Case dismissed after botch-up

A drug charge against a member of a prominent Dunedin family has been withdrawn after a police botch-up.

The 37-year-old woman was facing a charge of supplying a class B drug, namely morphine, to a man who injected the drug and died on April 21, 2016.

It was later found the 39-yearold man, who has permanently name suppression, died due to a pre-existing medical condition, with morphine detected at therapeutic levels.

In the Dunedin District Court yesterday morning, Judge Michael Crosbie dismissed the charge against the woman and permanently suppressed her name, after police offered no further evidence.

It followed a July decision where Judge Crosbie found police obtained a statement from the woman through ‘‘improper means’’, including a threat about her being interviewed and not providing her the Bill of Rights caution at the start of her statement to police.

Failure to give the caution was a ‘‘serious intrusion of the defendant’s rights’’, the judge said.

He said the ‘‘impropriety was more than reckless’’ and noted the defendant’s interview came after four interactions with Detective Senior Sergeant Kallum Croudis.

He saw her at the scene and at the supermarket, phoned her, and visited her, despite not being the officer in charge of the case or involved in the inquiry team.

It was noted Croudis, who was a friend of the dead man’s father, was ‘‘instrumental in her attending the police station’’.

Judge Crosbie said the charge against the woman, who entered a not guilty plea and elected a judgealone trial, was serious.

Another person, Gary Lloyd Potter, 57, was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention in connection with the matter.

Judge Crosbie was highly critical of the police case, labelling aspects of the investigation as ‘‘haphazard and undocumented’’, despite them having good cause to suspect her of the offence she was charged with.

The court was told it was not until the 10th page of her 12-page statement that Sergeant Sheldon Kindley provided her with a Bill of Rights caution.

‘‘The rights contained in the Bill of Rights caution are important and ought to have been provided at the outset,’’ the judge said.