An 18-year-old male student lays a complaint of a sexual nature with police against a prominent Member of Parliament who has what is generally agreed to be a glittering career ahead of him. Speculation as to what may have happened dominates the media for weeks to come. It includes talk of a naked man fleeing from Hughes’ lodgings in the early hours of the morning. Hughes eventually resigns from Parliament on the grounds that this speculation and the widespread publicity make it impossible for him to effectively do his job as an MP and a Labour Party spokesman. He repeatedly denies having done anything wrong. The police take three-and-a-half months to reach a decision on whether or not to lay charges against Hughes. They finally decide that: ‘After this careful consideration, the allegations do not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges. As a result, no charges will be brought against Mr Hughes.’ Well, that’s all right then. Or is it? Is it all right that, after only a matter of weeks, it had become evident that the likely length of the police investigation made it virtually impossible for Hughes to return to Parliament in November?
Is it all right that that investigation eventually took three-and-a-half months to resolve what had happened between these two men and who was telling the truth? Is it all right that the Leader of the Opposition did not stand Hughes down from all his parliamentary and electorate duties and give him leave of absence as soon as he heard of the complaint and until the police investigation was over? Is it all right that an 18-year-old student has been able to potentially destroy the promising career of a brilliant politician and to do so anonymously? Is it all right that the tabloid press thought fit to engage in a frenzy of rumour-driven speculation about an incident they actually knew nothing about? Is it all right that there was a public presumption of Hughes’ guilt without any knowledge of the true facts? Is any of this all right? I don’t think so. But I also doubt that the police decision not to charge Hughes will satisfy those who prefer to believe there is no smoke without fire. That is how they will interpret the police’s neatly phrased statement that ‘the allegations do not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges’.
Let me put it more simply: the 18-year-old’s complaint simply didn’t stand up to scrutiny. That should be the end of the matter. I wrote three posts on the Darren Hughes affair. The first was on March 24 and dealt with the Herald’s coverage of the known events, of the complaint and the police response. I concluded: And finally, amid all the talk, including from his Leader, about Hughes’ career having been irreparably damaged, aren’t we forgetting the principle that, like every other person under investigation by the police, Hughes is innocent until and if he is arrested, charged, tried and found guilty of a crime. On the following day, the day that Hughes resigned, I wrote a second post: A Hypothesis: Let’s assume for the moment that Darren Hughes is telling the truth. I concluded that post as follows: So let’s just say that the police find that the 18-year-old’s complaint was without substance and there are no grounds to prosecute Darren Hughes.
The accumulated wisdom of the New Zealand political commentariat is that, nine months away from a general election, Phil Goff cannot afford to keep Darren Hughes in the party because, I suppose, ‘mud sticks’. Maybe I have an unrealistic view of the average Kiwi, but if this scenario did eventuate, I rather think that welcoming Hughes back into the fold, and at the very most demoting him for his ‘lack of judgement’, would do Labour no end of good. The party has too little young blood to spill. In the meantime there is an onus on the police to deal with this matter quickly, in days, not weeks or months. As the old saying goes, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ – whoever wins. Well, it turned out to be months. Which led me to write my most recent post on the affair on May 17: Why are the police dragging their heels in the Darren Hughes case? I concluded: In the meantime, a cloud of suspicion hangs over both Hughes and the complainant.
Those who think well of Hughes or support him politically may be attracted to the view that he is the victim of ‘morning-after’ regret by the 18-year-old or of some dastardly plot by Right Wing operatives to ruin his career. Hughes’ political enemies, along with those uncomfortable with homosexuality, may be attracted to the view that there is no smoke without fire and the ‘fact’ of an18-year-old ‘fleeing’ Hughes’ lodgings naked and seeking help from the police, is about as much evidence as they need. Both men’s lives are on hold and it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that our boys in blue, who are absolutely brilliant at tracking down rapists and killers are, in this case, and for whatever reason, dragging their heels. That, thankfully, is no longer the case, and if the decision not to charge Hughes is the result of ‘this careful consideration’ then perhaps the wait was worth it. Blogging is a curious occupation. It allows people to publish their views on a huge variety of topics in many of which they have no expertise whatsoever.
Much of what bloggers write is rubbish and often intemperate rubbish. I doubt I am an exception to that. But occasionally you know that your stance is right and that you can look back on what you wrote with a degree of satisfaction, even of pride. This has been one such occasion. And finally this: Darren Hughes has paid dearly for his ‘lack of judgement’. He should not go on paying. Had the Leader of the Opposition handled things more adeptly, Hughes would still be a Member of Parliament. There would be celebrations in the Opposition wing. So it would be good not to hear any more talk of years of penance before he can return to the fold. Labour should welcome him back at the first available opportunity, in part because it needs his brilliance, in part because no charge has been brought against him. He is, as he has claimed from the start, an innocent man, falsely accused.
