R v McLachlan: What was Constable Fairbrass thinking?
Constable Jacqueline Fairbrass, JFJW66, of the Warkworth Police.
Source: Mahurangi Matters.
You'd expect that a police constable with ambitions of becoming a detective would be careful with their notes, investigations, collecting of evidence, and... well... the law, wouldn't you?
I first met Constable Jacqueline Fairbrass in person when she served me with a summons. She instructed me to appear at the North Shore District Court the following day. Despite sitting on the summons for more than a day, she never checked whether the court would be open during a Covid-19 Alert Level Four Lockdown. When I asked her whether the court was open, she simply replied that failure to appear would result in being taken into custody.
She served me at 4:31pm - 1 minute after normal court hours. I turned up to the court the following day. It wasn't open.
That would be the first in a long line of incidents involving the officer. Here is a selection from my book, Unleashed.
The notebook
The Police have a manual instructing officers on procedures. The keeping of a detailed notebook is important for investigations so that the court can be satisfied that an officer acted with integrity. It is important to record relevant details and avoid making assumptions as it may be necessary to go back and review what was said and done.
Here is an excerpt from the 'Notebooks and jobsheets - Police Manual chapter', with relevant aspects highlighted:
There are some basic things one would expect to be recorded in a police officer's notebook when responding to an incident:
A description of the alleged offender by the complainant;
How details of other witnesses were provided to the complainant, especially if they claim to not know each other (in other words, independent witnesses);
The times that witnesses were visited;
That everything was recorded in sequence;
That there would be a detailed record of the first contact with the alleged offender; and
That there would be a detailed record of the first contact with other witnesses.
Here are the notes of Constable Jacqueline Fairbrass from the evening of 18 September 2021 (click to enlarge):
As you can see, Constable Fairbrass:
Did not record any description of the alleged offender from Lorraine Martin;
She did not record or keep any evidence of how Lorraine Martin provided Paul Shanahan's details;
There is no time recorded for when she visited Paul Shanahan's home;
It is during the visit to Paul Shanahan's home that her notes first mention "Grant MCLACHLAN";
After recording that she visited June Turner's home at 7:06pm, she makes the note "Grant MCLAUGAN not home" but doesn't mention the time or any details;
She rang Victim Support (at 9:43pm) before getting my version of events; and
Immediately after, she notes that I had laid a complaint against Lorraine Martin, which I had actually lodged at 7:20pm.
To fill in the gaps in Constable Fairbrass' notes, she took this photo at 6:11pm in Diane Taylor's downstairs living room of Lorraine Martin, whom Fairbrass described as "a bit distressed":
So, within the 44 minutes that Constables Fairbrass and Andrenacci visited Diane Taylor's house, there was no discussion describing the alleged offender? Seriously? If Lorraine Martin would later claim to not know me, any details that she alluded to would prove valuable later.
When giving a statement to police, witnesses are usually advised to not discuss the matter with others. Immediately after leaving Paul Shanahan's home, however, he posted to his Neighbourhood Support group:
According to Constable Fairbrass' notebook, this created a 24 minute gap in her timeline. Gee, I wonder what she left out?
Here is why an accurate timeline matters. My 'bubble' included a family friend, Marj Fairey, and a friend who lived alone. Before I left home to visit my friend's, I told Marj:
What had happened;
That I expected the police to visit;
To provide my phone number to the police;
To tell them that I was expecting their call without delay; and
To ring me once they had left.
At 6:43pm, I tried to post this to the Sandspit, Snells, Algies & Mahurangi East Facebook group:
Since my post the previous day (which was reposted at 4:28pm on 18 September 2021), the group administrator, Jenny Bartlett, activated a moderating feature to screen my posts. I took this screenshot of the post before she blocked the post from being published.
Nonetheless, I reposted it on another Facebook group at 6:45pm. So, my version of events was public. I was seeking to know the identities of Lorraine Martin and Paul Shanahan, showing the full length and headshot photographs of Lorraine Martin that I took.
Marj rang me at 6:55pm. During the 28-second call, Marj told me that:
The police had just left;
One of the police officers recognised our dog Maggie (Constable Andrea Andrenacci said "Everyone knows Maggie");
She provided the police with my phone number; and
Instructed them to call me straight away.
After the phone call ended, I rang my lawyer, Sue Petricevic. Here are screenshots from my phone, recording the time and duration of the calls:
Constable Fairbrass took this photo of the camera that she recovered at June Turner's home. The metadata records that she took the photo from inside her patrol car at 7:10pm outside June Turner's home:
So, while sitting in her patrol vehicle recording evidence against me, she wasn't interested in recording evidence from me, like the fact that she had visited my home and I wasn't there. Instead of contacting me straight away after she visited my home, she instead visited June Turner's home to collect the camera. Recording her visit to my home was an afterthought, so decided to squeeze it in at the bottom of the page of her notebook. Sloppy.
If Fairbrass bothered to check her police computer in front of her, she would have noticed a complaint from me against Lorraine Martin that included photographs taken by me of Lorraine Martin assaulting me with the same camera Fairbrass was holding in her hand.
The camera was evidence. Instead, Fairbrass returned the camera to Lorraine Martin, which she didn't record in her notebook!
The notebook records were sloppy, to say the least. What's worse is that Constable Andrea Andrenacci didn't keep a notebook of the events, swearing an affidavit that made all the same mistakes as Fairbrass'. Here is what Fairbrass said in her statement:
Here is what Andrenacci said in her statement:
Furthermore, at the trial, Fairbrass repeatedly referred back to her notebook:
And here is some indication of what Fairbrass would have done if she encountered me at 6:50pm on 18 September 2021:
"Speak to?" "Normally I would have arrested him?"
Timelines matter. Basically, if I was at home at 6:50pm on 18 September 2021, Fairbrass would have taken me into custody based solely on the evidence taken at the homes of two committee members of the Snells Beach Ratepayers and Residents Association (SBRRA), which I criticised in an article that I published the previous day. Fairbrass would have then visited the founder of the SBRRA and head vigilante, June Turner, with me in the back seat of her patrol car.
Fairbrass wasn't interested in what I had to say, nor was she interested in sharing what evidence she had collected against me.
Obstructing the disclosure of required information
I had been charged with serious offences and the witnesses had gone around telling anyone who would listen all sorts of crazy things, including many things that I would later discover contradicted their police statements. Furthermore, the witnesses and their associates followed me when I went for my daily walk. My lawyer would repeatedly ask Fairbrass to warn witnesses that they were perverting the course of justice.
Meanwhile, Constable Fairbrass obstructed the disclosure of evidence required under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. This audacious exchange occurred between my lawyer and Fairbrass:
To which my lawyer responded:
My lawyer would repeatedly ask for basic information, which would be stalled for as long as possible. Meanwhile, Fairbrass changed Lorraine Martin's surname to Sherlock in the police database and kept in regular contact with her:
Just so you know, the James Gallagher referred to in Fairbrass' email as supervising the prosecution was none other than James Gallagher QSM:
Source: Getty Images.
With such a distinguished career, what would the former IPCA investigator do if he came across anything that didn't stack up with my case?
Tunnel vision?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'tunnel vision' is a noun describing:
a lack of ability to see or understand all the aspects of a situation, an argument, etc. instead of just one part of it
As I said early, the first contact with a suspect is important. Fairbrass didn't seem to agree:
"As he had requested?" Fairbrass was given my phone number and told to contact me without delay. She delayed. I then contacted the police and provided my email address. She emailed me 30 hours later at 1:11am, while she was preparing Lorraine Martin's and Paul Shanahan's draft statements.
"Talk to him"? "Talk with him" would have been a more appropriate choice of words, especially considering police are meant to be professional, impartial, and apolitical.
Here is a screenshot that kept a record of the phone call I received from Fairbrass:
A 4 minute and 32 second phone call is a long time to not engage in conversation. I basically repeated to her what was said in my police complaint and suggested to her that she gather statements from other witnesses as promptly as possible so they didn't have time to co-ordinate their statements. It would turn out that it would be Fairbrass who would co-ordinate their statements instead.
I ended the phone call when Constable Fairbrass referred to Lorraine Martin as the "victim." It was clear to me that Constable Fairbrass had already made up her mind that I was the offender and that any information that I provided to her would be used against me. I then exercised my right to silence and did not offer a statement.
As a test, I then sent a complaint by email to the council, which I carbon copied to Fairbrass. In that email provided multiple potential lines of inquiry that linked Lorraine Martin to a group of vigilantes who would be involved in nine attempts to falsely accuse me of various offences. The incident involving Lorraine Martin was the sixth. According to documents disclosed by the police, Fairbrass did not follow up on any of those lines of inquiry.
Spanner in the works
From September 2021, my lawyers had regularly requested a copy of the 111 call that Lorraine Martin had laid with police. In early June 2022, the transcript of the phone call was created. On 12 June 2022, Fairbrass entered this in the police database:
It is suspicious that the Criminal Justice Support Unit would ask an officer-in-charge of a case to contact a complainant so soon after they obtained such a vital piece of evidence. It could be perceived that there was conflicting evidence that needed clarification. Instead, Fairbrass then dropped the assault charge, kept the male assaults female charge, but then upgraded the theft charge to robbery – which carried a recommended sentencing starting point of imprisonment.
For nine months, my lawyers and I wondered what was contained in the 111 call that was so damning that the charges against me were upgraded to one where I could face ten years in prison. The Police then offered a plea deal to drop the robbery charge if I plead guilty to the male assaults female charge. It was obvious to me that the Police were being facetious.
On 24 March 2023, the transcript of the 111 call was disclosed to my lawyer. On 2 May 2023, the audio of the 111 call followed:
Lorraine Martin visited Diane Taylor before and after her vigilante patrol. According to Lorraine Martin, Ian Taylor rang 111, handed Lorraine Martin the handset, and handed Constable Fairbrass a note with Paul Shanahan's contact details. Of the many things that Diane Taylor told Lorraine Martin to say during the 111 call, the loudest that could be heard was "Don't make it complicated" and "Is Police on their way?" Their Mahurangi Matters plot was just a cover. Their real plot wasn't complicated: Throw a camera at me and claim that it was a robbery.
In the 111 call, every time that Lorraine Martin tried to mention where she was, Diane Taylor interrupted and Lorraine Martin changed subject to mention that I was wearing a grey jacket. When Lorraine Martin mentioned that she had seen my dog before, Diane Taylor interrupted again and mentioned the grey jacket. Finally, when asked what I was wearing, Lorraine Martin's description of me was vague.
Obviously, Diane Taylor had seen me either when I walked past her home before Lorraine Martin followed me, after Lorraine Martin attacked me, or both times. Obviously, Diane Taylor also did not want her details mentioned in the 111 call. What was she hiding?
Instead of recording evidence that could later investigate this possibility of Diane Taylor's complicity, the Police redacted any mention of Diane Taylor in any police statement, 111 call recording or transcript, or other document.
So, who is Diane Taylor? Here she is "running" the Mahurangi Community Policing Centre at Snells Beach's main roundabout:
Diane Taylor was a shameless vigilante who never hesitated telling people that she "worked for the police." She genuinely believed that she had a 'free pass' to abuse her relationship with the Police in order to get away with anything. Considering what else she was up to and me exposing it the previous day, that's called motive.
During my trial, Lorraine couldn't help but rattle on about her two daughters:
During the 44 minutes that Constables Fairbrass and Andrenacci were in the lower living room of the Taylor home, what are the odds that Lorraine Martin also name dropped that her son worked for the Police?
Lorraine Martin had a history of making false accusations with Auckland Council. Animal Management Officer Merushe Arts also divulged that she was "working with police" and visited Lorraine Martin's home during the evening of 18 September 2021. I wrote this article about it. Yet, when asked by my lawyers to disclose any contact or information exchanged with the council, Fairbrass said that none was exchanged.
There is a difference between redacting names to protect someone's privacy and hiding evidence from the defence.
Source: In The Name of The Father.
Fabricating evidence
It is important that evidence is accurate and reliable. There should be a link of causation attributing an offence to an offender. Providing any evidence to falsely attribute an offence to an offender is a crime under the Crimes Act 1961:
Constable Fairbrass took photos of Lorraine Martin at Diane Taylor's home. She then sent this email to Lorraine Martin:
"No matter how insignificant"? Seriously?
Constable Fairbrass would go on to specialise in victims of sexual violence, which often involved domestic violence. Bruises are important evidence and the colour and shape determine the age of the injury, whether it was caused by force, the type of force, and the direction from which it came:
It took a lot of effort from my lawyers to obtain photographs held as evidence by the Police. These are the photographs of Lorraine Martin's alleged injuries disclosed by Fairbrass in October 2021:
This photograph had obviously been imported into a Microsoft Word document at high contrast, printed at low quality on a damaged printer, scanned on a photocopier with its lid open, and then converted into a low resolution PDF format. The vital area of Lorraine Martin's face is distorted. Was someone taking the piss?
This photograph was meant to show a distressed Lorraine Martin, stains on her knees, and bruises on her hands:
Days later, Fairbrass visited Lorraine Martin's home to document these 'fresh bruises' on her hand:
These photographs weren't helpful. Eventually, days before the trial in February 2024, Fairbrass finally disclosed the actual photos that she took, complete with the metadata that included the timestamps and GPS locations of where the photos were taken:
As you can see, Lorraine Martin wore heavy concealer and makeup on the areas not previously covered by her mask. The colours of the bruises were not fresh, being at least 10 days old.
This photo shows days old dark bruises on her hands. Check out where the grass stains are on her jeans:
This photograph, which was not previously disclosed, was meant to show bruising from when the lanyard around her neck was allegedly pulled:
As you can see the "insignificant" bruising isn't even visible.
Then this photo taken days later at Lorraine Martin's home:
Note that there is a dark patch on the knuckle of the ring finger and skin peeling. Here, I'll enlarge the area:
I took four photographs of Lorraine Martin attacking me. They had datestamps and the backgrounds clearly indicate the location that they were taken. I had only provided two photographs in my police complaint and posted them on social media. The other two photos were revealed at the trial.
Here is an enlargement of one area of those photos:
Lorraine Martin's jeans already had grass stains on the knees of her jeans from when I caught her kneeling on the grass to unclip my dog tied to a fence.
Here is an enlargement of the back of her hand:
So, the bruising and peeled skin on the back of her hand existed before Lorraine Martin attacked me with her camera.
Anything else?
Lorraine Martin also had dirt under her finger nails and bruising between her eyes and nose. When I fended her away with my left hand, my little finger lowered her mask and I could see dark rings under her eyes. I discovered concealer on my finger, which I wiped on my handkerchief.
Also, as you can see here, in none of my photographs of Lorraine Martin is the lanyard around her neck:
According to her 111 call, Lorraine Martin hadn't looked in the mirror to see whether she was injured. Diane Taylor acted surprised to see bruises. Yet, Fairbrass would stitch together police statements that said:
Lorraine Martin was asked by a member of a group whether she was a vigilante who took photos to get people into trouble;
Lorraine Martin denied being a vigilante;
Paul Shanahan then approached the group to say that I had hit Lorraine Martin; and
Three witnesses then said this happened -
In other words, the social distancing-conscious Lorraine Martin knew that there would be a bruise on her left cheek, which would mean that I would have needed to use my right hand to hit her. The problem for her was that I used my right hand to photograph her hitting me with her camera. Paul Shanahan, who came up with the story that I attacked Lorraine Martin, would later say in his police statement that I "round house" hit Lorraine Martin in the side of her head, not her face, and said on social media that I "decked" her. Constable Fairbrass then tried to find the evidence to fit that narrative - never taking any notice of my version of events.
That wasn't the only evidence that was fabricated. For some inexplicable reason, Fairbrass took additional photographs of Lorraine Martin's camera on 8 March 2022 at the Warkworth Police Station, which showed damage that had obviously been caused since 18 September 2021. Fairbrass then took an additional statement from Lorraine Martin, claiming that the value of the camera as much higher than previously stated. I dedicated an article just to her 'expensive' camera.
When a witness falsely attributes evidence to an offence, that isn't just a crime. It indicates malice and motive. When a police officer knowingly records that evidence and then upgrades charges against an accused, that makes the police officer a party to the offence.
Conspiring to make a false accusation
Helping witnesses co-ordinate their stories - knowing that they aren't true - to build a case for a prosecution is a crime:
The punishment for conspiring to bring a false accusation is harsher than the punishment for the crime falsely alleged. Constable Fairbrass upgraded the charges against me with offences that carried with it a 10 year prison sentence, which is much higher than the 3 year threshold mentioned above. It would be safe to assume that anyone found guilty of conspiring to bring a false accusation against me faced a sentence closer to 14 years in prison.
Constable Fairbrass set about building a case based on the number of witnesses, rather than based on the quality of their evidence. She was so focused on finding other witnesses to support Lorraine Martin and Paul Shanahan's version of events that she didn't follow basic procedure when she contacted the Keasts and Marshalls.
Take for instance, these entries in her notebook:
There is only one mention of Jason Marshall in all her notes. At 1pm on 26 September 2021, Fairbrass entered "4Q - P048068524", which is code that she was investigating another unrelated complaint. Immediately following that entry, without recording a time, Fairbrass recorded that Jason Marshall signed a statement. Fairbrass records this as her first and only contact with Jason Marshall. This is from Fairbrass' sworn statement:
According to Jason Marshall's statement, he signed it at 1:04pm and Fairbrass witnessed it at 1:05pm:
So, Fairbrass "took a statement" at Jason Marshall's home address. The problem is that Fairbrass drafted and printed the statement hours beforehand:
Details matter. This gives the perception that Fairbrass drafted Marshall's statement before she contacted him.
Fairbrass didn't record any issue with where Marshall lived, preferring to redact it. I visited the local library and viewed the electoral roll:
Jason's mother also posted this to Facebook, confirming where he lived:
So, what else about Jason Marshall was relevant? Here is his Facebook profile photo:
At my trial, here is what he said:
Under disclosure, Marshall was known to police. For some reason, however, Fairbrass went to a lot of effort to ensure that he was the first person to sign a police statement and then redact where he lived.
So, how bad could this look? Basically, Jason Marshall's presence at Snells Beach on 18 September 2021 breached pretty much every rule of the Covid-19 Alert Level Four lockdown. He travelled all the way from Wellsford with his young family (including a heavily pregnant wife), visited others not in his 'bubble', then walked with them along the full length of a public walkway without exercising social distancing or wearing masks. Fairbrass then turned up at his home in Wellsford, showed him a prepared statement, and then he signed it.
For a person that was not "the type of person" to contact the police, Marshall's police statement contained a lot of detail. In court, Marshall enthusiastically gave oral evidence that contradicted his sworn police statement.
This is important because Fairbrass travelled to Marshall's home, got Marshall to sign his police statement first, and then visited his mother and her husband, Corinne and John Keast, to sign their statements. Fairbrass then visited June Turner, then Paul Shanahan, and finally Lorraine Martin to sign their statements:
The order that the statements were taken, drafted, and signed mattered as it provided a timeline that the investigation was conducted, what information was known by Fairbrass, and what information could have been shared between parties. Fairbrass' notebook, her sworn statement, and the other witness statements all contradicted each other. This is from Fairbrass' statement:
Take, for instance, Fairbrass made no mention in her notebook of any visit to Paul Shanahan's home on 25 September 2021. In fact, straight after collecting the Keasts' statements, at 2:16pm she recorded that she was investigating another incident:
This matters because Paul Shanahan's draft statement was brief and full of blank spaces left for him to fill in. Yet, within an hour of Fairbrass visiting the Keasts, Shanahan's final statement not only filled in the blank spaces but added five paragraphs containing descriptions of events that the Keasts mentioned in their statements. This matters because, even by the timeline of events that the Keasts provided in their statements, Shanahan wasn't present to witness those events.
Jason Marshall, his mother Corinne Keast, and her husband John Keast didn't contact the police. The police contacted them - and their statements were used to bolster Lorraine Martin's, Paul Shanahan's, and Constable Fairbrass' evidence.
Fairbrass drafted all the police statements to make it appear on face value that the witnesses were independent. The ambitious constable was motivated and had an opportunity to put together evidence against me that was "compelling":
What's scary is that Fairbrass' investigation was "compelling" enough to satisfy her superiors - but not a jury.
The least she could have done
Constable Fairbrass visited Paul Shanahan's Trevally Place home twice, passing the crime scene four times. There is no evidence that she stopped to visit the crime scene, photograph it, or visit it with witnesses to clarify what they claimed. Any visit would have quickly determined that Paul Shanahan's view from the beach of the area where Lorraine Martin attacked me was obstructed by dunes, a Pohutukawa tree, and looking directly into the sun:
Here is where the sailors and Paul Shanahan stood at the high tide mark:
Here is the reverse angle from where Lorraine Martin attacked me:
In the photo, a friend is standing at the high tide mark to the right of the photograph. Paul Shanahan said that he was standing at the high tide mark either behind or to the left of the Pohutukawa tree behind the dunes. In other words, he couldn't have seen Lorraine Martin attacking me (or vice versa, as he claimed).
It would have also been useful if Constable Fairbrass visited this area:
Looking north, this is the bottleneck that Lorraine Martin walked through first heading south, then the Keasts and Marshalls "dawdled" through heading north (after chatting with me), then I walked through heading south. To the left of this photograph is the old Salvation Army Camp gate. It was behind this gate that Lorraine Martin threw her camera at me a second time. Here is the reverse angle that the Keasts and Marshalls had of the old Salvation Army Camp gate:
Paul Shanahan was leaning on the Old Salvation Army Gate for all the time that I saw him. He claimed that he saw me fiddling with Lorraine Martin's camera behind the green arched bridge in the background. Again, here is the view that he claimed was unobstructed:
Of course, there was one way that Constable Fairbrass had undeniable proof that Paul Shanahan's version of events wasn't true. Can you spot it behind Lorraine Martin in this photo in the red circle?
Here's another angle from Google StreetView:
That's right. There's a CCTV closed circuit security camera (red circle) pointing at the areas where Paul Shanahan and the sailors were standing (green box in the photo) and where Lorraine Martin attacked me (yellow box.) The coverage area of that camera would have filmed:
Me before the incident less than 10m directly in front of the CCTV camera, rather than on the beach as other witnesses claimed;
Me being alerted to my dog barking as Lorraine Martin interfered with my dog tied to the fence next to the Rata bush in the area of the green box;
Me attending to my dog as Lorraine Martin walked behind the Pohutukawa and held her camera in front of her;
Lorraine Martin attacking me;
Lorraine Martin leaving the scene;
Me walking toward my dog (not chasing Lorraine Martin as Paul Shanahan claimed); and
Paul Shanahan not witnessing the incident or coming to her aid.
I contacted the owners of the Bayside Café building. They told me that to obtain CCTV footage I needed to lodge a complaint with the police, which I did. I later contacted the security company who monitored the CCTV. The police didn't ask to view any footage.
Is Fairbrass incompetent, crooked, or both?
A recurring theme of Fairbrass' approach to my case was her inability to even consider the possibility that Lorraine Martin had attacked me. Fairbrass only referred to Lorraine Martin as the "victim." The correct term, according to the Police Manual and Court Rules, is "complainant." The reason why that term exists is because I was "accused" of a crime, I was innocent until proven guilty, I wasn't the "offender", and Lorraine Martin couldn't be called the victim of an alleged offence. Fairbrass was acting on Lorraine Martin's complaint, rather than mine.
But Fairbrass didn't even know the word "complainant." Even at the trial, this happened:
The “[sic]” was added by the registrar.
It was because Constable Fairbrass referred to Lorraine Martin as the "victim" during my phone call with her on 20 September 2021 that I had good reason to believe that Constable Fairbrass had tunnel vision. I would prove to be right.
On 20 December 2023, Fairbrass tried to ring me three times:
Fairbrass told me to ring Crown Prosecutor Conrad Purdon. Up to my original trial date, Conrad Purdon was the Crown Prosecutor assigned to my case, so I didn’t suspect anything peculiar about what Fairbrass was saying. But Fairbrass then gave me contact details for Better Blokes, which Fairbrass described as a male sexual abuse support organisation. I asked Fairbrass why I would be needing to contact them. Fairbrass then revealed details of a victim’s sexual assault history – naming the victim and an accused who had name suppression. Fairbrass then asked me whether I gave her the correct details. There was a pause, then an “Oops”, then she hung up.
I found out that Constable Fairbrass had been promoted to Detective Constable and reassigned to the Waitemata District’s Adult Sexual Assault Team, based at Rosedale.
During the trial, Constable Fairbrass was the officer in charge and could sit in the court throughout the proceedings. Before the complainant was called to give evidence, I asked the judge that, considering the importance of Fairbrass' evidence, that she remain outside the court until all the prosecution witnesses gave their evidence first. The judge agreed to my request.
Let's not overlook that Fairbrass didn't act alone. When Fairbrass and Gallagher were aware of the 111 call and evidence that additional damage had been done to a vital piece of evidence, they then chose to upgrade the charges against me instead of dropping them - effectively blackmailing me with a plea bargain - and then stalled the release of that evidence to the defence. A police officer and former IPCA investigator should not be able to get away with such corrupt conduct.
Not the first time
I would later find out that I had history with Fairbrass. Days after I lodged an official information request with Auckland Council relating to the dodgy actions of several members of the Rodney Local Board, I was tailgated by a vehicle with their lights on full beam, and followed for at least 13 minutes around Snells Beach while I described the escalating situation to Police Communications. I also drove past the CCTV at the entrance to Snells Beach and the Gull petrol station at least four times. The incident was given a Priority 1, a police unit was despatched, but for some reason the vehicle following me disappeared seconds before the police car arrived on the scene.
After I lodged a complaint against the vehicle harrassing me, Warkworth Sergeant Mark Stallworthy (and Snells Beach resident) assigned the task of investigating my complaint to Constable Andrenacci, who then reassigned the task to Constable Fairbrass. Here are the entries:
Contrary to the police database entry, I was not contacted by Constable Fairbrass. Despite providing details of the vehicle and driver who harassed me - and a transcript of the call in the database being available to her - police redacted any details relating to what action was taken. The police weren't interested in obtaining the audio of the *555 call or the CCTV footage. My complaint appeared to have been just swept under the carpet.
So, there was a history of Fairbrass being aware of my complaints, aware that I had been targeted, decided to not act on my complaints, and then failing to accurately record her actions. Not a good look.
It gets worse...
Following my acquittal, my lawyer and I lodged complaints with the Police against Lorraine Martin and her support person during the trial, Lois McPherson. The complaints were accompanied by evidence presented at the trial and judicial minutes written by the judge describing the actions of Martin and McPherson. After an extended period of time where no action was taken, my lawyer tried to find out what was being done about his complaint. He discovered that Detective Constable Fairbrass was involved with the investigation of the complaints. When he contacted Fairbrass, the complaint was gathering dust on her desk. "What do you want done with it?" she asked.
My lawyer rightly pointed out that Fairbrass had a conflict of interest, being the officer-in-charge of the prosecution against me that failed to convince a jury. He asked that another officer take over the investigation. Since then, my lawyer hasn't received an update on his complaint.
Detective Constable Fairbrass now works in a team investigating sexual assaults, where often the evidence relies on "he said, she said" situations. When Fairbrass obviously wasn't interested in what I had to say but instead stitched together "compelling" evidence, such a law enforcement official is a danger to the community. With Jim Gallagher overseeing Fairbrass, he has a lot of explaining to do.
These are just some examples of the dodgy Warkworth Police antics in my book Unleashed: Sex, rackets & vigilantes in New Zealand's most corrupted community.