That?

Ironically, much of the evidence presented in closed court is probably inadmissible

That's not ironic. That's exactly why it would be heard in closed court.

Thanks so much for posting this Russell. I hope it is correct!

Ironically, much of the evidence presented in closed court is probably inadmissable on the firearms charges, so we may never get to hear it.

Will be interesting to see how much of this is revealed regardless, whether it be through police press conference (not sure how much they can legally?

PM & Police hysteria
Police Actions upon Ruatoki – detention, photos, & what happened with the school bus?
Who under took the Police invasion of Ruatoki & do we need them as it crosses over the SAS CTAGs role
Serindiptiy of the Raids & TSA going before Parliment
Will Broad or White take the?

But at least in an operational though not legal sense it would set a good precedent.

The online Herald says there will be an official announcement at 4 PM.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4266436a10.html

Wohooo!

Their link is working now, but they have the cheeky timestamp of "4:03" on it. Yeah right, it?

Maybe after the debate on the Appropriations bill is done...

"Police drop all terror related charges". A decision by the Commissioner-solicitor-general?

I do think hoarding a bunch of illegal firearms is criminal behaviour. Obviously I wonder what they were going to do with them. But terrorism it ain't (yet).

Now we can start the fireworks?

David Collins QC announced his decision just after 4pm.

"The Terrorism Suppression Act legislation is unneccesarily complex, incoherent and as a result almost impossible to apply to the domestic circumstances observed by the police in this case," the Solicitor-General said.

"Some may try to interpret my decision as a criticism?

Don't you just know that the 7 pm TV shows are going to devote the allotted seven minutes to this, and then go on to the musical pets after the break? And then it's the weekend, so that'll be that. Native Affairs or Marae will do much?

So there you have it. The Police did no wrong, the fault lies with the current Terrorsim legislation. Gee, if only our Politicians would give the Authorities the tools they need to do the job that needs to be done ... hmmm, what a shame there's no new legislation pending?

I'd say the concerns of those opposing prosecution were realised: the police simply didn't have a case.

Meanwhile, two parties (the Greens and Maori party?) have reportedly requested an urgent debate on the matter.

Well, they can't have one until Tuesday – the Standing Orders would not permit it. I suppose they can use the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Winston certainly is.

I assume they can still choose to add other charges?

Only if they have sufficient evidence. And most of their "evidence" will now be entirely inadmissible.

By pursuing 'terrorism", the police seem to have forfeited any chance of prosecuting for conspiracy to murder. So, even if their fears were real?

Well, they can't have one until Tuesday – the Standing Orders would not permit it. I suppose they can use the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Winston certainly is.

I just figured that out. Maybe they'll get one on Tuesday.

I'm now waiting for National to follow?

Graeme – What's the chance of a Royal Commission into this as I think it's the only thing that might help to clear the air?

Russell – I'm happy for NZ as a whole that we?

Lovely. So they smear people as terorists on insufficient evidence, then refuse to apologise in any way for it. And they wonder why people have a low opinion of the police.

Howard Broad: "Now is not the time to issue a general apology"

Lovely. So they smear people as terorists on insufficient evidence, then refuse to apologise in any way for it. And they wonder why people have a low opinion of the police.

Calm down I/S. He's just given a?

Ironically, far?

He's just given a very strong indication on Checkpoint that an apology — to "the innocent people caught up" in the Ruatoki raids — will be forthcoming, and that there are discussions with that community in progress.

Oh good.

Sorry, I'm watching Parliament (and the unseemly sight of politicians pretending?

Ironically, far from being too loose, the TSA is, in the SG's opinion, pretty much impossible to secure a conviction with in regard to any domestic activity.

Which is unsurprising given that it was (according to Parliament when it was originally being debated) never intended to be used against such?

He has a point, but he'd be on stronger ground if a couple of his own MPs hadn't vented so thoroughly with their own characterisations?

a glass of wine

Not whisky?

Now, we're told the terrorism-related evidence won't be made public, and we'll never now how close we came...

When someone is charged with an offence, their counsel will make an OIA/Privacy Act request for everything the cops have – they get it, and can?

...and a substantial embarrassment for the New Zealand Police?

I don't see why it should be a question of an embarrassment for the Police. They presented a case and the Solicitor General decided otherwise. On the face of it – people with guns with anti-government ideas – does look like?

Sharples pointed out that the reputations of Tuhoe and Maori (let alone NZ) have been seriously damaged as a consequence of this. The examples he gave of overseas media sensationalising the Maori terrorist threat were astounding.

Nice post Sara. Characterising Sharples as having 'jumped the shark' during this whole now-seen-to-be-largely-farcical?

How odd. Either the people charged were up to something or they weren't. If they were plotting something malicious the police failed to prosecute them for the appropriate crime (conspiracy to murder, say), and they?

I don't see why it should be a question of an embarrassment for the Police.

What would you call it then when they spend a year on an investigation, tap people's phones, conduct covert surveillance, end it all with a series of dramatic armed raids – and then get told?

Ironically, far from being too loose, the TSA is, in the SG's opinion, pretty much impossible to secure a conviction with in regard to any domestic activity.

We can probably then take a reasonable guess that the eventual response of parliament will be to ramp it up and make it?

But only a little. Because the execution seems to have been completely bollocksed.

I wonder if there wasn't a certain amount of sunk?

Stephen it begs the question why the Police are engaged in antiterror actions which I think are the role of the SAS.

It's another step removed?

Another question for poor old Graeme, who ought to be getting some sort of compensation for being the PAS House Lawyer ...

I've sent him some whisky. It now seems it should have been more expensive whisky, but I've, um, opened all the expensive whisky ...

I don't see why it should be a question of an embarrassment for the Police.

How odd. Either the people charged were up to something or they weren't. If they were plotting something malicious the police failed to prosecute them for the appropriate crime (conspiracy to murder, say), and they?

I haven't picked through it closely enough to see if he's right to say that it was the media/public that ran with the terror ball, rather than the police having anything to do with it.

The goddamn police were all over this like a rash. I mean, come on. Ignore?

would it still be possible to lay other charges?

Sure – but they wouldn't be able to use evidence obtained under the search warrants (or the terror warrants which authorised the wiretaps and surveillance) to do it. Which may mean they have even less than squat.

In oher words,?

The goddamn police were all over this like a rash. I mean, come on. Ignore the media, just look at what the police did. It started with dawn raids and locking down a town and involved harassing some pensioner, among other farcical activities.

That doesn't relate to the 'terror' story?

would it still be possible to lay other charges? I'm thinking about conspiracy to commit a crime sort of thing.

Yes. They wouldn't be able to use evidence obtained under the interception warrants, however, and would have a tough time using evidence obtained with the search warrants. Surveillance – the?

I don't see why it should be a question of an embarrassment for the Police.

I think the only way it doesn't end up seriously embarrassing is if, the story comes out, and is bad enough that the public in general thinks "wow, how can these people have gotten away?

It seemed to me that on Checkpoint he was simply weary with having to explain that this all wasn't about "law and order" and has more to do with a tradition of mistrust and totally grotesque?

And we'll all happily forget the pronouncement of guilt, BY THE PRIME MINISTER FFS, of those yet to face trial. (In a healthily functioning democracy that recognises the rule of law.)

Well, she was briefed by the SIS. And as we all know (Zaoui!), they always get it right.

If you're going to bag the police for starting the 'whole terrorist thing', then the question is, did they use that phrase or dump it in the media.

Silly me. It was the media all along who invoked the Terrorist Suppression Act to get the search warrants for the police?

Silly me. It was the media all along who invoked the Terrorist Suppression Act to get the search warrants for the police to start this whole charade in the first place.

And the media who made up lurid claims of IRA handbooks, napalm bombs, and conspiracies to murder George Bush,?

Wow, I see all three. That?

a female filmmaker was among those arrested (and later released), not to mention a considerable number of females whose rights were pointlessly violated in the co-ordinated publicity stunt of nationwide raids.

it does sound a bit like a poorly conceived stunt, doesn't it?

"testing a law" by locking up 17?

I haven't picked through it closely enough to see if he's right to say that it was the media/public that ran with the terror ball, rather than the police having anything to do with it.

Broad covered that this morning on Morning Report. I agreed with what he had to?

It seems police sought to use the TSA because they used it as the basis for many of their interception warrants. Collins did say they looked but there was no other statute that would have allowed them the approach they took.

a question that's been irking me. what language were the transcripts used by the police in?

were they te reo or english?

it raises a couple of issues. first of all, translations are never an entirely accurate picture of a conversation. second of all, these conversations?

surely the recorded conversations are only parts of a larger conversation?

The Conversation

The Conversation

the lives of others

An interesting point from Collins yesterday.

It seems police sought to use the TSA because they used it as the basis for many of their interception warrants. Collins did say they looked but there was no other statute that would have allowed them the approach they took.

You say that?

The Police did not emphasise the terror charges aspect – that was the media and people like Harawira.

That's a fair point, the Police only used the TSA for interception and search warrants and attempted to lay charges under it. If only the accused, their supporters and the media had?

there'd have been no drama.

you mean, "other than heavy-handed nationwide search and seizure under spurious pretences"?

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's supposed to be hard for the police to get inception powers, and it's only ever justified when something really terrible seems likely to happen.

Actually Stephen I was just adding information with no inferences whatsoever. You may be reading a little?

Were police justified in seeking to lay charges against those arrested in last month's raids under terrorism legislation?

Yes, they had real concerns, but the law failed (2796 votes, 90.8%)

Yes, but the?

Tim, was that meant sarcastically or not? I honestly can't tell.

Sarcastic. Reasonably highly so. Sorry.

The mere fact [Mr Broad] chose the Terrorism Suppression Act means he should resign.

I wish Tariana Turia would resign. Not because she did anything wrong during the "terror raids", mind, but because she is a twit.

I'm just queuing this up now.

On Nine to Noon this morning Broad said that the interception warrants were granted by the High Court Judge under both the TSA and the Crimes Act. I'm not sure on the legal ins and outs of that, whether it means some types of surveillance were under the TSA and?

You are being unfair to Broad there. He said he was very constrained in developing comparisons because he didn;t want to infringe the evidence restrictions that were in place now the terrorism charges couldn;t be laid.

He admitted the supermarket comparison was a poor one but the best?

people with guns with anti-government ideas

Like half the farmers in the Waikato? I bet a lot of them don't renew their gun licenses on time and get nothing more than a polite call from the local firearms officer.

White farmer thinks he can shoot at people intruding on his?

Silly me. It was the media all along who invoked the Terrorist Suppression Act to get the search warrants for the police to start this whole charade in the first place.

Well what Broad said on Morning Report this morning, was that within two hours of the warrants being served,?

Like Danyl I would very much like to know how may intercepts have been applied for, and how many granted.

And the media who made up lurid claims of IRA handbooks, napalm bombs, and conspiracies to murder George Bush, Helen Clark, and John Key...

You can trace it all back to Bomber :-)

They did dress up as stormtroopers and seal off an entire town – that's always likely?

I'm not saying it hasn't come from the police, but everyone is bagging on them for waving around the terrorism flag.

from the NatRad inyterview this morning I got the impression that Broad would be quite happy with a law that did not have the "terrorism" baggage. That reinforces my?

There is a conspiracy law but according to Broad it needs a specific target and intent. It can't be a generalised intent to cause murder and mayhem.

They did dress up as stormtroopers and seal off an entire town

I'm sure I'm not the only sci-fi geek who was pained to read this. Everyone (surely) knows that stormtroopers wear white.

And yes I'm being unfair as opposed to unlawful detention photos armed searches and $8mil all to nought.

there'd have been no drama.

you mean, "other than heavy-handed nationwide search and seizure under spurious pretences"?

C'mon Che, you can do better than that.

I think people need to read again what the Solicitor General said. From stuff. Firstly:

"I wish also to stress that the police have successfully?

They did dress up as stormtroopers and seal off an entire town – that's always likely to attract a wee bit of curiosity from the press.

Was that the wrong action based on the information they had?

If we make the assumption that one, possibly more people, was involved in?

Meanwhile, somewhere other than Planet Lad, a female filmmaker was among those arrested (and later released), not to mention a considerable number of females whose rights were pointlessly violated in the co-ordinated publicity stunt of nationwide raids.

Sure. I only used the word Lads cause I got sick of 'the?

They did dress up as stormtroopers and seal off an entire town – that's always likely to attract a wee bit of curiosity from the press.

When fire arms are thought to be involved then the Police do go for the full on AOS rig.

But maybe police actions in?

Question: is there only an offence of "conspiracy to murder" or can one be convicted of planning to cause injury or damage?

Yes, there is. And all it requires is an agreement (which need to be explicit) to commit a specific crime.

But according to Howard Broad on Morning Report?

"search and seizure among people who happened to sell something to someone who the police had an interest in."

well ott, in my opinion.

and, since we'll never see the evidence, how will we ever know any of your concerns are justified?

right now we're seeing more arse-covering than?

"search and seizure among people who happened to sell something to someone who the police had an interest in."

Well again, I don't know the details. But if I sold materials that could be used in a terrorist action, to a person who the police believed was going to carry?

What Broad said was that their advice was that the intent of the law appeared to want to nip such planning in the bud before they got to the specific planning/conspiracy stage, as it had been shown overseas that allowing these things to fester to the stage of detailed?

1. Police had evidence which they believed indicated some sort of terrorist activity. That evidence has been viewed by an independent person, and backed up. The correct response to that evidence was to intervene and eliminate the threat.

See, the whole point of having courts is that the police giving?

The Prime Minister has already given the defense reasonably good grounds for a mistrial.

JAILED, not just charged or hassled, JAILED. it's not exactly a fucking picnic in there.

Speaking of weird ideas of special pleasding, I find it more than a little irked at the amount of outrage at the idea people who have been arrested end up in a prison cell.

Try?

That argument was used in the police rape trials and didn't work. The judiciary have a lot of faith in the ability of juries to use their heads and do their job properly, and the research backs that faith.

White farmer thinks he can shoot at people intruding on his land – reasonable self-defence

Oh, quit with the hysterical bullshit. The police haul in people claiming to have used firearms in self-defence all the time. You wouldn't get a more claer-cut case of self-defence that the firearms store shooting?

Posted at 12:38PM on 9 Nov 07. Report. Permalink.

Question,
Had the warrants been issued after the amendment to the TSA was passed would the result have been any different, if so how?
also, the police must have know about the amendment debate so the?

Had the warrants been issued after the amendment to the TSA was passed would the result have been any different, if so how?

There would be no change.

See, the whole point of having courts is that the police giving information to one other person to assess isn't enough to prove beyond reasonable that someone is guilty of an alleged crime or even that there was a crime in the first place.

I never said it was evidence?

you might be ignoring the history of this case, and focusing on today's spin.

the police still hauled the (white) guy behind the counter into court.

Politely. After being bailed throughout the entire course of the case. And he got discharged without conviction I think.

My understanding is that it's not illegal to use a gun in self-defence, but it is illegal to keep?

you might be ignoring the history of this case, and focusing on today's spin.

You don't want to break that down a bit more? I'm just taking forceful stabs in the dark, I'm happy to be convinced that the police made an absolute mess of it, but I only see?

What Broad said was that their advice was that the intent of the law appeared to want to nip such planning in the bud before they got to the specific planning/conspiracy stage

Then their advice was simply wrong.

I've been going through Hansard and Select Committee reports for the past?

Broad said experience showed you don't wait, you move as early as you can, which I interpret as being as soon as ayou have enough facts to prove a case, and that he thought you did not need specific 'targets' to prove an offence under the TSA.

I wonder?

If TSA-related material could be introduced at bail hearings on the firearms charges, then does yesterday's development allow bail conditions to be re-examined?

If TSA-related material could be introduced at bail hearings on the firearms charges, then does yesterday's development allow bail conditions to be re-examined?

Yes. Now that the maximum sentences those arrested face are terms of four years' imprisonment, the question of whether it is just to detain them while awaiting?

You don't want to break that down a bit more?

sure. based on my limited information (from the msm and this blog), the police are saying they had advice that they would have sufficient evidence to prosecute under the SoTA. turns out they didn't, and now "the bad law is?

ie you were safe using them either way as we got your drift.

problem with your theory (or hypothesis), weren;t the raids pretty much done and dusted on the one day? I don't recall them going on for days and there being an "ever widening circle' of warrants.

It's illegal to have an explosive without proper cause, etc.

But petrol (jellied or otherwise) isn't an explosive as Lewis Page discusses in this Register article. Maybe they could?

sure. based on my limited information (from the msm and this blog), the police are saying they had advice that they would have sufficient evidence to prosecute under the SoTA. turns out they didn't, and now "the bad law is to blame."

Well the 'bad law is to blame' comes?

There's two possible explanations for the SG's statements yesterday (I'll broaden them out a bit to cover subtleties).

1, he's covering for the police who have cocked up.

2, he's looked at the evidence they've presented and thought "my god, this is terrible! terrorists!"

yeah, both those are unlikely imho.?

The police have strong evidence of people doing broadly irresponsible and probably illegal things with guns and possibly other explosives. They have effectively put a stop to these activities, and the Solicitor General lauds them for that. Fair enough,?

Everyone seems to agree that the TSA was "incoherent" here because it was drafted for the sake of fulfilling NZ's international obligations re "the war on terror."

Now there's been an attempt to apply said law domestically and nobody's been charged.

And as far as I know there's no terrorism?

My understanding that the TSA came into it because it was the only law they could apply for the interception warrants under.

Your understanding would be wrong. The police could have applied for an interception warrant if they suspected that someone was about to commit a "serious violent offence" (like,?

Think I've said my bit for now though. (It took all day to compose and was rehearsed somewhat vehemently over lunch to a couple of startled colleagues.)

But I'll keep reading along. Nothing like observing the communal mind at work.

Also
Tame Iti, four other suspects receive bail

cheers all.

I just don't get how a couple of weeks ago everyone would say "I'm?

Your understanding would be wrong. The police could have applied for an interception warrant if they suspected that someone was about to commit a "serious violent offence" (like, say, killing someone, or blowing something up).

What Broad said this morning (having just listened to the 9 to noon interview) is?

So, conclusion: There's active terrorism in NZ; bad legislation meant it went unprosecuted; if only we'd had better legislation you'd be seeing now just how freakin scary this stuff is; better get that new, improved legislation.

Hmm.

Recently some police officers were taken to trial for sexual assault. Large numbers?

I'm not sure I agree with this one. Does the public really have the right to know about inadmissible evidence? Part of the reason it's inadmissible was?

Top-level leak of arms case evidence

"Lead lawyer for the accused, Annette Sykes, said the files contained information that even the defendants and their lawyers had not been able to see."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4267865a10.html

Does anyone know this for sure? It's my understanding that the police captured a grand?

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:42p.m.

Campbell Live has obtained the evidence collected by police which was given to the Solicitor General in an effort to charge people under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

The material has?

Interesting.

Methinks TV3 didn't actually want to reveal the contents all along. Maybe they just wanted to look like they were on the side of 'the public's right to know'.

Very interesting. Intriguing analysis, I/O.

"Yet what the evidence overwhelming shows us is that whole communities were not involved. In the evidence, the number of people saying things which may be described as violently anti-social numbers five."

Which kinda tallies with the perception that a number of the 17 were very unlucky to be dragged?

I think the intent of Parliament when passing it, amongst other things, was to:
– criminalise membership of an established terrorist organisation (typically, one that was already committing acts here or overseas)
– introduce a new?

I think the intent of Parliament when passing it, amongst other things, was to ... introduce a new offence of committing a terrorist act

The Terrorism Suppression Act didn't create a new offence of committing a terrorist act. That new offence will be created by the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act?

Kyle, do you want laws that catch criminals before they've committed their act?

Just to be pendantic, before they've commited an act, aren't they just 'people', not 'criminals'?

Just to be pendantic, before they've commited an act, aren't they just 'people', not 'criminals'?

Don't worry, the irony was intended.

They are very clear that whoever is leaking a) isn't them and b) is trying to rescue the police and c) is wrecking the chances for a fair trial?

Wait. You're happy with a law that doesn't catch terrorists until after they've committed their act? You don't want to, y'know, catch them before they set off their bomb?

Yes, I am. I don't want to be "safe" from the infinitesimal chance of being killed in a terrorist bomb if?

The Terrorism Suppression Act didn't create a new offence of committing a terrorist act

Thanks Graham – I saw it defined such an act and that it did create an offence of terrorist bombing.

Why these offences are neccesary when we have laws against murder, arson and criminal damage does?

Stephen – If you have the time I'ld love to hear about that.

David Langes – "New Zealand is positioned like a dagger?

"The public interest in fair trials is actually more important than the public curiosity."

Nice also.

Thing is, though, Kyle is living proof of the fact that you throw the T-word around enough and people actually start assuming it must be signifying something?

There are no terrorists in NZ. If there were, existing legislation is enough to deal with them. What we have here are people up on charges who have virtually no chance of a fair trial, not?

Oh, and you'd need to know someone's got an interception warrant against you to appeal against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the spooks and cops tend not to let you know they're spying on you.

Indeed, but in this case I think the police have more or less?

Nicky Hager, Jane Kelsey, Moana Jackson and David Small

I doubt you will agree with me Stephen, but as some one who is centre-left and spent a bit of time confronting Police in demos etc perhaps you might consider my views well meaning, these people are mad. I find it?

Unfortunately, it's not just artists who?

Kyle, do you want laws that catch criminals before they've committed their act?

Umm, yes. I don't have a problem with conspiracy crimes, or attempted murder crimes etc.

And I suspect the familes of victims of terrorism would probably tend to agree.

However, what it says is that you look at the argument, not the person making it.?

If on the other hand, I mutter vague threats about wanting to kill?

Because I privately scoff in derision at your apparent belief that the police are not basically an arrogant, conservative, bullying organisation with enough power to think they should have more and should exercise for the "betterment" of this society

I scoff at you, blindjackdog, and the hypocritical chardonnay liberalism your?

Umm, yes. I don't have a problem with conspiracy crimes, or attempted murder crimes etc.

And I suspect the familes of victims of terrorism would probably tend to agree.

And I say...

I suspect you might not be entirely right about that, Kyle. Take, for example, the group?

If you're planning to murder, it's down to Clark or Key and you're going to flip a coin on the day, there probably isn't a conspiracy.

Well, that's the way to organise your terrorist cell then.

And, Andy, straw men mate. I think there was possibly one person who could've?

Meanwhile, the Labour party has presided over extensions of state powers of surveillance year on year, and the best the agencies entrusted with them?

And I'll restate again, while none of the suggestions about terrorism have been substantiated, I'm not aware that they've been unsubstantiated yet.

Please unsubstantiate the claim that you've been engaged in terrorist activity, not to mention child abuse and any other icky smear I can come up with.