No charges after Todd Barclay re-investigation

The police say they have no new evidence of that justifies re-opening the case against ex-MP Todd Barclay so no charges will be laid.

A number of news reports implied that this decision was because Barclay again refused to talk to the police, but as for anyone else that’s his right and a right that is commonly claimed on legal advice.

It wasn’t the reason for no charges being laid, as with any case police have to find sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution and they say they have not been able to do that. New information given to them and new interviews did not make a viable case.

Stuff:  No charges from Todd Barclay re-investigation – police

Police reopened an investigation into allegations Barclay, the former MP for Clutha-Southland, illegally recorded a staff-member after it emerged in June that former prime minister Bill English had been a key witness in the case.

Police have now closed the case as they have insufficient evidence.

“After a thorough review of all information available to us, including legal advice both internal and from Crown Law, plus consideration of the Solicitor General’s prosecution guidelines, Police has (sic) determined that there is no change to the outcome of the original investigation,” Assistant Commissioner (Investigations) Richard Chambers said.

Police rejected criticisms of the initial investigation and any claim that witnesses had been coerced.

“We are aware that the original investigation has been subject to some criticism,” Chambers said.

“While we recognise the strong interest in this matter, the foundation of any decision to seek warrants or to prosecute is always the evidence available to us.”

“Speculation, hearsay and third party information does not in itself constitute such evidence.”

Neither do concerted attempts to score political hits with no evidence.

Stuff details the whole shemozzle:  How the Todd Barclay story got here

 

23 Comments

  1. Patzcuaro

     /  October 30, 2017

    Todd Barclay nothing more than a blip in history.

  2. duperez

     /  October 30, 2017

    The big learning from this for many is its re-emphasis that you don’t have to talk to the police.
    Parents should make sure they teach their kids their rights.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  October 31, 2017

      I saw an excellent video once, on which an american law professor said you should never ever talk to police as the only thing it can do is incriminate you.

      Quite illuminating.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  October 31, 2017

      Part 2:

      • Blazer

         /  October 31, 2017

        Most criminals and some National min isters are well aware of this HFD.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  October 31, 2017

          Yawn.

          • Blazer

             /  October 31, 2017

            Go back to bed and get some more sleep,you need it.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 31, 2017

              I sleep very well Blazer. Your posts are a great soporific.

            • Is that man really a ‘professor’ or what we would call a lecturer ?

            • By that reasoning, one would not say ‘No, I was at the Lido Cinema.’ which could be proved, when they asked if one was at the crime scene.

              What if they are asking me if I saw or heard anything to do with a crime if they want to know if anyone witnessed it ?

  3. robertguyton

     /  October 30, 2017

    No evidence?
    The statements of the Prime Minister (at the time, thankfully no longer), Bill English, are not evidence ?
    Really?????

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  October 30, 2017

      Not until entered in court (having passed the hear-say test) and cross-examined. No doubt the police and prosecution service have assessed those and others.

  4. robertguyton

     /  October 30, 2017

    Why didn’t Todd speak to police, clearing up any misunderstandings and his good name??
    Why?
    Anyone?

    • Gezza

       /  October 30, 2017

      He’s embarrassed enuf already. I don’t blame him! Just wait for the movie, Robert.

    • duperez

       /  October 30, 2017

      The old thing about saying something “that would incriminate oneself.”

      Clearly it seemed to him to be likely that saying something would see any “good name” not be so good.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  October 30, 2017

      Normal legal advice as I pointed out previously.

      • The idea that no charges would be laid because he wouldn’t speak to the police is utter nonsense. Nobody would be charged with anything in that case. There would be no point in having police, courts or prisons.

  5. robertguyton

     /  October 30, 2017

    Who will play Bill?
    Bill?
    A fence post? (Southland humour. Bill’s not a fence post, or a gumboot. Hamish could play him. Or Conor. Any child star could do Todd. Joking. Lovely chap.)

    • Gezza

       /  October 30, 2017

      My picks would be Lurch for Bill & Blazer for Todd.

      • robertguyton

         /  October 30, 2017

        Glenys? Pete?

        • Gezza

           /  October 30, 2017

          Already been thinking of the others.
          Corks for Glenys.
          Alan for the investigating police supervising officer
          c for just about all the others, it won’t be a big budget affair & he’d be the fittest probably, & best able to handle all the rapid costume changes.

    • Gezza

       /  October 30, 2017

      Have you got any ideas for who might be interested in bankrolling the other must-see movie – The Interns?

      I was thinking maybe trav & a few of her mates? I can’t see it getting approved for any government funding, tbh.