officer had not received a benefit from accessing the system and therefore had not committed an offence. Our view is that the law is now clear that it is not necessary for a party to secure a financial benefit, and as the officer secured real benefits of a non-financial sort, they committed a series of offences.
IPCA: 23-16599