Friday, December 07, 2012

Police perjury

The police have been caught lying again in the Kim Dotcom case. First, they lied about the GCSB's involvement. Now, evidence they have given on whether the raid was viewed live by the FBI has been labelled inconsistent by the judge:

An affidavit from the senior officer in charge of the Kim Dotcom raid contradicts earlier evidence that he gave to the court, a judge has found.

Detective Inspector Grant Wormald already faces questions about testimony that he gave in which he said no other agency had spied on the internet entrepreneur.


Justice Winkelmann noted that an affidavit given by Mr Wormald, from the elite Organised & Financial Crime Agency, said "there was no live coverage of the operations going on at the Dotcom mansion".

But she said this contradicted earlier evidence he had given at a hearing. It was a "critical issue" whether there was live footage of events unfolding at the Dotcom mansion, she said.

One example of inconsistent evidence could be considered a mistake. Now its a pattern, and not a good one. Not only does it threaten this case, but also raises questions about whether they have lied in other cases as well.

There's also the question of what sanctions Wormald will face for lying to the court. It is not something the police can permit to go unpunished - at least, not if they want to retain any credibility with the courts and public. Perjury is a serious criminal offence, and not one our police can be allowed to tolerate. If Wormald has perjured himself before the court (as indeed he appears to have done), then he needs to be prosecuted for it and sacked.