Police’s $6m bill for secret informers under spotlight
The policy into how police pay for covert intelligence is under the microscope, writes Kelly Dennett.
Police are reviewing the policy that governs how they pay secret informants, as new figures reveal police have paid $6.1m to secret sources – mostly criminals – since its records began.
Police say the little-knownabout informer resource, called the Covert Human Intelligence Source programme, is a valuable source of information used daily. Policy governing the programme was last reviewed in 2018, and this week police confirmed it was under review again now. Police said the review was to ensure it was ‘‘still effective and continues to fulfil operational and legal requirements.’’ It would be completed within three months. It declined to release the current policy, saying it could prejudice investigations.
Figures provided to the Sunday Star-Times show the most paid to informants in a single year was $446,845, during the 2008-2009 financial year. Payments have dropped year-onyear since 2014, until last year, when it increased to $175,100, with police union boss Chris Cahill saying regulation of the programme has likely deterred informants coming forward.
There’s no information about how many prosecutions the payments have lead to. Police won’t reveal how many people have been paid, or what other rewards – such as petrol, gifts or vouchers – have been given.
While modern-day investigations are helped along by better science and technology, such as the evolution of testing DNA, bank records, cellphone technology, and the proliferation of CCTV – a huge source of evidence for the prosecution of Grace Millane’s killer – Police Association president Chris Cahill says the simplest and most useful tool of all can be paying informants.
He says it can help uncover crime police didn’t already know about, or lead them to evidence – such as a murder weapon – that police can corroborate independent of the informant.
Cahill says informers tend to be criminals risking their safety, sometimes driven by a disagreement with the crime that’s taken place, or motivated by money.
Domestic violence victims who see no other way of leaving their relationship can also be informers, Cahill says. Informants are paid in cash, and the amount depends on the usefulness of their information and the type of crime. (It’s not unusual for police to offer $100,000 rewards to members of the public for information that can solve homicides.)
‘‘They are often the key source of intelligence that leads to lines of inquiry,’’ Cahill says. ‘‘They’re quite vital ... where there’s not a lot of other evidence.’’
The payment of criminals for information is something Auckland lawyer Gary Gotlieb has been concerned about as far back as 2001, when in his capacity as the former Auckland District Law Society president, he called for an inquiry and a Law Commission review into the paying of witnesses.
‘‘I haven’t changed my mind,’’ Gotlieb says. ‘‘(People who are paid) have the potential to come up with the answer the people who are paying them would quite like . . . I suppose you’re left with the discretion of the police, and some will be better than others. It will be overseen by senior people but sometimes there’s a lot of pressure on people to come up with the goods.’’
Cahill says it’s important to be distinct about the use of informers and jailhouse witnesses. Informers will be kept anonymous by police and won’t often appear at trials, to protect their anonymity.
‘‘It would be fair to say that (jailhouse snitches) is something that has been discredited numerous times. Using a jailhouse confession would (require) a large amount of corroboration.’’
The informant programme ‘‘used to be a little laissez-faire’’, he says. The introduction of its monetary records was established alongside a formal register that means informers are subject to rules, including not offending while registered. Cahill thinks this has probably deterred some from applying to be an informant. ‘‘And that’s probably to the detriment of solving crime.’’
Critics say it’s the graduation of an informant to court witness where things become problematic. Murderer Roberto Conchie Harris falsely claimed at convicted murderer David Tamihere’s trial that Tamihere had confessed to him that he had murdered Urban Hoglin and Heidi Paakkonen . Harris claimed police had given him favourable treatment.
The Evidence Act governs whether information provided by an informant or a jailhouse witness will make it to court. The Crown or police can make an
application to introduce it, and it’s up to the judge to admit evidence that could be contentious, and the jury decides if it’s credible. Even then, witnesses often get name suppression. Gotlieb says the practice is ‘‘fraught’’.
Retiree Mike Kalaugher was so disturbed by Harris’ evidence that he initiated the private prosecution of Harris by Arthur Taylor. Kalaugher has studied the use of jailhouse witnesses and believes international studies show that informers giving evidence as a result of incentives lead to more miscarriages of justice. (Tamihere’s case is before the Court of Appeal.)
‘‘It’s just wrong. It’s so easy for the police and the prosecution to pull rabbits out Kalaugher says
A police spokesperson said that, ‘‘when using information from informers in criminal cases, police ensure that all relevant information is provided to the court relating to the reliability of the informer.’’
Police declined to be interviewed, or release its informer policy, saying it would harm investigations. In an email, a spokesperson said the lifeblood of policing was information. ‘‘To correctly interpret the criminal environment, information must be taken from all sources. Informers offer unrivalled information opportunities to help interpret and understand the drivers of crime.’’
Every payment to an informer is authorised by a senior officer within the Criminal Investigation Branch and its ‘‘human source management units’’ manage the informer programme to ensure it runs ‘‘ethically and professionally’’.
‘‘These dedicated teams have the crucial function of ensuring the confidentiality and safety of the people providing the information is safeguarded. This includes . . . assessing all confidential information as to its reliability ... there are numerous factors taken into consideration. The considerations range from the person providing the information and how it was received to how the information can be corroborated by other known police intelligence sources and investigation practices.
‘‘All information provided by an informer is subjected to an assessment of reliability. The of a hat,’’ motivation of an informer is one factor that is taken into account when assessing the reliability of the information. It should also be noted that not everyone is motivated by payment. The informer programme is recognised as an activity that carries significant risk to the informer, the public and the trust and confidence police has with the community.’’
Police acknowledged without a professionally and ethically managed informer programme, there would be significant risk in the use of informants. ‘‘The value of informers in everyday investigation and prevention operations is significant, and with the appropriate controls and processes in place, police believe that the risks are sufficiently mitigated for us to continue using this resource.’’
The Law Commission has confirmed the payment of witnesses, nor the regulation of jailhouse witnesses, is not on its work schedule this year – its schedule is referred to them by the Justice Minister. In its most recent review of the Evidence Act, in February 2019, the Commission considered the quality of evidence from prisoners who may be motivated by the cutting of a sentence or parole, or other reward, could be properly considered by a jury.
The Commission said while the admissibility of evidence relating to statements made by defendants to prisoners ‘‘may pose significant risks and requires careful scrutiny...in the absence of evidence of problems in practice, we have concluded that this issue is beyond the scope of an operational review.’’
‘‘They’re quite vital . . . where there’s not a lot of other evidence.’’ Chris Cahill