Police checkpoint a ‘misuse of powers’

Police have admitted they used a breath-testing checkpoint to target people who had attended an Exit International euthanasia meeting.

The move has been criticised as an ‘‘unlawful checkpoint to interrogate pensioners’’ by one lawyer, while another said it was probably a breach of police powers.

A complaint has already been laid with the Independent Police Conduct Authority about the officers’ actions in Lower Hutt earlier this month, and it is understood at least one other will be laid in coming days.

It is understood police were originally investigating on behalf of a coroner looking into a death, suspected to be self-inflicted.

But when police decided to turn the investigation into a criminal operation, they asked a coroner if they could put the coronial investigation on hold.

Inspector Chris Bensemann yesterday confirmed the checkpoint was to ‘‘identify people attending an Exit International meeting in Lower Hutt’’.

He said police had a duty of care and a ‘‘responsibility to the community to investigate any situation where we have reasonable grounds to suspect that persons are being assisted in the commission of suicide’’.

‘‘Police are responsible for enforcing New Zealand’s laws, and currently suicide or encouraging/helping someone to commit suicide is illegal in New Zealand.’’

He confirmed the operation was conducted via a breath-testing checkpoint near the location of the meeting.

Former Labour MP Maryan Street, who is president of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said Bensemann was ‘‘100 per cent wrong’’ about the law around suicide. There was no law against suicide in New Zealand, but it was a crime to help others commit suicide, she said.

She was ‘‘deeply angry’’ police used an alcohol checkpoint to target elderly women, and she planned to file a complaint to the IPCA.

Gathering the information under the pretext of road safety was unlawful, she said. ‘‘Breath-testing checkpoints are about road safety, not a covert means of conducting surveillance on political or moral grounds.’’

Police were straying close to breaching the Bill of Rights, and were intimidating and harassing law-abiding people while undermining the parliamentary inquiry into euthanasia, she said.

Euthanasia was a complex issue and police had shown themselves to be in danger of ‘‘collapsing under the weight of their own incompetence’’, while also revealing they were confused about their own powers in the matter.

ACT MP David Seymour also weighed in on the issue, saying people had the right to meet and discuss issues without ‘‘fear of police harassment’’.

‘‘The admission that the police used a drink-driving checkpoint to obtain the identities of people attending a meeting is deeply un-Kiwi.

‘‘The police minister needs to explain why peaceful New Zealanders are being interrogated under false pretences.’’

The ‘‘dodgy’’ operation raised questions about why the checkpoint was organised, Seymour said.

‘‘Who was pushing for this surveillance? What was their motivation? And why were the police minister and solicitor-general not aware of such a politically sensitive operation? Somebody has to be accountable.’’

Human rights lawyer Michael Bott said the police statement, in which they claimed to have acted in ‘‘good faith’’, did not mean the checkpoint was legal.

It appeared police had set up an ‘‘unlawful checkpoint to interrogate pensioners’’, he said. ’’Police, in this, think they are above the law and are quite prepared to break it when they want to.’’

Police did not have the right to conduct roadside breath tests with an ‘‘ulterior motive’’ that was outside the Land Transport Act, he said.

‘‘They have misused their powers.’’ Those affected could complain to the IPCA, which had powers only to make recommendations to police.

The complaint already lodged with the IPCA said the authority should ‘‘hold the police to account if [the checkpoint allegations turned out to be true] and ask the police to issue an apology to all the women involved’’.

- Fairfax NZ