Bent Cops

08 Shots Fired, Sergeant Chris Roe.

Posted in Bent Cops by Jack on 12/12/2006


08 Shots Fired

Perverting the course of justice #4

Then for the next 3 to 4 years the Police turned a blind eye to a continuous campaign of provocation, assaults, firearms offences, intimidation, vandalism and theft by Britton, his son Mathew Britton, Angus Mars, Hayden Irvine, and a few other young manipulated shitheads who had nothing better to do.

The below incident led to the unmasking of THREE more Police liars, first there was this Chris Roe joker,


And then came Roe’s final word on the matter.


23 September

Officer in Charge (Gary Patterson)
Wanganui East Community Policing Centre

“As per our discussions, I have attached the correspondence relating to the latest allegation made against BRITTON by Jack” (Not me! Sandra) “VAN DER LUBBE.”

“In brief, on September 19 at about 1540 hours VAN DER LUBBE” ( Sandra) “contacted the Bell Street Police Station on 111 to inform us that DONALD BRITTON had fired shots from a rifle towards his” (her) “house.”

“I went and obtained a written statement in my notebook from VAN DER LUBBE at his address and this is reported on a job sheet.”

(Roe did not interview all the witnesses as is required in bona fide investigations and he in fact he only bothered to interview 2 out of the 6 witnesses to the incident. Britton and myself and he buggered off back to town without disarming Britton which allowed him to fire a couple more shots over our house.)

“Later that day, at 1922 hours, I spoke with DONALD BRITTON, who acknowledged he had been up the valley shooting that day, but denied aiming any shots in the direction of VAN DER LUBBE.”

“There was no corroboration of VAN DER LUBBE’S allegations, other than the other members of his family agreeing with everything he said.” (That was an outright lie and the tape I made of the interview proves it.)

“On 22.09 I was contacted by Sandra VAN DER LUBBE and advised her that because of this lack of corroboration and the existing domestic problems between them, no further action would be taken on this complaint as Police had insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution in open court.” (Compare that with what Judge Willy said about the veracity of my family in 16 PRIVATE PROSECUTION.)

“She was quite happy to accept this and began to give me a long list of previous wrongdoings alleged to have been committed by BRITTON.” (Do you see the contradiction in that statement?)

“I forward this for your information as there is if necessary grounds which may assist in revoking the firearms licence of BRITTON should this become necessary to ensure the safety of the parties involved.” (What grounds? He’s just finished saying that there was insufficient evidence to do anything.)

Sergeant C647


This case classic example of the corrupt way the Police were treating us at that time.
Roe had 4 credible victims/witnesses but he still brushed it under the carpet with provable lies.

And he didn’t interview Matthew Britton even though he was an accomplice to the crimes (it was his rifle) and he didn’t recommend the firearms license revocation for fear of jeopardizing the pending Police case against me.


Then later, on the evening of the shooting,


Then the dirty bastards tried to do me for making a false statement to Police (verbal) and misuse of a telephone.

First they withdrew a “unlawful possession of a firearm” charge that they said had been mistakenly laid. ‘Mistakenly’ my arse, they added that already failed charge  just to make me look bad in the eyes of the judge.

Then the trial proper got underway and the first liar to take the stand was the above silly bugger Constable Philip Randal. He gave sworn evidence repeating that all my calls that evening were abusive. He didn’t know that I had recorded them all and NONE were the slightest bit abusive. Proven perjury! He went a bit pale when I told him that I had recorded all of my calls.

Then Britton took the stand and he ended up dobbing in his mate Haggart as the balaclava wearing fool of 10/10/92. See 09 Agent Provocateur

I represented myself in Court that day after my then lawyer Peter Brosnahan reckoned I may as well plead guilty as they had me banged to rights but I proved him wrong and pissed the cops off  no end into the bargain.

Then later this failed prosecution was written up as a conviction by the cops and used as an excuse to dismiss all further complaints by us against Britton as a probable lie.  See 30 The Mansell Memo That’s why I always tell the truth, once they catch you out in a lie you’re fucked. Mind you they never caught me out but I was still fucked.


Criminal harassment

2.10 Clause 8 creates a new offence of criminal harassment, which is punishable by 2 year’s imprisonment. A person is guilty of criminal harassment if that person harasses another person and either:

intends to cause the other person to fear for his or her safety, or the safety of another person with whom he or she has a family relationship; or
knows that the harassment is likely to cause that other person reasonably to so fear.

2.11 I support the enactment of clause 8. I believe it provides an appropriate new offence to combat harassment. It criminalises the worst type of harassment where individuals are caused to fear for their safety.

2.12 I realise that some overseas “stalking” offences of this type have not been entirely effective because it can be quite difficult to prove that a person intended a pattern of behaviour to cause another person to fear for their safety or their family’s safety. There may be calls to broaden the scope of the offence or to remove the mens rea element. However, I think the alternate limb of the offence should meet that concern, since in cases where an intent to cause harm cannot be shown, it may be able to be shown that the harasser nonetheless knew that the actions were likely to cause the victim to so fear.

2.13 I think that we should be cautious about extending the bounds of criminality further as there may be unforeseen effects and the law may be invoked in circumstances which are not anticipated. For instance if the element of intent was removed there may be a risk of the law being used in the area of political or industrial protest. Harassment which is not reached by the criminal offence should be able to be covered in appropriate circumstances using the civil remedy which does not require an intent to cause fear to be proved.

2.14 Nonetheless, I would be disappointed if the criminal offence turned out to be impossible to effectively prosecute. That would be of little use to victims of harassment. I do not believe that this is the case with this provision but I suggest that its effectiveness ought to be reviewed after several years in operation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: