NRT: “No intention to interfere”

Written By: - Date published: 2:02 pm, May 1st, 2014 - 20 comments
Categories: corruption, john key, police - Tags: , ,

no-right-turn-256No Right Turn also has questions about how the police handled Maurice Williamson interfering in their investigation.

When the Prime Minister found out that Maurice Williamson had contacted police over their investigation of a National Party donor on domestic violence charges, Williamson “assured [him] that he did not in any way intend to influence the Police investigation”.

Bullshit:

Maurice Williamson told a senior police officer that a wealthy businessman facing domestic assault charges was “investing a lot of money in New Zealand” and urged police to be on “solid ground”, according to internal police emails.

The former National Party Minister, who resigned this morning following Herald revelations that he made the phone call, said that he “in no way was he looking to interfere” with the criminal case against Donghua Liu but just wanted to “make sure somebody had reviewed the matter to ensure we were on solid ground as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand”, according to Inspector Gary Davey.

And that’s exactly what interfering in a police investigation looks like: someone powerful telling police to “be careful”. Sadly, rather than reminding Williamson of the constitutional independence of police, or of the law on perversion of the course of justice, they let him get away with it.

Update: Except its worse than that. Because as the released emails show, the Police gave Williamson exactly what he wanted. In an email sent on 20 January, Inspector Gary Davey says

I would like someone from Family Violence to contact prosecutions, review the file, discuss with prosecutions and then we will need to provide a response to the Minister.

Williamson’s head isn’t the only one that should be on a spike. The Police who obeyed him need to be fired too.

20 comments on “NRT: “No intention to interfere” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Red Rosa 1
    1 May 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Anne Tolley is Minister of Police.

    She will no doubt explain all this. Possibly with Judith Collins, Minister of Justice, to assist.

    Wasn’t Liu’s donation to the National Party enough $’s? Enlighten us plebs, please, is $100k the sort of cash that really gets you listened to at Cabinet level?

  2. Tracey 2
    1 May 2014 at 2:54 pm

    if he wasnt trying to influence why call. why mention money accused invested.

    or is it just part of the whole national ethos that money trumps everything… eve.n domestic violence.

    has key been asked why williamson rang them. I am assuming williamson isnt fronting questions.

    • SHG 2.1
      2 May 2014 at 4:20 am

      Calling in the first place is influencing. The moment Williamson’s name or number showed up on Caller ID he was influencing the person who looked at the phone.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2
      2 May 2014 at 10:15 am

      Williamson is very crafty trying to make an equivalence between calling police on behalf of a victim of crime– which is quite reasonable to do.

      Yet he was calling the police on behalf of a perpetrator and trying to lay doubt in the polices mind regarding a prosecution. With the loaded phrases,” big investor”,” make sure you are on solid ground”

      Hello ? That is what lawyers are for. They may formally or informally find out the polices intentions regarding a prosecution and the likely charges.

      They would be steered to a senior sergeant or sergeant supervising the staff. Certainly not the district superintendent. Its highly improper that the police let Williamson go as far as he did and have a continuing dialogue, especially with those further down the ranks. The Superintendent should have fobbed him off totally right at the start

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    1 May 2014 at 4:32 pm

    Calling Penny Bright and McCready, you have an ex-minister to put behind bars:

    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.

    Which sounds exactly like what Williamson was trying to do.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      2 May 2014 at 10:38 am

      Crafty Williamson made sure he got around the “intent” part of the law by inserting his disclaimer
      “He [Mr Williamson] started by saying that in no way was he looking to interfere with the process,”

      And of course if the Police HAD dropped the case, Williamson would taken the credit with his ‘big investor’

      • SHG 3.1.1
        2 May 2014 at 1:36 pm

        “In no way was I looking to interfere with the process” is like saying “Look, I am not a racist”

  4. Richard Christie 4
    1 May 2014 at 4:35 pm

    I’ve just been on the phone to Greg O’Connor and he assured me the police where acting in full accordance with the law and that if the police were armed with proper guns rather than TASERS then none of this would have happened in the first place.
    He also added that any forthcoming police investigation into the matter will underscore the truth of his observations.

    /sarc

    [lprent: Please indicate that it was sarcasm if you write it as fact. Otherwise one day we will find a humourless dick like Crazy Colin trying to sue us. I added one for you. ]

  5. karol 5
    1 May 2014 at 5:52 pm

    Whoa! I go offline for a few hours and it’s all happening.

    Williamson is obviously expendable. Brent Edwards on RNZ reckons it’s understandable (acceptable?) for the police to take a request for review by a minister seriously.

    But i reckon it indicates that the police feel beholden to the government.

    • Aspasia 5.1
      2 May 2014 at 4:30 am

      Is Williamson still denying that he was the electorate MP being claimed by Dotcom?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 5.2
      2 May 2014 at 10:19 am

      No No No

      MPs or Ministers should only call the police about VICTIMS of crime. ( and similar matters such as no response or poor response)

  6. JAK 6
    1 May 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Thousands of people now know (and will not forget) that Donghua Liu wasted $22,000 on the National party and assaulted a woman with intent to injure her.

    • Murray Olsen 6.1
      1 May 2014 at 7:32 pm

      These are the type of people National is so keen to give citizenship to. And I don’t mean Chinese.
      A Brazilian student of mine, who did his MSc with me in Rio, came to Auckland to do his PhD. His wife was already a medical doctor. Near the end of his PhD, he applied for permanent residence and eventually citizenship under some special skills category. Both of them spoke English fluently. They were turned down, told that Aotearoa had no need of their skills, and moved to Australia. They are both earning about twice what they could expect in Auckland. The irony is that they are quite a conservative couple, and would probably vote Tory. The mistake was obviously that they had no knowledge of the fee that should have been paid. Silly Brazilians, they expected our government to be honest.

  7. Skinny 7
    1 May 2014 at 7:31 pm

    No Surprise the ex Whangarei cop responds to ex Whangarei boy Williamson’s request. The email trail clearly illustrates wink wink, nudge nudge, do your very best to insure your on solid ground.
    Ok right, just watched Campbell on tv3. Key would have told Maurice to get the next dodgy revelation out in the open straight away, before its exposed by the press. Williamson advises the National Party donator who was looking to buy a beach property, that there just happens to be one right next door to his own at Pauanui, low and behold ‘love thy neighbor.’

    Let hope plenty of Kiwi’s are waking up to the donation scam going on right under their noses by this regime in power.

  8. Stephanie Rodgers 8
    1 May 2014 at 8:10 pm

    I am reminded of the way National and ACT cried for Ella Henry to be sacked – and her crime was only to write a letter of complaint with her business card attached to it.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/content/54261

    • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1
      2 May 2014 at 10:43 am

      Still wrong, but she resigned of her own accord (?) You dont go in to bat for the offender only for the victim. She should have picked an occasion when there was no offence committed.

  9. Treetop 9
    2 May 2014 at 2:52 pm

    The person I want to hear from is Bush.

    I would like to ask him:

    Did Marshall inform Bush and when?

    Was Tolley informed by the police and who informed her?

    Did anyone else inform Key e.g. the GCSB?

    Is there going to be an investigation into the police to establish why the police assisted a minister when a police charge had been made?

    Marshall does not have to explain anything as he is no longer the police commissioner. Bush has shown to have been bias when it comes to the integrity of the police. Bush has only been at the helm for a month.

    When Bush was appointed I thought it was clumsy of the government to have appointed him.

    Was Bush appointed because he knew about Williamson’s interference into a police matter?

    Which one?
    1. Did the police fail to notify Tolley when Williamson interfered in a police matter?
    2. Did Tolley or Key fail to act sooner?