Random impertinent question: Why did Cameron get diversion?

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 am, May 11th, 2016 - 32 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics, Judith Collins, law, police - Tags: , , , ,

For trying to procure a hack of this blog Cameron Slater was offered the soft option of diversion – community service with no conviction. In a series of tweets last night Nicky Hager’s lawyer Felix Geiringer set out 7 reasons Slater didn’t qualify. The text of the tweets was –

1. Before offering diversion, the Police MUST consult the victim. In this case they did not even tell the victim there had been an arrest.
2. Reparation is one of the two primary purposes of the scheme. In this case, Slater was not required to do anything by way of reparation.
3. Diversion is generally only offered to first time offenders but http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10673417
4. Diversion is only offered for minor offending. In Hager case, Manukau District Manager described offences under this section as serious.
5. To qualify, Slater had to admit responsibility and show remorse. His media statement claims he has never done so and still does not.
6. Diversion is “unlikely to be appropriate” where the “offender refuses to identify co-offenders”. Who was Slater’s mysterious “funder”?
7. Diversion is “unlikely to be appropriate” where offender was the organiser. Eg, the offender was soliciting others to commit crime.

I’ve run out of steam. There are probably more.

In surely unrelated news –

32 comments on “Random impertinent question: Why did Cameron get diversion?”

  1. NZJester 1

    So a guy who ticks all the boxes for not being eligible for diversion somehow gets diversion and one of his friends just happens to be the Minister of Police at the time.
    I’m sure everything was totally above board in that decision (Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge, Say no more!)

  2. Colonial Viper 2

    To find this out, it will be necessary to find out which officer was in charge of his case.

  3. gsays 3

    OK folks, how to word the question to put to the minister, that doesn’t allow for weasel words as an answer.

    • mac1 3.1

      “My question is to the Minister of Police, and asks,”Did she influence or attempt to influence the decision to offer diversion to Cameron Slater, and if not, why not?”

      The second question will be much harder for the Minister to answer.

  4. TC 4

    Nationals police doing as instructed IMO.

  5. Tricledrown 5

    Dirty politics connections run deep.

  6. Anne 6

    Lynn Prentice from The Standard talks to Guyon Espiner

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201800262

  7. Jack Ramaka 7

    Best friends with Judith Collins and JK, was previously their attack dog?

  8. adam 8

    I think we need to remember this was a decision my by the upper reaches of the police, and not by the average cop you met on the street.

    • Sacha 8.1

      Yes, the same as the raid on Hager’s house. Slater says jump and the Police grab their ankles.

    • gsays 8.2

      True, Adam.
      The culture that the cop on the street works in is formed by those at the top.
      That’s how they get to the top, by not shaking the status quo.

  9. Jenny Kirk 9

    and it has also taken some attention away from the Panama Papers !

  10. greywarshark 10

    He got diversion because he has a kindly sweet nature and is redeemable and also is a member of CROW (Corrupt Right-Wing Omnipotent Worldwide.)
    edited

  11. Richardrawshark 11

    You know when dumb arse Judith wakes up phones the police and says, hey go easy on cam, she ever thinks the outcomes make for a good case of political interference.

    If Cameron was not suitable for diversion he doesn’t get it. Just appeal. He’s stuffed any lawyer can overturn that sentence in front of a higher court or appeals judge.

    the points he fails to meet allegabilty for diversion means the judge stuffed up sentencing. Appeal. Simple stuff.

    • Richard Christie 11.1

      The police were prosecuting, right?

      I expect the chance of police prosecution lodging an appeal is about zero.

      Unless there is a possibility other parties have the right to appeal outcomes in a case that they are not party to.
      Perhaps a legal mind can elaborate on the last point.

      • lprent 11.1.1

        Looking at it.

        There was bugger all I could do while working in Italy after finding out. The police wouldn’t discuss anything apart from ‘It is under court orders’ to Greg who was asking them on my behalf.

        Managed to find out the court date that diversion was meant to cease and arrived back in Auckland the day before. Spent 3 days at court (supposed diversion cessation date, Rachinger hearing, and name suppression hearing).

        Then on the following friday went to the actual diversion cessation and found out the result of the name suppression hearing that finally gave me standing in the diversion – AS the police were withdrawing their charge.

        I am rather pissed at the pretty evident attempt from the police to make damn sure I couldn’t act on my rights as a victim in a diversion. Something needs to happen to the police to ensure that don’t do this kind of preferential crap. If Cam gets caught in the crossfire, then I really won’t cry much.

        Besides, he has been demonstrating why he shouldn’t have received diversion from the police with his behaviour over the last day

        • dukeofurl 11.1.1.1

          I have noticed that he is only denying getting Rachinger to hack for HIS BENEFIT.

          Which may be true enough, but for whos benefit was it ?

          Cunning move where he ‘appears’ to deny something for his followers edification in-spite of admitting his guilt to the court.

          • Hanswurst 11.1.1.1.1

            Interestingly, however, it looks like that should be shooting himself in the foot further in terms of getting diversion, owing to two specific aggravating factors that should count against his getting it:

            1. If he is the “ring-leader”, then that counts against his eligibility;
            2. If he refuses to identify co-offenders, that also counts against his elligibility.

            So either he was the ring-leader (if, as he has admitted online and by accepting diversion in the first place, he was financing an attempt to hack a computer, then he was leading it), or he is refusing to name co-offenders for whom he was working.

        • Sacha 11.1.1.2

          Worse still, the creep is now claiming he deliberately misused the diversion process as part of an ongoing vendetta. Sounds like contempt to this non-lawyer.

          http://archive.is/1kYKm

          “But I knew suppression wouldn’t be granted.

          I used the appearance to introduce new evidence. This evidence is now public, sans a small court ordered suppression. This too was part of strategy, as you will come to see over the next days and weeks. Evidence of substantial suppression breaches by Mediaworks producer Tim Watkin, Law professor Andrew Geddis, Martyn Bradbury, Lynn Prentice and Peter George, all of whom are now under police investigation for not respecting court orders. “

  12. Don't worry. Be happy 12

    Yet another reason to view the Police as political servants of the Powerful. Bad for democracy. Bad for cops on the beat…ordinary cops in our neighbourhoods and in our families. Waiting for the voices within the Police to speak up? Greg O’Connor? Got anything to say? Silence is still an answer.

    • adam 12.1

      The question I have to ask is – in the case of Greg O’Coonor, why have the police not changed this sad, tired, pitiful little lick spittle for management?

      You guys know you can’t vote this idiot out – right?

    • Anne 12.2

      Yet another reason to view the Police as political servants of the Powerful.

      Yep, and that’s sad. There’s a lot of good, hard working cops out there but I suspect they dare not speak out because many of their superiors (in rank) are living in the pockets of John Key and his corrupt mates. Any whistle-blowers would be hounded out of the Force and may never be able to get a decent job again.

      • Johan 12.2.1

        We have lots of hard working cops on the beat, it is management and their objectives that worry me. The apparent fudging of South Auckland crime stats is an indicator. Police officers have a difficult job, and with the lack of pay advancement for the past few years morale may be slipping.

  13. mary_a 13

    Being so close to FJK and Collins, makes me wonder if the GreasyWhale was given diversion, because he holds too much threatening information on them and the whole NatzKEY gang of degenerates, that should he have a mental blow out, he might just incriminate them all!

  14. Neil 14

    This has all the hallmarks of political interference by Judith Collins, it wont surprise me one bit if that is the case.

  15. Stuart Munro 15

    You just don’t understand – Whaleoil is just a turbulent youth – albeit in the body of a middleaged man with a striking resemblance to the historical Sweeney Todd.

    Diversion is appropriate because one day the Whale will grow up. Really.

  16. RedBaronCV 16

    The police should be documenting how they consult a victim over diversion. They appear to have been ignoring the rules around this for decades, helps keep crime stats down and the better off from facing consequences, you know.
    Unfortunately this is not the only time they have misused it.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts