Police often use boltcutters to remove piercings, court told

A woman suing police over claims a constable removed her genital body piercings with boltcutters today claimed the practice was widespread in police stations.

A judge has retired to consider his decision over whether the police officer is guilty of cutting off a female prisoner's body piercings with a pair of industrial bolt cutters at a Christchurch police station.

Police are being sued by the woman for $150,000 over claims that five piercings from her tongue, belly button and genitalia were lopped off with "proper, heavy" bolt cutters.

The woman, who is in her 30s and cannot be named, has accused the policewoman, who has since left the force, of unlawful sexual connection, assault, breach of the Bill of Rights and abuse of her position.

The woman claims she was ordered to remove her piercings by the officer when arrested for obstruction in May 2008 after her partner was arrested for drink-driving. Both were later acquitted of the charges.

The civil court case came to a close in Christchurch today with the alleged victim's solicitor Tony Greig claiming the incident was far from isolated.

He said: "The removal of piercings was a widespread practice in the police station. This widespread practice is exactly why no one was surprised by what happened to her.''

Two other people who gave evidence that police also cut piercings from them, earlier gave evidence to support her testimony.

The woman took the stand today to reinforce the claims of institutionalised police use of boltcutters on prisoners' piercings.

"What happened to me was wrong. It happens all the time - I had two others give supporting evidence to say it happened to them.

"It's just a fact the I've had the biggest cajones to say it happened to me. I know what happened, and so do they, and I will see it through to the end," she said.

Lead counsel for the defence, Fergus Sinclair, put it to her that she was "well aware" the piercings were cut after she was released from police custody, a claim she denied.

She also said she did not expect to "get rich" from the civil claim.

Mr Sinclair said: "It is odd that the plaintiff cannot be sure if the tool was red or blue, when this was a tool presented right before her eyes."

But Judge Raoul Neave interjected: "Perhaps her focus was on the cutting part of the tool - that's what I'd be more worried about."

Mr Sinclair went on to question the plausibility of the claims.

He said: "The transformation of her remonstrating with two males police officers, to submitting highly sensitive parts of her body to a female officer with bolt cutters is implausible.

"An extraordinary sequence of events have to stack up to uphold the plaintiff's story.''

The police suggested that probable motives for the allegations included the woman's "ill will'' towards the force, her desire for financial gain, and the fact that falsified stories tend to gain "a momentum of their own.''

Representing the claimant in his final submissions, Mr Greig asked Judge Neave to rely on his client's evidence "wholeheartedly.''

He said: "She has provided a very clear version of events from the very beginning. Liars, I suggest, would start to shift their ground when facts become uncomfortable, but she has not flinched.

"Her honesty and sincerity was transparent, and I ask your honour not to be deflected in any way and rely on your gut instinct and to rely on her evidence wholeheartedly.''

The officer, who has since left Christchurch Police, yesterday rejected the claims, saying: "I certainly did not cut piercings from her. I've never personally removed any piercings - forcibly or otherwise. I'm not that kind of person. And I have never known of any bolt cutters in any police station I've worked in."

Judge Neave suggested that arriving at a final judgement could prove troublesome, saying that he found both key witnesses to be convincing and reliable.

His judgement is expected to be released later this month.

 

Add a Comment