Court martial questions raised

Former top defence officer allowed to resign and face criminal charges rather than harsh miliary jurisdiction

Questions have been raised over why the country’s top military attache was not kept in uniform and tried through the Defence Force’s justice system after an incident at New Zealand’s embassy in Washington DC.

The Herald can also reveal that the Government was informed by the Defence Force ( NZDF) of a police investigation at the diplomatic outpost last year.

Commodore Alfred (Fred) Keating was one of the Royal New Zealand Navy’s highest-ranking officers and in July was serving as the country’s senior defence attache in Washington.

He held full diplomatic status and immunity from prosecution.

But, on July 27, a hidden camera was found in a unisex bathroom in the embassy. It is alleged Keating planted the small covert camera.

The device was “set to capture and record movement,” court documents released by the High Court read after Keating’s name suppression was revoked earlier this month.

Following a New Zealand Police investigation in Washington and a search warrant when Keating returned to New Zealand in November last year, charges were filed in the Auckland District Court on February 28.

Keating appeared in court the following week and again on March 29 when he pleaded not guilty to attempting to make an intimate visual recording, electing trial by jury.

Then, just two days after his plea, Keating resigned from his post, an NZDF spokesperson confirmed.

But questions have been raised by a high-ranking NZDF source as to why outgoing Chief of Defence, Lieutenant General Tim Keating, accepted the resignation. The two men are not related.

The Chief of Defence had the ability to retain Commodore Keating in uniform, pending the outcome of a court martial, the source explained.

“The punishment from court martials are generally more draconian than those in the civil courts, for good reason,” the source told the Herald.

The move wouldn’t have been without precedent either, as Colonel Selwyn Heaten was tried by court martial, reprimanded and fined $1500 in 2009 for bringing discredit to the army while serving at the United Nations in New York.

Given the location, high profile of the offence and seniority of the officer involved, the Chief of Defence would have been notified almost immediately, the Herald’s source suggested.

Minister of Defence Ron Mark confirmed - following an Official Information Act (OIA) request - he knew about the police’s investigation into Keating.

“I was made aware, by NZDF, of an investigation by police into an incident in Washington,” he said.

A request to release further details relayed to Mark’s office by the NZDF was refused while the matter remained before the courts.

A request for information from the NZDF about what the Chief of Defence and Chief of Navy knew about the Washington incident was also refused by Commodore Ross Smith, the Chief of Staff at Defence HQ in Wellington.

However, the Herald’s source questioned why a prosecution against Keating was not pursued through the military judicial process - a decision which would be transparent for officers of a lower rank and enlisted servicemen and women.

“Keating was a serviceman at the time of the [alleged] offences, he should therefore have been retained in the service and committed to trial by court martial,” the source claimed.

“Keating was holding the senior defence appointment in the capital of the country which we expect to come to our aid in the event of global hostilities. It potentially risks the bilateral trust, so critical between both allies.”

Keating, 58, had a 40-year career in the military and rose to be the Assistant Chief of Navy at Defence HQ and was the commander of the Royal New Zealand Naval base at Devonport.

Court documents about the allegations claimed there was a “thick layer of dust on the homemade platform” indicating the device had been there for many months.

Police also said it appeared to have been purposely mounted inside a heating duct unit and at a height and direction that recorded people who arrived and used the toilet.

When forensically examined, analysis revealed 19 images were taken of people using the bathroom during a five-hour period. The images were only of those wearing clothing.

The court documents alleged that an examination of Keating’s personal computer showed he installed software for the camera on July 25.

DNA analysis also allegedly showed Keating’s matched that found on the camera’s memory card.

Keating will appear in court in July.