It's expected today that Police Commissioner Andrew Coster is going to announce a revision of the police pursuit policy and that a “fleeing driver framework would be introduced.

The New Zealand Herald is reporting that this framework is going to give the police, finally, the discretion that everyone's been calling out for. So they're going to give them the discretion whether or not to chase, based on an assessment of the crime that the driver has committed, and the risk they pose to the public.  

What difference when it comes to crime is this really going to make?

Last week, there was an interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster, where, I thought he made a telling comment. One comment he made was that basically the police can only catch them. But after that they don't have any more to do with the consequence that follows to the offenders, because he said well, you know we don't we don't have any responsibility for what happens once they hit the justice system.  

Which I thought was a pretty candid moment for the Police Commissioner. In other words, well we can catch him, but beyond that, don't look at me. 

It seems to me that the Police Commissioner might even himself, in his private moments, quietly have thrown his hands up in the air at the lack of consequence which people face once they've been caught, after the police have actually done their job.  

And maybe this is evident in the news about those pitch invaders, 12 people arrested running onto the field during the Warriors match. I mean, why do they do it? Well, one reason is because they have no fear of the consequences.  

Look, I think it's irresistible that we need to give the police more choice when it comes to pursuing offenders. But here's the question, will it really make a difference?

Because when it comes to crime and punishment, it seems there are still no consequences that people are afraid of.  When it comes to consequences at the moment, I'd say pardon my French there’s ****** all.