Why the IPCA didn’t take the Barclay case
New Zealand’s police watchdog decided not to pick up the Todd Barclay case because they had no issues with the way officers handled the matter.
NZ First leader Winston Peters struck out at the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) on Tuesday when it announced not be looking further into the Barclay case.
Embattled Clutha Southland MP Todd Barclay was accused of secretly taping the conversations of his staffer Glenys Dickson, which was a crime.
The original investigation into the matter was dropped because of insufficient evidence after Barclay refused to be interviewed by police.
Following new evidence that Barclay told Prime Minister Bill English about recordings of Dickson police have reopened the case, and Barclay announced he would stand down at the election.
Authority chair David Carruthers said police acted appropriately in their initial investigation.
‘‘The authority has determined that there is no foundation for the claim that the police acted inappropriately or neglected their duty,’’ he said.
The Southland police assigned senior investigators to examine evidence and interview witnesses – including English.
They sought an internal legal opinion as well as one from the Crown Law Office.
It was these legal opinions that led them to determine they had insufficient evidence to charge Barclay and no other reasonable steps available to them, the IPCA said.
No search warrants or attempts to obtain the alleged recordings are known to have been executed or requested.
The complaint to the authority was brought by Greymouth social worker Graeme Axford, who was unconnected to the matter.
He said he was upset about the disparity between the Barclay case and the ‘‘Teapot Tapes’’ scandal in 2011, when freelance journalist Bradley Ambrose was accused of making a secret recording of John Key and John Banks.
‘‘They got search warrants and raided places and yet with Todd Barclay they never did any of that,’’ Axford said.
‘‘I see it as favouritism. MPs are being treated differently to the average person.’’
Carruthers said he would not comment any further on the IPCA reasoning as the police were now investigating the matter once more.
‘‘It would be inappropriate for the authority to comment on the nature of the evidence that the police took into account or the basis for their decision that there was insufficient evidence to proceed,’’ Carruthers said.
‘‘That could prejudice any subsequent proceedings.’’
After weeks of speculation Barclay confirmed he would return to Parliament before the election.
Peters questioned just how ‘‘independent’’ the watchdog was when the news broke on Tuesday they were not investigating.
‘‘In my view, the police haven’t satisfactorily answered why they didn’t pursue the case. They had complaints of a recording, they had a complainant and to the best of my knowledge we have not been told who they talked to or didn’t talk to,’’ Peters said.
‘‘But to say they’re satisfied there was no misconduct is an extraordinary statement to make.’’
Peters said the fact police have reopened the case ‘‘begs the question’’ why they ever closed it.
He said he would call the IPCA to get further detail on why it dropped the case.