Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
An earlier reference in this story to a car that was “stolen” has been corrected to a car that was “queried”.
A police officer who was charged with accessing police’s national intelligence database to allegedly “fix a problem” for the family of Mama Hooch rapists Danny and Roberto Jaz 10 years ago has had the charges dismissed.
The officer’s lawyer told a court the entire prosecution was “misconceived”, and took aim at a police job sheet saying “a teenage Nancy Drew could’ve done a better job”.
RNZ can reveal a Christchurch police officer was charged in June 2024 on two charges of directly accessing a computer system, namely the National Intelligence Application (NIA) and thereby dishonestly and without claim of right, obtained a benefit.
The officer, who has permanent name suppression, has also had his occupation suppressed until Friday when the charges were dismissed by Judge Noel Sainsbury in the Christchurch District Court.
In a statement to RNZ, the man’s lawyer Kerry Cook said: “This entire saga has been devastating and stressful for my client.”
Danny and Roberto Jaz were convicted in 2023 of drugging and violating more than 20 women at the bar Mama Hooch and neighbouring restaurant Venuti between 2015 and 2018.
Photo: NZ Herald / George Heard
He said the officer had always maintained his innocence, and was pleased “to ultimately hear the prosecution acknowledge it could not prove the case against him”.
“However, he believes that acknowledgement came far too late and was secured only through the determined work of his team, including the Police Association.”
He said the officer’s “minimal messaging” with the Jaz family was prior to any complaints and prior to them being investigated, or charged.
“They were informal messages sent in his personal capacity from a personal phone. He maintains they have been misinterpreted, misconstrued and stripped of their context by the poor investigation. Looking back, my client is embarrassed, and regrets having sent those messages.”
On Thursday, Judge Sainsbury held a hearing to hear an application by Cook to dismiss the charges.
At the hearing, Judge Sainsbury laid out the background to the case in relation to a charge dated 8 July, 2015.
Police alleged the officer accessed NIA in relation to the owner of a vehicle and then passed on the information as to the owner of vehicle, cell phone number and address to Michael Jaz. Jaz is the father of convicted rapists Danny and Roberto Jaz. The police investigation into the Jaz brothers did not begin until 2018.
“These charges are the collateral result of an investigation into sexual offending by members of the Jaz family associated with a bar and restaurant on Colombo St,”
Judge Sainsbury said.
“What the prosecution allege is that the defendant developed what might be broadly and more neutrally described as an inappropriate or unfortunate relationship with the Jaz family.”
Do you know more? Email sam.sherwood@rnz.co.nz
The judge referred to the officer being involved in text messages and group chats with members of the family from at least August 2014.
“The conversations involve sexualised discussions concerning women, they are not of themselves illegal, but it certainly makes for unfortunate, unpleasant reading when it involves a police officer in the light of what subsequently is known about members of the Jaz family in terms of comparatively recent convictions for offending from 2015 onwards.”
The Jaz family ran Mama Hooch, pictured, and nearby Venuti on Colombo St. Mama Hooch’s premises has since been taken over by new owners and given a new name.
Photo: David Walker / Stuff
The judge said it appeared the police officer was approached by Michael Jaz, after either he or an associate of his had an accident one night whereby a car had crashed into a parked vehicle on Salisbury St.
“The officer then made inquiries about that, as such on the face of there’s nothing wrong with that.”
However, the Crown alleged the officer was making the inquiries on behalf of the Jaz family not for a legitimate police purpose but to “somehow fix a problem”.
“That he has obtained this information as to the owner of a car that was damaged, passed it on to Michael Jaz, presumably this is for the purpose of Michael Jaz being able to put things right with the owner and avoid any questions being asked that might lead to criminal charges.”
The police “somewhat belatedly” attempted to contact the owner of the vehicle, who now lived in Australia, and she was unable to provide any information to them about knowing the defendant.
Judge Sainsbury pointed out the woman was only asked whether she remembered the officer’s name.
“It doesn’t seem she was asked about her car being damaged, if a police officer approached her about that or any other information about the incident.”
The defence engaged a private investigator who contacted the owner of the car. In April, the private investigator received an email response from the woman who confirmed she gave consent to the police officer to provide her details.
The private investigator then went and saw the woman and took a statement from her in August. She confirmed her car had been crashed into and that she was spoken to by a police officer and gave him consent to give her details to the other party. She was told the other party wanted her details for insurance purposes which she was happy with as she was not insured. The other party’s insurance company paid out for the damage.
She also said she was called by police in 2024 who said her name had come up as someone checked by police in their internal system, she was given names but no context, Judge Sainsbury said.
“She says she could not recall anything about that and called it a very strange call.”
The defence position was that the defendant was approached by someone he knew about an accident and was asked to investigate.
He then went to Salisbury St and saw the car, and made an inquiry in NIA to get the owner’s details. He then spoke to the owner of the car and got their permission to pass on her details.
“Accordingly the inquiries made were legitimate for police purposes.”
Judge Sainsbury said the background circumstances of the relationship between the officer and the Jaz family did cause some suspicion and concern.
“But suspicion and concern is not an evidential basis applying to guilt.”
The judge said it appeared to him that if it was a legitimate inquiry there would be a record of it.
“It seems that also occurred to defence counsel who have made vigorous and repeated attempts to get information from the police.
“The response I have to say seems to have been somewhat underwhelming.”
Through disclosure, Cook was provided with a transaction log from police relating to the damaged vehicle. The log showed queries made by the officer that were made on the day in question and were recorded as a traffic incident.
“What that means is that on what I have in front of me there is evidence of a crash being reported to the defendant, he has made inquiries about that, he has accessed NIA in an appropriate way, he has contacted the owner of the damaged vehicle and arrangements for the damage to be put right without matter taken further.
“Put in that light it is difficult to see how there is a case that a properly directed jury could reasonably convict the defendant.”
The only issue the judge had was that police wanted an adjournment to assure themselves the woman had not been placed under any pressure in making her statement.
Police had made attempts to speak to the woman but had not been able to since they were informed of the statement last week.
Crown prosecutor Cameron Stuart said if the judge was not minded to adjourn the hearing then the Crown’s position was they could not oppose the application to dismiss the charges.
Cook said police had plenty of time to contact her given the charges were laid in June last year.
He said it was not until 15 October last year after several requests that he received through disclosure the vehicle query log and transaction log that backed up the defence’s case.
The disclosure also revealed the officer in charge of the case Detective Senior Sergeant Jason Abbott did not search the registration of the car that was damaged until 5 September, 2024, after the charges were laid. He then searched it again on 24 September and 15 October.
On receiving the logs Cook asked the Crown to review the case, and said the prosecution was “weak” and “misconceived”.
In July 2025, following further requests for disclosure, Cook received what he described as the “forensic low point of the prosecution”, a job sheet in relation to the woman whose car was queried.
Cook provided a copy of the jobsheet to the judge.
“Now you’ll see it’s got the date and time it started as 20 June 2024 – then your honour would’ve looked down the bottom and seen it wasn’t created until the 30th of June 2025,” Cook said.
“A teenage Nancy Drew could’ve done a better job in relation to that job sheet.”
He said it was “woeful, negligent, late disclosure”.
Cook told Judge Sainsbury the time had come for the case to come to an end.
“These basic investigations should’ve been done. It became apparent when we got involved. It’s obvious where he was. It’s obvious what happened. It needs to end and it should end now.”
Judge Sainsbury gave the Crown until Friday morning to speak with the woman.
On Friday, the Crown confirmed they had spoken to her and she confirmed her statement was correct and she had not given it under any duress.
Judge Sainsbury then granted the application to dismiss the charges and granted permanent name suppression for the officer.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.