Talk:Independent Police Conduct Authority

proposing move
suggest move to Independent Police Conduct Authority, the new name for this organisation. Comments? Quadparty (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of content
Two people have deleted significant portions of this article. The first person appears to have created a new persona here to carry out this vandalism. His edits were reverted by Moe_Epsilon and Tgeairn - both on Oct 29. here deleted the same material for a third time on the same day. It was reverted by Offender9000 today - but was then deleted by Daveosaurus (twice) today.

Please click on the View History page to see the details. It would be more helpful if editors discuss issues on the Talk page before taking unilateral action to delete material they don't like. Offender9000 06:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Police bashing
This page is meant to be about the IPCA - while this may involve a summary of significant cases, the current content goes beyond this and comes across as biased heavily against the police. The vast majority of IPCA investigations clear the police of any wrongdoing - but you wouldn't guess it by reading this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.139.229 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the IPCA's job to investigate, and where appropriate, to "bash" the police. It is hard to write about the IPCA without describing its criticisms of the police. However the article also makes it clear that the IPCA frequently endorses police behaviour. Regarding deaths in custody, the article clearly states: Of the 27 deaths the IPCA said only four "involved serious neglect of duty or breaches of policy by police"


 * In regard to police shootings, it clearly states: The IPCA is required to investigate all police shootings - and exonerated the police in all seven cases.


 * In regard to deaths from police pursuits, the IPCA has criticised the police even when they followed procedures - because it disagrees with the policy. The article accurately describes scenarios where the police have been involved in civilian deaths - which tends to be a taboo subject in New Zealand. Offender9000 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For example:


 * "The IPCA is supposed to be independent from New Zealand Police." - Why say "supposed to be"? are you implying that it's not? If so, what are your sources?

The article clearly states (with citations) that the Authority mostly employs former police officers and that this compromises its independence. It provides details on one particular case, the police assault on Jakob Christie, where the IPCA investigation was conducted by, and compromised by, a former police officer.Offender9000 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Because of political pressure on the Police to ignore the IPCA's recommendations on this, the Authority's effectiveness to bring about change has been limited." - Is this your opinion?

The article cites the support given by Judith Collins (and Greg O'Connor) encouraging the police to continue pursuing offenders no matter what - and despite numerous recommendations by the IPCA to the police to change their pursuit policy and make safety the priority. As a former Minister of Police, (and now Minister of Justice) she has been in a position of authority over them for some years. In the face of staunch support from the Minister, the IPCA has proved to be totally ineffective at bringing about a change - in fact the death toll has gone up. Offender9000 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "In October 2012 a survey found 76% of respondents believed the authority should have the power to prosecute police officers." - this survey has been disputed (http://www.3news.co.nz/Tolley-disputes-police-trust-survey/tabid/423/articleID/272886/Default.aspx).

Even if its validity is disputed, it merely addresses the possibility that the Authority should have the power to prosecute police - which is highly relevant to this article. Offender9000 23:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "This prompted a Dominion Post editorial which said the police appear to be embarrassed by the attack on Mr Christie and were unenthusiastic about looking into it. " -Are editorials, which are opinion pieces, really appropriate sources?

The opinion is based on a fact - after three years, the police have still not finished their investigation into their own appalling behaviour in this incident. Offender9000 23:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "However, these cases have polarised public opinion on the use of firearms by police, especially in cases where the victim was not armed, and raise questions about why the police did not use tasers." - I looked at the article you reference, it doesn't question why police didn't use tasers, it questions the effectiveness of tasers. To very different statements. This is yet another example of the author skewing references to fit his apparent bias against police.

You have a point on this. I will take another look at it. Offender9000 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Despite the spike in the death rate, the IPCA has been powerless to do anything about it." - You mean apart from investigate and publicly publish recommendations?

Exactly. The IPCA is powerless - by law. Offender9000 23:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Deaths from police pursuits" - This whole section is largely irrelevant to the IPCA. If you want to discuss police pursuits, put it somewhere else.

It is highly relevant. It demonstrates the Authority's powerlessness in the face of repeated police refusals to follow IPCA recommendations. This is a key issue for the IPCA and is one of the reasons Judge Carruthers is thinking of recommending to Government that the IPCA be allowed to prosecute police officers. Offender9000 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "In October 2012, the Authority issued a report on the treatment of teenagers held in police cells following reports in January 2012 about two young girls who were detained and strip-searched by Upper Hutt police." - They haven't issued a report yet, they are still investigating it.

The Authority has issued a report. Here. Offender9000 23:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * These are just some examples of why this page is biased against police, contains inaccurate information and needs to be looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.139.229 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Judge Carruthers, chairman of the IPCA, seems to agree that the IPCA has problems. See: Police watchdog wants ability to launch its own inquiries

My removal of material
I've just made a couple of edits removing badly sourced material. In the first I removed an an entire paragraph as it was irrelevant: the NZ Herald story provided as a reference does not mention the IPCA once, and clearly does not support the claim which was attributed to it that the authority has "made numerous recommendations to police to make public safety the priority, based on the fact that most drivers who flee have committed only minor offences"; the only such suggestion mentioned in the story was as a result of a NZ Herald investigation. The other reference here was being used to support a quote that "that successive governments have placed "the preservation of the police above preservation of the rule of law""; this reference isn't online so I can't confirm whether it actually supports this material, but there also isn't any obvious link to the IPCA from the quote provided. All up, it's unclear what the purpose of this paragraph was in this article. In this edit I removed a sentence as it was being referenced to what's clearly marked as an editorial, and this editorial didn't even fully support the claim that the IPCA "published only 17 reports indicating just how much of its work is secret"; the actual wording from the editorial is "the fact it produced just 17 public reports in 2010-11 strongly indicates most of its work is secret", which is a bit softer. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed more dubious material in this edit. While this organisation was established in 2007, it was being criticized in the lead as being not sufficiently independent of the police on the basis of a 1998 legal journal article!; this is plainly nonsensical. Later in the article Wikipedia's "voice" was being used to endorse a view that the authority isn't independent due to it being staffed by ex-cops; this is a blatant WP:NPOV violation, and the reference provided does not substantiate this material - in fact, the only material on the topic is the view of a former police officer who told the reporter that he "had no problems with the authority employing former police officers as investigator" as long as they were unbiased, and hence actually supports the exact opposite view than what was being attributed to the story. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And in this edit I've removed three paragraphs about car chases. The first of these paragraphs claimed to be reporting IPCA expressing concern about chases being started over minor offenses and provides statistics which are implied to have supported the authority's reasoning, but the reference does not mention these conclusions or the IPCA at all. The other two paragraphs were general discussion of the issues surrounding police car chases, and do not appear at all relevant to the topic of this article (the IPCA, and not policing in NZ in general). I've left the rest of this section in as it does seem to be a topic the IPCA has looked into, but the whole thing feels like an attempt at turning this into a WP:COATRACK. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)