Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I had to read parts of that about three times to get my head around it
Well I didn't do a very good job then did I? :-)
Conspiracy to murder carries a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, participation in a terrorist organisation 14 years', but I doubt that's the reason.
Conspiracy, whilst one of the easiest crimes to commit is notoriously hard to prove. If TQ was to be involved in separate attacks (the Greenies attack something, the Peace Activists something else, etc.) proving an overall conspiracy might be difficult - you might miss people involved in important behind-the-scenes assistance/command and control without enough knowledge or involvement in any of the specific targets for a conspiracy charge to stick.
-
is there anything stopping the SIS from listening in on lawyer-client conversations
Yes. Section 4A(3)(d) of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969.
But for whispering more generally see s 4H
-
Change the scoring system.
Agreed - games should be decided on tries, not penalties.
Make penalties worth 20 points ... teams will stop cheating and the only way to win is tries!
:-)
-
If not the TSA then what enactment would you think has been used to get the interception warrants
Damn, maybe I over-simplified this bit.
Search Warrants are granted under the Summary Proceedings Act. They can be granted by JPs, Court Registrars or Judges. The process, and legal standard for obtaining a search warrant is the same whether the offence with respect to which the search warrant is sought is an offence against the Crimes Act, the TSA or anything else (the offence needs to be punishable by imprisonment, and you need good cause to suspect you'll find evidence of offending etc.)
Interception warrants are granted under the Crimes Act. They are a lot harder to get, and can only be granted by a High Court judge. The process for obtaining an interception warrant is essentially the same no matter the charge, but the range of charges is much smaller. The Terrorism Suppression Act did add various terrorism offences to the range of offences for which interception warrants may be granted.
Interception warrants can be granted to the police under the Crimes Act (noting that there are no such powers in the TSA) in the following cases:
1. To intercept communications of an organised criminal enterprise (i.e. gang) believed to be engaged in serious offending (10 yrs+ imprisonment, conspiracy to defeat justice, corrupting witnesses or juries, major theft, money laundering, receiving) as part of an ongoing criminal conduct.
2. To intercept communications about a serious violent offence (which is defined - minimum 7 years, risk to life or serious injury etc.).
3. To intercept communications relating to an offence against sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 or 13A of the Terrorism Suppression Act.
[You'll note that most of the terrorism offences could come under 1 or 2 (arguably not the financing ones 'though), but for what I assume to be simplicity are listed separately.]
The wording of what needs to be proved is slightly different (e.g. in case 1, the cops also have to establish the existence an organised criminal enterprise), but it is basically the same for all offences.
The judge must be satisfied that:
1. granting the order is in the best interests of justice, which includes considering the privacy of the those involved against the offending;
2. if no offence has yet been committed, that the granting of the interception warrant is "likely" to prevent its commission;
3. there are reasonable grounds for believing that evidence relevant to the offence(s) listed will be obtained
4. that other investigative procedures have been tried but failed, or are unlikely to succeed, or are likely to be dangerous, or the matter is so urgent that they should not be used.
5. The communications intercepted aren't going to be protected by lawyer/client privilege.Interception warrants can be granted for a maximum of 30 days. They may be renewed, but the exercise basically needs to be gone through again ("is it still likely to..." etc.) with the additional information that the Judge needs to be told what information was obtained during the period of the previous warrant.
There are also distinct interception powers under:
*the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969
*the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003
*the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and
*the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987. -
If one has to be in a group which has either committed a terrorist act or been designated as a terrorist group, how the hell has anyone in the raids possibly fallen foul of our terror suppression laws?
That's the next post, tussock. I'll get back to you.
-
Cullen quoted Crown Law advice that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed
He was also quoting (and rather happy to do it, for a change) people like Tony Ellis - whom Radio NZ got for expert human rights comment and were surprised when he thought there was nothing in it. No senior criminal lawyer I spoke to thought there was much in it - and the idea that arrest was appropriate to give those who sought the arrest enough time to gather evidence to present a case to the A-G does fly against some of the comment we've seen recently.
-
"Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible."
-
So ... can someone tell me why the Booker Prize is considered the pinnacle of world literary achievement, when it's only open to work in English and excludes three-quarters of the World's population (including American novelists)?
Just asking :-)
-
it's brilliant
Agreed.
With an excellent, important thing missing from far too much current affairs television.
A Thesis
Oh, and length.
-
It could be just that they are prepared to step over the line from legal protest to illegal protest.
I think this is a pretty poor line to be holding things against. A form of protest is illegal if there's a law against it - like our laws against flag burning and sedition (and some would add, the Electoral Finance Bill).
People stood up for the right of Tim Selwyn to incite sedition, and Paul Hopkinson and Valerie Morse to burn flags (while eviscerating the individuals) although these people were all prepared to step over the line from legal protest to illegal protest.