Hiding behind the police

A followup on yesterday's post about my attempts to OIA basic information about the sacking of Richard Worth. In his response, the Prime Minister's chief of staff said:

This Office has received many information requests asking for the information [on why Worth was sacked - I/S], but I have considered it necessary to withhold it under various grounds - principally because there is an on-going police investigation into Dr Worth, and because releasing the information would infringe the privacy interests of natural persons.

(Emphasis added)

But Worth's victim withdrew her complaint, and the police have confirmed that he will not be facing charges. So, does this mean there is a new investigation which the public hasn't been told about, or does the Prime Minister need to be further educated into not telling lies?

Educating the Prime Minister

Back in June, Pete Hodgson attempted unsuccessfully to excavate the reasons for John Key's sacking of Richard Worth, leading to exchanges in the House like this:

Hon Pete Hodgson: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession or not in possession of substantive information that is not yet available to the public?

Hon JOHN KEY: When I did that, that was the point at which I lost confidence in Dr Worth. I did not believe that his conduct befitted that of a Minister. I will not go into the specifics of the information, but I think members can rest assured that in losing confidence in Dr Worth I was satisfied that I could make that case.

I noted at the time that Key's continued refusal to give any sort of straight answer looked downright shifty. I also pointed out that while Key could do this in Parliament, he could not do it when confronted with an OIA request. Unfortunately, Key's chief of staff thought he could, and tried to give me the same bullshit Key gave in the House. Now, thanks to the Ombudsmen, I have the real answer:

Not all the information the Prime Minister was in possession of when he lost confidence in Dr Worth is in the public domain.

Which is something we all knew anyway. But it does beg the question: why didn't Key just say so when he was first asked?

(Meanwhile, hopefully the Prime Minister has learned that he cannot respond with political bullshit to an OIA request. If not, then I will keep using the Ombudsmen to educate him)

Politics, not justice

So, it seems that former National MP and cabinet minister Richard Worth will escape prosecution. The police have concluded that there isn't enough evidence to bring a prosecution, and as a result the victim has dropped her complaint. The former sadly isn't that surprising - sex cases are notoriously hard to prosecute, as by their nature there tend to be no other witnesses, so it comes down to a credibility contest between the victim and alleged offender in which the latter has the advantage of being able to put the former on trial. Mucking about with offence and conviction statistics, it seems that only half of sexual assault cases are "resolved" (meaning an alleged offender is identified - this roughly translates into the number of prosecutions), and only a third of those brought to trial result in conviction (the average for murder is over half, and manslaughter around two thirds). And that's without even getting into what proportion of such crimes are ever reported. Basically, if Worth did do anything, the odds were in favour of him getting away with it.

But while he may have escaped legal sanction, the behaviour alleged is sufficiently dubious that no-one in their right mind would want that smell around their cabinet table - or in their party (political or otherwise). That is apparently some consolation to the victim, but its politics, not justice.