• Auckland police officer James Phillip Cox was acquitted of perjury after saying he was authorised to use a radar gun.
• Cox’s lawyer argued the false statement was an honest mistake due to clerical error and lack of oversight.
• The jury agreed, concluding there was no intent to mislead.

An Auckland police officer who issued hundreds of speeding infringements with the help of a radar gun he was not authorised to use has been acquitted of lying under oath about his qualifications.

The lawyer for James Phillip Cox, 31, acknowledged from the start of his jury trial in the Auckland District Court this week that the “keen, conscientious young police officer” was wrong to have said he was certified to use the device while in the witness box at the North Shore District Court during a Jan 2023 trial before a justice of the peace.

But it was an honest mistake, caused in part by a clerical error by his employer and lack of sufficient oversight by his superiors, Todd Simmonds, KC, argued. A witness cannot be convicted for perjury if an untrue statement under oath was a simple error not intended to mislead, he noted.

Cox, who was charged last January, could have faced up to seven years’ imprisonment had he been convicted of the offence. He has been on paid leave over the past year while awaiting the outcome of the case.

The officer took deep breaths after the jury foreman read the verdict aloud. He was allowed to step out of the dock to hug crying supporters in the gallery as Judge Paul Murray thanked jurors for their service.

“If you’re looking to criticise here with the benefit of hindsight, I suggest to you most of the blame lies with the organisation, with the supervisors...” Simmonds had said during his closing address a day earlier.

He added that he didn’t want to “put the boot in to police” but if someone had to be scapegoated it shouldn’t be Cox, who he repeatedly described as “a good young guy making a positive contribution to the community”.

“What the heck were his bosses doing here? People were asleep at the wheel. If this [using a radar gun] was an issue, why didn’t a supervisor raise it? We’re talking about three or four years here.

“It’s extraordinary, and it doesn’t speak well of the level of supervision ... of this young guy who is learning the ropes.”

Cox did not give evidence during the three-day trial but jurors were shown a police interview in which he denied knowingly lying about his certification.

He also said he couldn’t remember who had trained him, which Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey described as “simply not credible”.

‘Not true and he knows it’

McCoubrey acknowledged that the issue appeared to initially stem from a clerical error dating back years before the perjury allegation.

After taking a course on how to use a laser speed detector, a more straightforward device that requires four hours of training, Cox received a certificate from the national road policing manager in 2018 stating he was certified to use both laser and radar detectors.

But radar guns require 16 hours of training, which Cox would have surely realised he hadn’t received, McCoubrey said.

While the two speed-detection devices might seem similar to the layperson, they’re quite distinctive to those involved in road policing, he said.

“It’s common sense he knew he hadn’t done 16 hours of radar training,” McCoubrey said.

“There’s no way he’d somehow forgotten ... A young constable would be aware of what they’ve been trained on and what they haven’t been trained on. Sixteen hours ... isn’t something you forget.

“He knows he hasn’t done a single minute of radar training and he knows he’s not certified.”

McCoubrey alleged that Cox was arrogant but not confused when testifying about being certified.

He’d been issuing speeding tickets via a radar gun for more than two years at that point and hadn’t yet been called on it. Jurors were shown an email in which Cox estimated he had conducted 600 or more traffic stops using the device.

Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey. Photo / Sam Hurley

“It’s not as if Mr Cox is some sort of evil criminal mastermind,” McCoubrey said. “He didn’t tell the truth because he thought he could get away with what he did say.

“He did, by that point, become overconfident. JPs aren’t going to question him - they’re just going to take his word as a constable.”

The prosecutor also directed jurors to an email Cox received from a supervisor in February 2021 stating that the supervisor wanted to arrange radar training for him.

If he had actually thought he was certified, McCoubrey said, Cox would have given a response akin to: “Hey sergeant, I thought I was certified. We need to have a chat about this.”

Instead, Cox didn’t respond to the email at all, McCoubrey said. The defence, however, suggested that Cox might not have seen the email - perhaps he was on leave at the time.

McCoubrey acknowledged the allegation against Cox didn’t reflect the most serious type of perjury.

It was a traffic case, and he was giving evidence against someone who McCoubrey said appeared to be an “absolute idiot” - a man who had told off the officer upon being stopped on State Highway 1 in June 2022.

But neither of those factors are the point, he said, emphasising that society depends on officers to be truthful while in the witness box, whether it be a murder case or a traffic violation.

“Look, you might have every sympathy with an eager young police officer,” he told the jury. “You’ve got to look at the evidence and not judge it on feelings. You have to tell the truth when you give evidence.

“...It’s not true and he knows it - it’s really as simple as that.”

‘Nightmare situation’

The defence retorted: “It’s not as black and white as that at all”.

Simmonds said there were way too many “ifs, buts, and holes” in the Crown’s “incomplete” case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his client had a nefarious intent in testifying at the 2023 trial.

The facts that were presented to jurors this week, he suggested, showed his client had a clean conscience.

Cox had taken an online training module for both radar and laser usage in 2018 and had scored highly on a written test that followed.

“We can’t ignore that,” Simmonds said of the certificate that was subsequently, albeit erroneously, issued from National Police Headquarters.

There’s also no doubt that Cox was competent in using the device, his lawyer said, arguing that his client shouldn’t be faulted for thinking he had been trained four or five years earlier even if he couldn’t remember in the police interview who had taught him.

“Let’s keep it real - what’s your memory like?” Simmonds asked jurors. “He’s not being asked about things that happened last month or last week. His memory’s not perfect.”

Most importantly, Simmonds said, it didn’t make sense that Cox would jeopardise his career on such a claim if he knew it was false.

“Without trivialising it, it’s a minor case - rats and mice,” Simmonds said of the 2023 speeding trial.

“If he had seen any issue that was going to come back and bite him on the backside, he just would have withdrawn the charge. There’s no skin in the game for him. It’s just another file.”

The strongest case for his client’s innocence, he said, was when Cox sent an email to the road policing manager in March 2023 saying he was keen to serve as a radar detection instructor.

“There’s no logical reason at all that this young guy would have sent this email to the road policing manager ... if he thought he was in fact not authorised to use a radar device,” Simmonds said, adding that it “beggars belief” he would have the “gall, gumption, and arrogance” to send such a message if he was trying to hide something.

“That speaks to his knowledge. That speaks to his clear conscience.”

Cox followed up on the inquiry eight days later, emphasising his interest, the defence lawyer noted.

“Why on earth would he be putting his neck on the chopping block if he knew there was a problem?” Simmonds said, characterising the trial as a gross overreaction.

“He’s made a mistake and he’s had the book thrown at him. He’s a junior copper,” Simmonds said. “What a response. ‘We’re going to charge you with perjury. We’re going to put you on trial.’ Really?

“It’s a nightmare situation - an absolute nightmare for this young guy. I ask you 12 to put an end to this nightmare for him and his family.”

After three-and-a-half hours of deliberation, the jury concurred.

Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.