Source: IPCA – Click here for the full IPCA report (pdf).
See Also: Selwyn Manning TriTV interview with the late Sir Peter Williams on this issue.
A report released today by the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that there is no evidence to support allegations that a Police officer committed perjury when giving evidence in the judicial review proceedings brought by Mr Kim Dotcom.On 9 August 2012 Detective Inspector Grant Wormald gave evidence in the High Court in Auckland relating to the search and arrest warrants executed by Police at Mr Dotcom’s Coatesville property.
During the cross-examination Detective Inspector Wormald was asked twice whether he was aware of any surveillance of Mr Dotcom either by Police or any other New Zealand Government organisation prior to 19 January 2012, and said that he was not.
Later that year, media reported that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) had intercepted the communications of Mr Dotcom and an associate prior to the execution of the warrants.
Following media reports on both TV1 and TV3, stating that Detective Inspector Wormald’s evidence had been shown to be untrue, a complaint was laid by Paul Davison QC alleging the Detective Inspector’s evidence was known to him to be false and misleading, and a request was made for a criminal investigation to be carried out into possible perjury.
The Police subsequently investigated and found no evidence of perjury.
In releasing today’s report Independent Police Conduct Authority Chair, Judge Sir David Carruthers, said that, given the public interest in this matter and the conclusion reached by the Police investigation, the Authority conducted its own investigation in order to satisfy itself there had been no Police impropriety during the court proceedings.
“The Authority has found that the cross-examination of Detective Inspector Wormald was designed to discover whether Mr Dotcom had been the subject of visual surveillance, not whether his communications had been intercepted. Mr Wormald’s interpretation of the questions being asked of him was entirely reasonable and his answers were not in any way false or misleading.
“The suggestion that he intended to mislead the Court is without foundation,” Sir David said.
–]]>
