Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Walking upright again, in reply to Hebe,
I'm looking forward to it, and I wasn't, initially :)
-
Hard News: Walking upright again, in reply to Hebe,
Thanks Hebe :)
-
Hard News: Walking upright again, in reply to Hebe,
I think one might be Jo Malcolm- whose mum fell 5 stories in the CTV building- and survived. I think she (Malcolm senior:)) is in the film- possibly even has the last word? (Haven’t seen it yet- hoping to this week)
-
while it’s not my place to tell them so, WECAN’s logo sucks
Seldom I disagree with you, Joe, but if not you, who? So please: just tell them!
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
Still, you’d think many of the facts were indisputable. Lots of footage to call on, and heaps of witnesses. It’s how to interpret those facts…
What’s mostly in dispute is the question of intention, isn’t it?
That’s the crux of the criminal case, but not what a judge would be ruling on here. (Since it turns mostly on what was inside someone’s head: as long as Ambrose hasn’t told various stories about it, it’s going to be very hard to prove the taping was intentional, I’d have thought. But if it’s ruled a conversation in such circumstances didn’t have a ‘reasonable expectation’ it couldn’t be/wasn’t being intercepted, his intention becomes irrelevant. Caveat: IANAL)
So I’d ignorantly opine it’s a legitimate move. Trouble is, any judgement will inevitably be seen as political- or at least having political weight, in the context of an election campaign. Something few judges would relish. Hence a high likelihood of punting for touch? -
Thanks for giving us a precis of the Holmes ‘mind’. No way I’m going to ruin a good coffee by reading him, though. Those snippets alone are in danger of souring the milk.
-
I don’t if he even attempted to record audio,
Probably not, except general atmos. Because a/ who'd think they were saying anything worth recording and b/ tv folks are fussy about audio quality- a camera mic, even a good shotgun, isn't ideal to record lowish conversational voices in a noisy scrum, even from quite close.
Of course as soon as the audio has a news interest in itself, the quality issues go out the door, but again, who'd have imagined that it would? -
It's very standard. No doors will be getting kicked in.
Get your point about doors being kicked in. But search warrants for media outlets very standard? I bloody hope not!
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Graeme: what do you make of ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in the circumstances?
Leaving aside intentionality (I’m very familiar with cameras and radio mics- whatever the balance of probability, if Ambrose sticks to his story (and hasn’t said anything else in the meantime) he has ‘plausible denial’ of it being unintentional) this looks like a critical legal point.
Clearly there was no expectation of visual privacy. People have spoken of microphones openly pressed to the glass; the bag was in no way concealed; the place itself was open to the public, who were supping close-by. How does this impact on the two holding the conversation having a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’?
There was a request for privacy. If it’s correct that it was a request neither the DPS or PM’s minders had any right to enforce, how does hustling the press out play out legally? Did members of the press imply they were consenting to leave by being hustled out? What if Ambrose didn’t consent- is that another potential line of defence?
Sorry for the ‘ask a lawyer’ barrage :) I wonder too: have the police asked all these questions, and answered them to their satisfaction before proceeding? -
Just in: police say they will execute a search warrant on Radio NZ today or tomorrow, in pursuit of “unpublished material”, subsequent to the interview with Bradley Ambrose.
I think this just got WAY out of hand.
+2.
Farce is one thing: police raids on the media (RNZ!) quite another. Presumably they’re looking for any scrap of evidence Ambrose knew he was recording the conversation at the time. (They must recognise the impossibility of seizing all copies of the material itself- not raiding HOS or TV3.)
Do they usually signal this sort of thing? Or is that a way of saying to RNZ: clean up your audio files before tomorrow at dawn?