Letters similar to those offered by police to people arrested at last year's blossom festival for minor offences, to enable them to plead guilty without appearing in court, are used by police around the country, the Alexandra District Court heard yesterday.
Sergeant Tom Scouller, of Alexandra, told Judge Stephen O'Driscoll the content of the letters differed between police stations, but work was being done on a standard version. It would incorporate a summons under section 19(a) of the Summary Offences Act.
Judge O'Driscoll said such letters should be standardised and there needed to be greater detail in any letters given out, than there was in those used during the blossom festival last September.
The information came to light as part of a test case the judge heard yesterday. There are still 40 other cases from the blossom festival waiting to be heard.
Julian Campbell Robinson (21), of Dunedin, was charged with disorderly behaviour on September 25. He originally signed a letter given to him by police on the night that he was arrested that said he admitted his guilt.
However, counsel Russell Checketts said he now pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Sgt Scouller said Mr Robinson was dealt with the same way as the other 75 arrests made during the festival.
After they were processed at the police station, those people charged with fines only offences, such as offensive behaviour, disorderly behaviour or breach of the liquor ban, were provided with a letter that enabled them to plead guilty.
"When they signed they were told they were not required to attend court. They were then released. Those who did not want to plead guilty by letter were given a 19(a) summons."
That procedure was flawed, Mr Checketts said.
Under the law, anyone arrested by police without a warrant, who police were prepared to release after that person has been charged, when the court is not open, had to be given a summons under section 19(a) of the Summary Offences Act, Mr Checketts said.
That procedure had not been followed in Mr Robinson's case or in any of the cases where a letter was signed.
Police agreed that the correct procedure had not been followed and that those who signed letters should have been issued with a summons, Sgt Scouller said. That was done because that type of summons said court had to be attended.
"If we give someone a guilty letter telling them not to attend court, then we give them a 19(a) summons that tells them to attend court, it will leave some people confused."
It was a procedural mistake, not a miscarriage of justice, Sgt Scouller said.
"The information is valid and can be dealt with."
The situation was made worse, Mr Checketts said, by police, as when they realised their error, they sent out a summons to those who signed letters, but it was on the wrong document.
"Normally, it says things like people should seek legal advice, that legal aid is available, or that duty solicitors are also available. It's important information. Instead, police sent out the wrong form and a letter from them that provided their own legal advice," Mr Checketts said.
In Mr Robinson's case, the letter he originally signed also contained wrong information as to what penalty he faced for his alleged behaviour.
"That makes the letter invalid," Mr Checketts said.
The judge reserved his decision.
