Cops trying to bully the media
Police push for 'medals thief' name
Police want John Campbell and other Campbell Live journalists to reveal the identity of the man who confessed to the theft of the Waiouru Army Museum war medals on the TV show. Naming the supposed thief could provide the "king hit" for an otherwise circumstantial police case against the two men accused of the burglary in December 2007, Crown prosecutor Lance Rowe told the High Court at Auckland yesterday. Justice Tony Randerson has reserved his decision on the police application for a court order to compel Campbell, Carol Hirschfeld, Ingrid Leary, Hannah Story and Zoe Duffy to give evidence in court. Justice Randerson continued name suppression for the two men, aged 37 and 39, accused of taking the 96 medals, including nine Victoria Crosses. The Chief High Court Judge also suppressed the facts of the Crown case heard in court yesterday and the publication of a confidentiality agreement between the police and criminal barrister Chris Comeskey. A $300,000 reward was offered for the medals, which were safely returned after Mr Comeskey brokered a deal with the thieves in February last year. Shortly afterwards, Campbell Live screened an interview with a man called "Robert", who said he had taken part in the burglary at the museum. Viewers saw a man wearing a hood with his face in shadow being interviewed by Campbell. The audience was told an actor's voice had been used to protect the man's identity. Campbell and TV3 later admitted they made a mistake by not telling viewers that the interview was a re-enactment which used an actor. The police application seeks a court order for the television journalists to reveal the identity of "Robert" and answer any questions about the interview. Campbell Live staff promised "Robert" they would keep his identity secret in order to secure the interview. Media are protected by privilege from revealing confidential informants but Mr Rowe said the privilege was "not set in stone".
No, no, no! The Police should never be able to breach Journalistic Privilege, after I had read the corrections file last year, the Police wanted to know my source, I refused point blank to reveal my source, and that’s the way it is – zero co-operation with the Police in turning your sources and that’s exactly what the team at Campbell Live should do as well. How dare the cops try and bully the Media into handing over information, and look at the way they are trying to bully criminal lawyer, Chris Comeskey, into turning evidence as well.
Cops need to do some police work and chase their leads, bullying the media and leaning on lawyers for evidence is a power we shouldn’t allow the bloody cops to ever wield.
That corner boxed, what a joke that Campbell Live interview was and how sad to have to defend such a crucial point like protecting your sources for an interview as pointless as the one Campbell Live ran with. Why do I care what motivated a Crim who is now freaking out about what he stole because the rest of the criminal fraternity want to smash him as well? I don’t, it didn’t add a bloody thing to my knowledge of the case and was gratuitous. Having to stand up for journalistic privilege for a case as weak as this is eye rolling, but the principle must not be allowed to be breached, cops can’t lean on journalists, no matter how poor the journalism.
posted by Bomber @ 7:15 am
8 comments
8 Comments:
The judge should contempt them.
A long spell inside is a good response to a self-serving, rating driven journalistic piece of shit interview.
Put Comesky in with them too.
If you go to http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/extortion/
you will see that the cops have hired a crook (Prosecutor Lance Rowe) to nail the medal crooks.
ALL THE POLICE ARE DOING, AND RIGHTLY SO, IS ASKING THE QUESTION OF THE JUDGE AS TO WHETHER THIS INSTANCE MERITS THE IDENTITY OF THE SOURCES BEING RELEASED. IF THEY DIDN'T THEY WOULD NOT BE DOING THEIR JOB PROPERLY IN TRYING TO UPHOLD THE LAW AND HOLD CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE. IF THEY DIDN'T ASK PEOPLE WOULD BE BLAMING THEM FOR NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH THOROUGHLY. (sorry about caps..i dont touch type!)
Anon 12.39, Why does not touch typing mean you use caps? Forgive my ignorance...
The point is that unless journalistic integrity is maintained, the media, and thus the public, cannot rely on truthful information from informants.
The merits or otherwise of the interview involved are irrelevant. The media must not be blackmailed into becoming stoolies for the justice system. That's not their role. Sources must be protected without exception.
The point is that the media inserted themselves in to the story and became a participant.
And journalistic integrity, don't make me laugh. Where's the integrity of someone like HOS journalist Stephen Cook who attempted to blackmail a willing female participant in the police group sex scandal to spill her story who subsequently committed suicide.
The only integrity journalist have is the next scoop on some sordid to sell their grubby little copy.
Section 68 Evidence Act 2006
Protection of journalists’ sources(1) If a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose the informant’s identity, neither the journalist nor his or her employer is compellable in a civil or criminal proceeding to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable that identity to be discovered.
(2) A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection (1) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs—
(a) any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and
(b) the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts.
(3) The Judge may make the order subject to any terms and conditions that the Judge thinks appropriate.
AND ANOTHER THING, if you go to http://www.bentcops.org/nzpolice/home-invasion-drugs/ you will see that the cops NEVER reveal their sources either. What's good for the gander and all that.
Gooner, fair enuf, so then it's a question of the considered discretion of a High Court judge.
Not just any old cop who wants to exploit the trust that an informant has given to the media.
And Anon 4.42, I'm not saying that journalists always have integrity, either, I'm just saying that there's a reason for the principle of journalistic integrity: a guaranteed climate of safety (ie. upholding promised anonymity) that allows people who are sources of information to be able to trust the media to a certain extent, and thus not have to lie to them or not tell them anything at all, for fear of reprisals or punishments.
In theory it would be nice if our media were objective, I know this isn't always the case (witness Tim Pankhurst/Dominion Post Terror Files debacle).
All the more reason not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Post a Comment
<< Home