Police wholesale DNA harvesting unlawful!

Following the ruling of Judge Behrens QC that the Police had failed to prove that there was a case to answer, regarding the two charges which were corruptly laid by Constable David Gallagher - after having to represent myself at the hearing after the appointed lawyer failed to turn up to Court and ignored my instructions and communications, on corruptly laid charges which were used as a pathetic excuse to illegally take my DNA, charges which the Police couldn't wait to admit should never have been laid in the first place - AGAIN - I had another  look at the legislation - the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, and another look at the so called "evidence" contained in the latest  corruptly laid prosecutions against me.

I've also been contacted by other people who have been forced - or conned - into having their DNA taken by corrupt and incompetent local police.  The evidence is outrageous.  

Welcome to the new Police State: The wording of the legislation makes it perfectly clear that the intent of the legislation is that there must be good grounds for the taking of a person's DNA by force by a constable without a Court Order, and that in this case my DNA was deliberately taken unlawfully by a Constable who claimed I assaulted him - a lie - and then announced at the hearing that he intended to offer no evidence! - there was no DNA - or any other evidence for that matter - alleged to have been even found at the scene! The legislation says a Constable must have "reasonable grounds to believe that analysis of the sample would tend to confirm or disprove the suspect’s involvement in the commission of the offence" in order to take DNA - well that certainly wasn't the case here! Constable David Gallagher conspired with other officers at the Masterton Police station to take my DNA unlawfully - and they knew it was UNLAWFUL and deliberately did it anyway!

This fits in with the pattern of illegal contempt of Court and legislation shown by NZ Police lately - unlawfully spying on NZ citizens, lying to a Court about a Nelson bikie gang - Inspector Grant Wormald guilty on both occasions, but those are only two of many such corrupt manipulations of the law by NZ Police!

Firstly, here's what the legislation actually says:

Section 5 states:

5 Authority to take bodily sample from suspect

Subject to section 72, in any criminal investigation in respect of an offence committed or believed to have been committed, a bodily sample may be taken from a suspect, for the purposes of that investigation, on behalf of any constable only if—

• (a) the offence is an imprisonable offence or offence against any of the provisions listed in Part 3 of the Schedule; and

• (b) either,—
  • (i) in the case of a suspect who is of or over the age of 17 years, the suspect consents to the taking of that sample in accordance with section 9; or
  • (ii) in the case of a suspect who is of or over the age of 14 years but under 17 years, both the suspect and a parent of the suspect consent to the taking of that sample in accordance with section 9; or
  • (iii) the sample is taken under and in accordance with a suspect compulsion order or a juvenile compulsion order; and

• (c) the sample is taken in accordance with the procedures set out in Part 4.

 Section 6 states:

6 Request to consent to taking of bodily sample

(1) Subject to section 8, for the purposes of any criminal investigation in respect of an imprisonable offence or offence against any of the provisions listed in Part 3 of the Schedule committed or believed to have been committed, a constable may request any suspect to give a bodily sample if that constable has reasonable grounds to believe that analysis of the sample would tend to confirm or disprove the suspect’s involvement in the commission of the offence.

(2) Subject to section 8, on making a request under subsection (1) of this section, the constable shall—

• (a) hand to the suspect to whom the request is made a written notice containing the particulars specified in section 7(b); and

• (b) inform the suspect, in a manner and in language that the suspect is likely to understand,—
  • (i) of the offence in respect of which the request is made; and
  • (ii) that the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that analysis of a bodily sample taken from the suspect would tend to confirm or disprove the suspect’s involvement in the commission of that offence; and
  • (iii) that the suspect is under no obligation to give the sample; and
  • (iv) that if the suspect consents to the taking of the sample, the suspect may, at any time before the sample is taken, withdraw that consent; and
  • (v) that the suspect may wish to consult a lawyer before deciding whether or not to consent to the taking of the sample; and
  • (vi) that the sample will be analysed and may provide evidence that may be used in criminal proceedings; and
  • (vii) that if the suspect refuses to consent to the taking of the sample, and there is good cause to suspect that the suspect committed the offence in respect of which the request is made, or a related offence, and that offence is an imprisonable offence or offence against any of the provisions listed in Part 3 of the Schedule, an application may be made to a District Court Judge for an order requiring the suspect to give a bodily sample.

 Section 7 states:

7 Form and content of notice

Subject to section 8, every notice given pursuant to section 6(2)(a)—

• (a) shall be in the prescribed form; and

• (b) shall contain the following particulars:
  • (i) a statement that it is believed that the suspect has or may have committed an imprisonable offence or offence against any of the provisions listed in Part 3 of the Schedule and is being requested to consent to the taking of a bodily sample:
  • (ii) a statement that there are reasonable grounds to believe that analysis of the sample would tend to confirm or disprove the suspect’s involvement in the commission of that offence:
  • (iii) a statement that the suspect is under no obligation to give the sample:
  • (iv) a statement that if the suspect consents to the taking of the sample, the suspect may, at any time before the sample is taken, withdraw that consent:
  • (v) a statement that the suspect may wish to consult a lawyer before deciding whether or not to consent to the taking of the sample:
  • (vi) a statement that unless, within the period of 48 hours after the request is made, the suspect consents to the taking of the sample, the suspect shall be deemed to have refused to consent to the taking of the sample:
  • (vii) a statement that the sample will be analysed and may provide evidence that may be used in criminal proceedings:
  • (viii) a statement that if the suspect refuses to consent to the taking of the sample, and there is good cause to suspect that the suspect committed the offence in respect of which the request is made, or a related offence, an application may be made to a District Court Judge for an order requiring the suspect to give a bodily sample:
  • (ix) a summary of the provisions of sections 48, 49, and 49A relating to the procedure for taking the sample:
  • (x) a statement that the suspect may request that the sample be taken in the presence of a lawyer, or another person, of the suspect’s own choice:
  • (xi) a summary of the provisions of sections 55, 56, 56A, and 59 relating to the procedures for the analysis of that sample and the disclosure of the results of the analysis:
  • (xii) a statement that the sample, and any information derived from any analysis of the sample, will be held by or on behalf of the Police:
  • (xiii) a statement that if the suspect is convicted of the offence in respect of which the sample is taken, or a related offence, information derived from any analysis of the sample will be held on a DNA profile databank:
  • (xiv) a reference to the provisions of section 60 relating to the destruction of the sample and of any information derived from any analysis of the sample:
  • (xv) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

 Section 11 states:

11 Consent deemed to have been refused

For the purposes of sections 13, 16, 18, and 23, on the expiry of the period of 48 hours after a request is made under section 6 to a suspect, that suspect shall be deemed to have refused to consent to the taking of a bodily sample in response to that request unless, within that period,—

• (a) in the case of a suspect request made to a person who is of or over the age of 17 years, that suspect has so consented; or

• (b) in the case of a suspect request made to a person who is under the age of 17 years, both—
  • (i) that suspect; and
  • (ii) a parent of that suspect—
  have so consented.

Section 12 states that a person detained has the right to consult a lawyer, unfortunately for me I got to speak to Peter Stevens, I might as well have spoken to the cleaner.

Section 13 states:

13 Application for order authorising taking of bodily sample

(1) An application may be made in accordance with this section to a District Court Judge for an order requiring a suspect who is of or over the age of 17 years to give a bodily sample in any case where—

• (a) there is good cause to suspect that the suspect has committed an imprisonable offence or offence against any of the provisions listed in Part 3 of the Schedule; and

• (b) the suspect has refused to consent to the taking of a bodily sample in response to a suspect request made in respect of that offence, or a related offence.

(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be made by a constable who is of or above the level of position of inspector, in writing and on oath, and shall set out the following particulars:

• (a) the facts relied on to show that there is good cause to suspect that the respondent has committed an imprisonable offence or offence against any of the provisions listed in Part 3 of the Schedule:

• (b) the reasons why it is considered necessary to obtain a suspect compulsion order in relation to the respondent, including the facts relied on to show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that analysis of a bodily sample taken from the respondent would tend to confirm or disprove the respondent’s involvement in the commission of the offence:

• (c) where possible, the type of analysis that is likely to be required in respect of the bodily sample sought from the respondent, having regard to the nature of the material (being material of the kind referred to in paragraph (b) of section 16(1)) found in any of the circumstances referred to in that paragraph.

(3) Subject to section 15, where an application is made under this section,—

• (a) the applicant shall serve notice of the application on the respondent; and

• (b) both the applicant and the respondent are entitled to appear and to adduce evidence at the hearing of the application.

(4) In considering an application made under this section, the Judge may take into account any oral or documentary material that the Judge considers relevant, whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law.

There was no evidence of any DNA at the alleged scene of the crime!  The prosecutor couldn't wait to withdraw the charge on the day of the hearing because he knew damn well that it had been corruptly laid as an excuse to corruptly take my DNA!  The allegations were vague - clearly false - and clearly malicious and vexatious!  Constable Gallagher and his corrupt mates knew damn well that no Judge would have ever supported any application should it have been made so they corruptly just took my DNA without lawful authority anyway by lying and perverting the course of justice!  Judge Behrens QC noted that the evidence supported my claims that I was assaulted by the complainant and that's why I called the Police and she didn't, Constable Gallagher perverted the course of justice - AGAIN - there is a witnesses statement at this link to the matter of Constable Gallagher's brother in law smashing a window at my house and making serious threats - for which he's never been charged!

Section 57 says THIS, and I am in the process of requesting this information from the Police because NO material existed and this whole business was a thinly veiled attempt to grossly pervert the course of justice!:

57 Analysis of material found at scene, etc

(1) If—

• (a) material reasonably believed to be from, or genetically traceable to, the body of a person who committed the offence has been found or is available—
  • (i) at the scene of the offence; or
  • (ii) on the victim of the offence; or
  • (iii) from within the body or from any thing coming from within the body of the victim of the offence that is reasonably believed to be associated with, or having resulted from, the commission of the offence; or
  • (iv) on any thing reasonably believed to have been worn or carried by the victim when the offence was committed; or
  • (v) on any person or thing reasonably believed to have been associated with the commission of the offence; and

• (b) a bodily sample is taken pursuant to Part 2 from any person in respect of that offence; and

• (c) the person from whom the bodily sample is taken is charged with that offence, or a related offence,—

then, if practicable, a part of that material sufficient for analysis shall, at the request of the person so charged, be made available to him or her or to any other person nominated by him or her.

Quite clearly the intent of this law is that there must be good reason to take DNA from a suspect by force and quite clearly this is not the case regarding David Gallagher's pack of lies!

 

Look how much Court time they wasted on this - getting warrants at every opportunity - only to admit that 

"The officer in charge is unconcerned about that matter, and I offer no evidence in relation to that."  "I'm asking for the charges to be dismissed." 

I was acquitted of BOTH charges, after having to defend myself, after all this time and resources were wasted on this sadistic harassment, and this pitiful excuse above was the only basis for unlawfully taking my DNA by force!  - Note "WTA 9.45" - Warrant To Arrest - Corrupt Court staff and Police prosecutors conspire to issue these warrants knowing full well that I cannot get to the Court until just after 10 a.m. when the train gets to Masterton, and that it is wrong to constantly issue these warrants without reason - there's no need to issue a warrant at 9:45!

 

 - Here's the papers I was given while in custody in Masterton and told this was the authority for Police to take my DNA by force - they can't even spell my name properly! - and suddenly they are "not going to offer any evidence" about it again, and they are "unconcerned about that"?  Well I'm not unconcerned.  I'm very concerned indeed actually!

This post will be updated shortly.