We hear that police in Wairarapa have over 100 unheard/unallocated/uninvestigated/improperly actioned/open child abuse cases ‘on the books’. Now we have a case of child (13 year old girl) sexual abuse being dismissed through lack of evidence.
Is there a link here? Is this case (which actually got to court, so we have to guess there was something of a case to answer) the dismissal came on new(ish) instructions of the Solicitor General who outlined requirements of evidence (“From January 1, the Solicitor-General’s guidelines require prosecutions to reach a significantly higher standard. In the past that standard was one of prima facie (on the face of it). The test now requires “evidential sufficiency”. Fair enough. An admission by the police that they couldn’t present such ‘sufficient evidence’ meant the case was dismissed.
My question is, again, is there a connection, here? What could cause the police to change their minds if it is not because the case wasn’t investigated properly? Surely if there were sufficient cops to do the investigation AND IT TURNED UP INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE the case would not have arrived at court? If there were insufficient police to investigate the case properly, what were the other policemen doing (instead of investigating the case)- highway patrol related duties to keep revenue collection up? (God forbid we are seeing police inefficiency, incompetence or indifference!)
To have a situation IN ONE POLICING AREA that has ‘over 100’ child abuse cases going without sufficient investigation and consequential closure is inexcusable.
The situation in NZ Law and Order is, by growing instances, becoming less of both.