In a media conference today Police Commissioner Andrew Coster said that through the Level 4 lockdown has been a decrease in crime involving assaults, road policing and theft,
From RNZ: ‘We need to continue to stick to the rules’ – Police Commissioner
Police Commissioner Andrew Coster says police have dealt with 4452 breaches since the lockdown began, including 423 in the past 24 hours.
There have been 477 prosecutions, 3844 warnings, 131 youth referrals during the level 4 lockdown
Coster said over the course of level 4 there had been a decrease in crime in the area of assaults, road policing and theft.
Family harm incidents saw a rise in the first few days but this has dropped back to usual levels. Police had been focusing on this area, he said
Police data on mental health situations had remained the same, but Coster said that did not mean people were not suffering.
It’s fairly obvious why assaults in public, thefts and road offences will be down.
It wasn’t a surprise to see domestic assaults increase intially under lockdown, but good to see that they have settled back to ‘usual levels’ (which are still far too high but at least things don’t seem any worse now).
More detail from today’s Covid newsletter:
Police Commissioner Andy Coster today said that since the Covid-19 Alert Level 4, Police has recorded:
- 4,452 breaches of CDEM or Health Act;
- 423 of these were in the past 24 hours (to 6pm);
- 477 prosecutions, 3,844 warnings, 131 youth referrals;
- 2,989 reassurance checks at essential facilities 20-22 April;
- Over that same period, 3,144 patrols were completed; and
- Police have recorded more than 55,000 reports from the public about breaches.
Your NZ 
duperez
/ 23rd April 2020Speaking of the law:
“Coronavirus: Man’s lawsuit over Covid-19 lockdown restrictions dismissed’ Man cannot be identified.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/121228277/mans-claim-pm-jacinda-ardern-unlawfully-detained-him-with-lockdown-dismissed
Duker
/ 23rd April 2020its here A v Ardern
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments/high-court/
The A is probably the name or a well deserved moniker
Duker
/ 23rd April 2020“A perceives that, in the past, publication of his name in connection with other legal proceedings in which he has been involved has led to death threats against him, and threats to harm him and his family. ”
Im up for the challenge but not post it here
Pete George
/ 23rd April 2020No, don’t post it here, don’t even hint about it here. He knows how to work the suppression thing.
Pete George
/ 23rd April 2020Ok, name suppression declined but appealed so until that’s heard, interim suppression remains.
[8] I may make an order prohibiting publication of A’s name and identifying
details if necessary to serve the ends of justice. However, the starting point is a
presumption that all aspects of civil court proceedings are subject to disclosure and
there must be sound reason to displace that presumption.
[9] I am not persuaded a sound reason exists in this instance. The advice from A,
to which I have referred in [5] above, was not on oath. I have no other evidence of the
threats to which A refers or any evidence of a link between the mere fact of publication
of his name, in connection with any legal proceeding, and the making of any such
threat. Even if such were established, it is for the police to investigate any threat to A
and his family, rather than for the Court to prohibit disclosure. I therefore decline to
make the order for permanent name suppression sought.
[10] A advised me he would wish to appeal any refusal of name suppression. At
the end of the hearing, I made an order for interim suppression pending further order
of the Court. I continue that order, again subject to further order of the Court, for
20 working days from the date of this judgment to enable A to pursue an appeal if he
wishes.
Duker
/ 23rd April 2020There seems to be so many of these people with ‘death threats against them’ that its pointless sorting the wheat from the chaff… reading between the lines they may mostly be imaginary.
Pete George
/ 23rd April 2020That’s not a surprise. The man “cannot be identified” but ironically “was also on home detention until July”. I presume name suppression is still in place so that must be adhered to here.
Kitty Catkin
/ 24th April 2020I think that some supposes death threats are not genuine; if the person making them says that they are going to do it, that is a real one. Wishing that someone would die or saying that they deserve to is nasty but not an actual threat. But it sounds better to say that it is one.
Duker
/ 23rd April 2020“Family harm incidents saw a rise in the first few days but this has dropped back to usual levels. Police had been focusing on this area, he said”
Thats was my view earlier this week when it was raised, there seemed to be an ‘increase’ over normal levels but in all likelyhood that wasnt too different from other ‘holiday periods’
A big reason for the crime reduction is the absence of spirits and RTDs and not bars and clubs for drunks to congregate.
A silver lining to the decimation of the ‘hospo industry’ and its alcohol industry masters
Duker
/ 23rd April 2020Simon looks like hes fallen for some fake news
“A man who Simon Bridges claimed was stopped at a coronavirus checkpoint by gang members was in fact turned away by two women for trying to drive his house bus into a small Bay of Plenty town.
“Edmonds understood the elderly the man was turned away after volunteers told him the store he intended to visit was closed.
“It was after hours, so he was directed home because he was of a vulnerable age.”
“Simon Bridges’ office did not respond to requests for comment but East Coast National MP Anne Tolley said the elderly man did phone her office in a “distressed state” and spoke to one of her staff members.
“I understand he had previously phoned Simon Bridges’ office and had also left a message with police.”
Why is it Bridges attracts these crackpots
https://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/121209651/coronovirus-police-refute-simon-bridges—no-gang-members-at-maket-checkpoint