Playing by the rules
stuff reports:
Crown lawyers last night stopped TV3's Campbell Live from broadcasting evidence in files prepared by police for Solicitor-General David Collins and leaked to TV3. [...] Lawyers for the accused discovered after 3 News went to air that the files had been leaked. They contacted TV3 and threatened to seek an injunction. [...] Most of the evidence in the files given to the solicitor-general is now either inadmissible or subject to heavy suppression orders.
"It would have to be a deliberate leak," Ms Sykes said.
"We get out of court and ... suddenly there's a whole file been leaked to a major news outlet. What's that about, when we haven't even got it?"
The leak fuelled fears about the rights of those involved gaining a fair trial.
"I just think it's getting to the point now where it's trial by media."
As noted below the importance of the "terrorism" charge was to prejudice opinion against the accused - whether or not the charges were finally laid or not - they have succeeded in that respect. First they say the law is wrong (!?) and is to blame for why they stuffed up and now some documents that would prejudicially smear the defendants are coincidentally leaked. These are normal police practices. They spent a lot of money and time and resources on this and there are a lot of senior police who have pushed it hard and they want a result or else they are looking at ending their careers monitoring speed cameras in Gore.
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 10:27 am
47 comments
47 Comments:
But if the allegations against them are just a load of rubbish like the activists and their lawyers claim then why on earth are they so scared and trying so hard to suppress the intercepted messages?
Surely the public once they see all the Police evidence will see that it is just a load of rubbish won't they?
They claim they are completely innocent and that the Police raids were unjustified, so why not let the evidence the raids were based on out into the public domain so the public can see for themselves how unjustified the raids were?
Anon what law will you use to justify their was an offence? if the Solicitor-General's said theirs insufficient evidence to charge them under this current TSA
I thought you were all against these hidden trials Mana and the suppression of evidence hidden from the public?
So why don't the activists sign waivers allowing it to be released, why are they so desperate to hide it?
There may not be enough evidence to charge them under the TSA but if what evidence there is was released into the public domain then any future prospects the suspects have are completely fucked.
who said it was activist that want it hidden, it sounded like the crown lawyers stop the leak not activist anon;
now you're a righteous chap aren't you? is clause 29 of the magna carta only for white people or are us Maori also entitled to a fair trial?
Anonymous said...
There may not be enough evidence to charge them under the TSA but if what evidence there is was released into the public domain then any future prospects the suspects have are completely fucked.
what does that mean anon, how can one be fucked if theirs no law to say its any offence; but I believe Tim right if the press get to release this so called evidence (that no can be charged for) "I just think it's getting to the point now where it's trial by media."
"who said it was activist that want it hidden"
because it was the 'activists' lawyers who asked for name suppression.
Why don't you do some basic research before making these comments. Having to explain everything to you is becoming tiresome. It just makes you look stupid in the end.
"who said it was activist that want it hidden, it sounded like the crown lawyers stop the leak not activist anon; "
Do some research Mana, the crown have been attempting to have the hearings held in open court, the Defense lawyers however have managed to successfully have everything suppressed.
And it was also the Defense lawyers who found out that TV3 had some information and threatened them with an injunction etc.
Now if this is all as the Defense lawyers claim, a big police beat-up then why on earth are they so terrified of the Police evidence becoming public?
Surely that evidence would only vindicate their claims. Also how could a release of the police evidence be prejudicial if, as you claim they have absolutely no evidence of terrorist activities?
"N"
Anonymous said...
MANA"who said it was activist that want it hidden"<
because it was the 'activists' lawyers who asked for name suppression.
Dude are your serious? how the hell does request for name suppression mean hiding evidence? Show me where it's said that the activist wanted it hidden?
Why don't you do some basic research before making these comments. Having to explain everything to you is becoming tiresome. It just makes you look stupid in the end.
Just what the fuck did you explain anon this is to different things, you said they ask for name suppression, how is that the same?, maybe you need to run off and read it again.
Leaking of evidence has an uncanny similarity to the tactics used by the police against Scott Watson, as very well described in Keith Hunter's "Trial By Trickery" book. Coincidence.....????
Does anyone here want to take mana to school; again.
"Lawyers for the accused discovered after 3 News went to air that the files had been leaked.
They contacted TV3 and threatened to seek an injunction. "
Mana stated.
"Dude are your serious? how the hell does request for name suppression mean hiding evidence? Show me where it's said that the activist wanted it hidden?"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4258019a6432.html
"Much of the morning had been taken up discussion over whether media and film and photograph in court, a move that is opposed my many of the lawyers representing the 17 accused. The Crown has taken the unprecedented stance of supporting the media's right to photograph and cover the entire hearing, with lawyer Ross Burns saying it had come under criticism for holding some earlier hearings in private.
Because of "the real and genuine interest" in the charges, it wanted all future hearings to be held in open."
So in summary for your Mana it appears that the crown wanted open justice and for the public to be able to see the evidence, the Defense wanted hidden secret court hearings with the public not allowed to know what was happening.
Which is kinda ironic given the hysteria coming from Indymedia over hidden secret trials when its actually the activists who want it hidden.
"N"
Anonymous said...
MANA "who said it was activist that want it hidden, it sounded like the crown lawyers stop the leak not activist anon; "
"N" Do some research Mana, the crown have been attempting to have the hearings held in open court, the Defense lawyers however have managed to successfully have everything suppressed.
Well I'll tell you what "N" you need to ring up stuff.co.nz and get them to re-write the article to suit your version of events because they have it posted like this Crown lawyers last night stopped TV3's Campbell Live from broadcasting evidence in files prepared by police for Solicitor-General David Collins and leaked to TV3. The leak came just 24 hours after Mr Collins refused to allow terrorism charges to be laid against activist Tame Iti and 11 others arrested in raids last month. So who stopped the files going on air? "N" (Score: MANA 1 / Anon & "N" 0)
And it was also the Defense lawyers who found out that TV3 had some information and threatened them with an injunction etc.
yes this is true, threats don't mean they stopped it though does, so who stopped it from being air on Campbell? (Score: MANA 1 / Anon & "N" 0)
Now if this is all as the Defense lawyers claim, a big police beat-up then why on earth are they so terrified of the Police evidence becoming public?
You know I am not one for hearsay either you know of you don't; but it is fine to say, just like you "N", the Defence lawyers assume it a policemen, but I'll wait for proof on that one. But can you please post up where it says the defence council were scared of this evidence being made public? can you give us a link to that? NO probably not huh. In my opinion I guess there (defence council) is pissed off, because even they have not seen this evidence. (Score: MANA 2 / Anon & "N" 0)
Surely that evidence would only vindicate their claims. Also how could a release of the police evidence be prejudicial if, as you claim they have absolutely no evidence of terrorist activities?
It's prejudicial because it would breach clause 29 of the magna carta, the right to a fair trial, not to mention the "heavy suppression orders" come on now isn't it one law for all, lol
WOW you I guess you must be right "N" and I got it all wrong LOL or maybe you need to piss off and read the article again yourself, without the hood this time..Heres a link.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4267865a10.html
Do some research Mana, Do some research Mana,
LOL Classic
(Score: MANA 2 / Anon & "N" 0)
I'm off to do more research "N"
Anonymous said...
Mana stated.
"Dude are your serious? how the hell does request for name suppression mean hiding evidence? Show me where it's said that the activist wanted it hidden?"
The "N" SPEECH http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4258019a6432.html
Snippet "Much of the morning had been taken up discussion over whether media and film and photograph in court, a move that is opposed my many of the lawyers representing the 17 accused. The Crown has taken the unprecedented stance of supporting the media's right to photograph and cover the entire hearing, with lawyer Ross Burns saying it had come under criticism for holding some earlier hearings in private.
Because of "the real and genuine interest" in the charges, it wanted all future hearings to be held in open."
I'll put this in caps for you so I am clear ok, don't want you to think I am excited: WHERE DOES IT SAY THE ACTIVIST OR THERE LAWYERS WANTED IT HIDDEN? until the lifting of the name suppression the DC Judges and Justice system made all appearances closed, with the suppression of everything (not names) including bail and the reasons why bail was denied, yet I didn't see where Ms Sykes or Moana Jackson said anything about private trial, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't this story come out some week and a bit ago? so how is it in relation to the current story about the leak and who stopped it "N"
So in summary for your Mana it appears that the crown wanted open justice and for the public to be able to see the evidence, the Defense wanted hidden secret court hearings with the public not allowed to know what was happening.
Oh I see now, you summed this up yourself and now you want it to be made gospel, "N" this is your version; If the crown wanted open justice why did they suppress the reason why bail was declined? does not sound very open to me
Which is kinda ironic given the hysteria coming from Indymedia over hidden secret trials when its actually the activists who want it hidden.
Still your assuming right? because theres nothing in that link that says Activist wanted hidden trials, yet theirs proof to show that the crown, DC court system had closed court hearing for the accused, does seem a little ironic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
a smear campaign to try and sway the already ignorant mainstream murmurs of public opinion.
i still have respect for the blue institute, but if this is what it comes down to for the police nowadays - get their man over all else, even if they have to break fucken Law - then i'm all for some kind of cleanout within, or at least find the dodgy leakee.
Mana could you please explain why the lawyers for the accused Annette Sykes and Hone Harawira are angry about the police evidence being exposed to the media.
Possibly because although the evidence is not enough to convict them under the TSA its damming enough for the rest of NZ to be put on notice as to what Iti and co were doing up in tuhoe.
I think the public have a right to examine the merits of the evidence and this is clearly what Sykes and Harawira are hoping to prevent - an open public debate on the issue.
Kudos to whoever leaked the file.
Anonymous said...
Mana could you please explain why the lawyers for the accused Annette Sykes and Hone Harawira are angry about the police evidence being exposed to the media.
Truly anon how would I know this? but I will assume like you and say that they are pissed off because;
A)They have not seen the evidence leaked to the press;
B)Because it breeches their clients rights under clause 29 of the magna cart: the right to a fair trial.
Now knowing that your all lawyer bidding people (apart from anon above you) that you would want them to have a fair trial, wouldn't you?
Possibly because although the evidence is not enough to convict them under the TSA its damming enough for the rest of NZ to be put on notice as to what Iti and co were doing up in tuhoe.
Maybe you're right Anon, maybe, but how will one determine whats right and what wrong, if the evidence showed them through molotov cocktails around, what of it, is that enough to say they were terrorist? I used molotov cocktails, I recall other bloggers say the same thing; everyone has an opinion anon, yet whose right?
I think the public have a right to examine the merits of the evidence and this is clearly what Sykes and Harawira are hoping to prevent - an open public debate on the issue.
I agree the public should know, but I think its fair to say; after the lawyer do & after the trial; otherwise Tim will be right "I just think it's getting to the point now where it's trial by media."
Kudos to whoever leaked the file.
Kudos to the ones the catch him/her and Kudos to the charges laid on him/her that leaked the file
I think you should be referring to the bill of Rights Act not the Magna Carta.
Leaking the file was clearly in the public interest. The public has a right to know how strong the evidence is. A transparent justice system is one of the most important things we have. By having the defence lawyers suppress evidence then it subverts this right.
If the accused are so innocent as they make themselves out to be then they should have nothing to fear but if there is damming evidence then they have an interest in not releasing it for public scrutiny.
The attitude of Sykes and Harawira are very telling on this point.
public may have a right to know but not before the defence council or the trial. I assume that why there pissed .
thanks for the correction on the right to a fair trial, how would they get this if the public see the evidence first, before defence council?
They are going to be up on firearm charges not anything related to terrorism which makes it a more straightforward proposition.
In order for NZ's to have full confidence in the police's actions the public must know why the police were justified in acting as they did.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The police should of followed the rules the outcome may of been different, thats tuff for them.
Fortunately in this case the police have followed the rules. What is at fault is the legislation.
NZ's want to know what was said by accused and what they were apparently planning irrespective of what they were charged under.
"Fortunately in this case the police have followed the rules."
are you nuts, man?
It actually only sounds like a couple of Anon want to hear and know everything something that wont happen now..
if the police followed the rules the outcome may of been different. that their fuck up, now we are blaming the TSA; which isn't a great success, but the police process was wrong.
Which part of the process was wrong then.
Please explain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Under the current TSA"
1)Gather the appropriate "terrorist" evidence to warrant charges to be laid.
2)Present that evidence to the Attorney General.
3)Arrest and Charge people accordingly.
It kind of went went in reserve order, if they checked, that the evidence they gathered warranted arrest, then no one could say anything.
The police had the activities of the group under surveillance for around 18 months.
The police acted with the correct procedures. I'm not sure how you came up with the reverse order as the police have a substantial body of evidence they have accumulated.
If it was in reverse order then logically they would have no surveillance tapes, recordings, incriminating texts and the like which they appear to have in abundance.
The only criticism of the police's actions have come from the supporters of the accused - to be expected and maori activists, again to be expected.
The issue is actually was there enough evidence to satisfy the requirements of what turned out to be a ill conceived legislation. It is therefore a separate issue in itself and nothing to do with police procedure.
Anonymous said...
The police had the activities of the group under surveillance for around 18 months.
The police acted with the correct procedures. I'm not sure how you came up with the reverse order as the police have a substantial body of evidence they have accumulated.
The reserve order was watch them, arrest them, then see if theres charges under the TSA for them, instead of taking the 18 months of surveillance to the Attorney General, to see if their is grounds for charges under the TSA, thats how the legislation states it.
If it was in reverse order then logically they would have no surveillance tapes, recordings, incriminating texts and the like which they appear to have in abundance.
I guess I should of said that the procedure was not followed as stipulated in the legislation, sorry again I forget how narrow some views are, that I let it slip.
The only criticism of the police's actions have come from the supporters of the accused - to be expected and Maori activists, again to be expected.
Just because we have some thing to say about the Law and the procedure of the police, not being consistent with the legislation; does not mean we support tame Iti and crew anon, thats naive, because the procedure wasn't followed correctly, Theirs no charges under the TSA and a community that fucked off over raids that would not of taken place if they checked the 18 months of surveillance evidence with the Attorney General, needless to say, this evidence didn't change, did it?
The issue is actually was there enough evidence to satisfy the requirements of what turned out to be a ill conceived legislation. It is therefore a separate issue in itself and nothing to do with police procedure.
I didn't see anyone else raiding Ruatoki anon certainly looked like cops to me, warrants for arrest are issue under the Summary proceeding act not the TSA, yet its the fact that the "terrorist" call was used that shine a different light on it, questions are now being asked over the raids anon as to why, this call into account the police procedure, how you assume it doesn't is baffling.
This is such bullshit. The Sol. Gen. said the law as drafted is a tautological arse (of course, as drafted by incompetent politicians), and he congratulated the police on stopping something he thought to be truly disturbing without loss of life.
If you think these terrorists are not terrorists, then let the evidence leaked to TV3 out and let us assess it. In this case the terrorists doth protest way, way too much and it appears they certainly do have a lot to hide, and thus I will continue to think of them as thugs (probably parasites most of them? - how many on welfare please?) and be thankful we have a police force prepared to protect my safety by risking their own.
Every politician who had a hand in drafting that legislation should fall on their sword. And if Geoffrey Palmer was involved, then a full taxpayer refund of the legal fee please.
Mark
I think you'll find that the police had checked with the solicitor general David Collins that it was appropriate to conduct the raids.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/hawkesbay/4266436a25422.html
Mana, I'm still not sure why you believe that the correct procedure were not followed.
Which subsection of the TSA are you referring to when you say procedure?
What will be interesting in the up coming days is the reaction of the activist community to the release of evidence. My guess is that they'll go for suppression while at the same time try to hide behind rhetoric as a substitute for letting NZer's make up their own minds because if evidence gets out Minto and the rest will be wholly discredited.
Anonymous said...
This is such bullshit. The Sol. Gen. said the law as drafted is a tautological arse (of course, as drafted by incompetent politicians), and he congratulated the police on stopping something he thought to be truly disturbing without loss of life.
Granted the TSA may of been drafted by incompetent politicians which is sad, Dr. Collins thoughts are his thoughts, yet the current TSA sets out the guidelines for the procedure for the terrorist claims, the act stipulates *Gather the evidence *Give it to the Attorney General for consideration *If the evidence warrant charges, arrest the accused. Yet we all know it wasn't done this way, yet we are drawn to the fact the Attorney General thinks the police did the right think, while attention is drawn away from the fact that big terrorist words used, were actually bullshit, so all that crap in Ruatoki was for the procession of firearms, some how that don't justify what the police did you there in Ruatoki. 18 months of watching them yet not one bit of evidence was given to the Attorney General to consider TSA charges until after the arrests. Sounds backward
If you think these terrorists are not terrorists, then let the evidence leaked to TV3 out and let us assess it. In this case the terrorists doth protest way, way too much and it appears they certainly do have a lot to hide, and thus I will continue to think of them as thugs (probably parasites most of them? - how many on welfare please?) and be thankful we have a police force prepared to protect my safety by risking their own.
You think of them this way without seeing the evidence, yet what offence will you match it to this evidence if the Attorney General couldn't Mark, would it just be your opinion they acted doubtfully, Probably so they did, yet with no laws against what they did, how can it be an offence? I to would like to see the evidence, though I think it fair for the accused, to have a fair trial & that the Defence Council see the evidence before the public do; or is only white people allowed that privilege?
Every politician who had a hand in drafting that legislation should fall on their sword. And if Geoffrey Palmer was involved, then a full taxpayer refund of the legal fee please.
Well I fucking agree with you on this one, thats for sure; Refund indeed
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
I think you'll find that the police had checked with the solicitor general David Collins that it was appropriate to conduct the raids.
sorry I don't believe this at all and heres why; Warrants are issued under the Summary Proceedings act not under the TSA, if warrants were sort under the TSA evidence would of had to be given to the Attorney General first, now we know that didn't happen. He may of knew about the raids, I don't know, but the MP's that knew the raids were going to happen, (can't recall them all) police com, Mp of police, the opposition Mp Keys, PM, Nz first Mp; yet theirs nothing to indicate the Attorney General gave permission for the raids, I understand it the police informed the Mps of the raids about to take place.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/hawkesbay/4266436a25422.html
Mana, I'm still not sure why you believe that the correct procedure were not followed.
Which subsection of the TSA are you referring to when you say procedure?
You will have to read the whole act sorry, when I find it I'll post it, theirs also been some debate over this issue already, that procedure was not followed under the TSA, couple of magazines have picked up on the story as well.
What will be interesting in the up coming days is the reaction of the activist community to the release of evidence. My guess is that they'll go for suppression while at the same time try to hide behind rhetoric as a substitute for letting NZer's make up their own minds because if evidence gets out Minto and the rest will be wholly discredited.
Dude it sounds like you have already made up you mind even without seeing the evidence, I think the public should see it, but with fairness to the accused & there rights, the public should see it after the defence council and after the trial; I am just wondering though anon; if you saw it (the evidence) what offence can we say they committed if the law said none was.
Mana wrote:
You think of them this way without seeing the evidence, yet what offence will you match it to this evidence if the Attorney General couldn't Mark, would it just be your opinion they acted doubtfully, Probably so they did, yet with no laws against what they did, how can it be an offence? I to would like to see the evidence, though I think it fair for the accused, to have a fair trial & that the Defence Council see the evidence before the public do; or is only white people allowed that privilege?
Mana, if you keep leaning this much over backwards trying to justify the terrorist line you're going to get a migraine.
The Solicitor General was very clear on why he could not promote a conviction under this badly drafted legislation, and it had all to do with the drafting of the law, nothing to do with the 'disturbing acts' that were thankfully stopped; to quote the Sol. Gen.:
The fundamental problem is that the legislation focuses upon an entity that carries out a terrorist act, and if individuals are actually developing towards ... carrying out a terrorist act, they aren't yet an entity that is carrying out a terrorist act, and so there is a tautology in the legislation which is extremely difficult to unravel.
The problem is, despite all of their protests to innocence, it is the terrorists who are suppressing the evidence, now, and while they continue to do so, then I will continue to think on them as terrorists.
By the way, have you found stats yet for how many of the terrorists were plotting away while living on my taxpayer money, feeding from the hand they were hoping to bite off?
Mark
"Dude it sounds like you have already made up you mind even without seeing the evidence, I think the public should see it, but with fairness to the accused & there rights, the public should see it after the defence council and after the trial; I am just wondering though anon; if you saw it (the evidence) what offence can we say they committed if the law said none was."
I take my stance that bad shit is going down from the actions of the accused rather than an ill conceived and incoherent law Mana.
If there are people running around in the bush practicing military style tactics with weapons for the purposes of violence against innocents how would not having an offense to charge them with make me or any other NZ'er feel safer because they haven't committed an offense.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark.
I am not trying to Justify what they done, if the reason why they walked away from terrorism charges is the poorly written TSA then really thats not the accuses fault, or is it?
But I believe the police should also be asked as to why they didn't take the 18 month of evidence to the Attorney General to see if the evidence warranted charges under the TSA or not. It would of saved them this drama.
I arrived at that point Anon because theirs no written law to warrant charges for the evidence the police gathered during the 18 months of watching them.
If their was charges they would of been laid, evidence was insufficient, it lacked the power to warrant the charges been sort by the police; Yes I agree the TSA is written poorly, but if the police took the evidence collected in 18 months to the Attorney General to look over, a lot of this Terrorism labeling would not of happen, the police would of been justified with the arrests for procession of firearms without media hype of the Terrorism logo.
Mana, you'll find that is incorrect.I think you will find that the police did take the evidence to the attorney general but he delegated the responsibility to the solicitor general.
Did you managed to find the section in the TSA that the police failed to adhere to yet?
No it isn't wrong if they took the evidence to the Attorney General Raids or the SG the raids wouldn't of happen the way they did.
No sorry I'll look latter for the section, but you know I did say you can read it all. here a link
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mana, they did take the evidence to the SG and AG. I'm not sure where you're getting you're information from. Could you post a link to it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home