Mike Johnson: Police Assistant Commissioner on the employment of a police official who hit his children

A senior police officer who hit his children with a belt has been let off the hook with a formal condemnation.

The officer admitted to disciplining his teenage child and his other children who are under the age of 10.

Why is he still employed?  

Ryan Bridge asks Police Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson that question.

LISTEN ABOVE.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bryan Bridge.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
As we talked about on yesterday's show, a senior police
officer has managed to keep his job despite a finding
by the IPCA that he hit his children with a
belt on three separate occasions. Police never laid any charges
over the incident due to a lack of evidence, but
the Auckland University law professor Mark Hanahan told us yesterday
that it seems like there was some evidence.

Speaker 3 (00:20):
I mean, obviously orang of Tamareki got evidence from the
children talking to them. They said it happened, So I
don't see why they couldn't use that. I mean, even
though it's it's secondhand to some degree, the children did
say to ringer Tamorick. That's why the ringer Tamorick, he
knew about him, thought the children were safe.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Mike Johnson's the police Assistant commissioner, Hi, Mike of R.
Why wasn't he charged?

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (00:44):
If I could just say in an opening, police don't
ever condone police star or anyone else potically disciplining children.
It amounts to a criminal offense and it's unacceptable. Obviously,
if there is admissible evidence, police will lay charges them prosecute.
In this case, the evidence that was available to police

(01:10):
wasn't able to be induced in court. There that I
heard your intro with your law professor, and just to
make a comment on that, we had legal opinions in
this matter that advised a senior panel who decide on
whether police are charged or not, that this evidence was

(01:32):
inadmissible in this case due to the circumstances of it.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Okay, understand that are you happy to have a colleague
in the force whose kids said that they got hit
three times with a belt?

Speaker 1 (01:46):
So what I would say to that, Ryan, is I
expect an extreme as to does the commissioner and the
other police expect a very high standard from our officers?
Is that high in this case? That's in this case
that standard has not been there. This matter was then
when we received that legal advice, was then moved into

(02:09):
the employment space, and there has been a sanction in
the employment space, and that, as with any other employer.
I can't go into the details of the specific details
of that. So you answer to you.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
You obviously think he did do it, otherwise there be
no sanctions. So I guess the question then becomes you
started this interview by saying that it is never acceptable
and never okay to hit your kids, and yet you've
got a police officer who you believe has had as kids.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Well, there is, as I said, admissible evidences that challenge
in this or a criminal charges, and the legal opinion
did not support that. And that, ever said, it went
to a senior panel to review the employment investigation by

(03:02):
and decision maker was an independent from that district and
was of a senior level also, and the decision maker
came to the decision around the level and reentness of
the sanction.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Imply So a senior group of police officers decided that
something happened because he was sanctioned, but not enough. Hatching
three times with the belt not enough to warrant losing
your job.

Speaker 1 (03:35):
But the senior panel, right, just to be clear, relates
to the criminal the ability of the availability of evidence,
and where we got to in relation to the criminal matter.
It was then passed to another officer, a decision maker
and an employment investigation, which is where we ended up
in this.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
Matter, right, And they determined that the smacking your kids
wasn't enough to get fired.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
I determined that outcome and this case, I'm limited to
what I can say in the employment space. Ryan in
this manner.

Speaker 2 (04:09):
Okay, fair enough, I guess you know. Come back to
your comment at the start of this interview that it's
never okay to do, and yet he is remaining as
a police officer. Is there more to the story that
we're not aware of? Was it a light tap with
the kids you know about to run on the road?
I mean, were they're mitigating circumstances or something that you
can let the public in on so that they might

(04:30):
better understand your the reasoning here.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
What I what I can say in this matter is
this was carefully considered. What I see absolute stand by
my statement at the opening of our discussion, Ryan and
the the outcome I suppose in that employment space the

(04:56):
decision makers felt was appropriate in the set of circumstances,
and we weren't able to bring charges in the criminal arena.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
One of the reasons that you weren't able to do
that is because the police officer in question prevented his children,
didn't give them permission to give you evidence to give
a statement, and he wouldn't speak either. So I guess
in that case you've got no evidence, right. How do
you get around that situation in the future? Do you
need more powers to compel or something.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
We need to think about some of those options in
and around those not just for officers. This is the
same evidential rules and law applies to police officers as
much as it does to any other member of the public.
The officer acted within his rights and therefore we don't

(05:51):
have the right to compel anyone to be interviewed. And
then there's some complexity around children also.

Speaker 2 (05:59):
As in the parents decide on their behalf some yes, okay,
all right, and Mike, thanks very well.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
Can I just round out Ryan? Thank you very much
for your time. Look, this is difficult for us, is
unacceptable and if we sort have reached an evidential threshold,
we would have acted in a different way.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
All right, Mike, I appreciate your time. That's Mike Johnson.
He's the assistant commissioner at Police. For more from Hither
Duplessy Alan Drive, listen live to news talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.