The Government is not going to let that happen; the Herald reports:
Government will pass temporary legislation suspending the effect of a Supreme Court decision which ruled covert camera surveillance by police unlawful.
The bill will pass next week under urgency, Prime Minister John Key said.
A permanent fix would be included as part of the search and surveillance bill due to pass after the election.
Mr Key said speed was essential because the ruling in the Ureweras case would have jeopardised police investigations.
He said the Crown Law Office advised Cabinet it meant almost all use of covert video surveillance was unlawful.
"This has significant implications for law and order in New Zealand."
It could impact on up to 40 current trials underway and 50 poilice operations, including some serious criminal offending.
The law change would not affect the outcome of the Ureweras case.
The change would apply retrospectively so prior convictions in trials in which covert surveillance was used to collect evidence could not be overturned.
We applaud the government's decision to overturn the Supreme Court's decision by way of temporary legislation. Now that suppression orders have lapsed, it is a matter of public record that the polivce had obtained evidence of paramilitary training the the Ureweras. Covert filming was done via cameras placed after the execution of search warrants.
The police clearly believed that they were acting in the spirit of the law as it stood, and by passing temporary legislation, the government is confirming Parliament's will, and backing the police. We have no problem whatsoever with that approach.
Doubtless the case of the Urewera defendants will again be the subject of discussions, even though the charges against 13 of them cannot be relaid under the terms of the temporary legislation. If it is bad law, it needs to be sorted, and quickly.
It will be interesting to see who opposes the progress of the legislation next week. Law and order is always an election issue. The introduction of urgent temporary legislation next week will be telling as to who would rather let criminals walk than fix the errors of the past.
19 comments:
Inv2. You applaud retrospective law making by the Government?
Oh
My
Goodness.
I can hardly believe that I'm reading this from you.
I/S says:
"Update: Updated link. Also, retrospective validation means the police will be able to use the evidence against the Urewera18. So this is actually all-stages urgent legislation to change the outcome of a criminal trial. This is absolutely obscene. We would not accept such behaviour somewhere like Fiji, and we should not accept it here."
You ought to be ashamed of your self old friend.
The Police were not acting in the spirit of what they thought the law was. The Law Commission issued a report in 2007 which let Police know there was no legal basis for this sort of surveillance.
And I suspect the knew that before then. If we don't expect the Police to follow the laws they know about, why on Earth should the rest of us?
@ Robert - from Stuff
However Key said the legislation would specifically exclude the Urewera decision but would be retrospective for other cases.
Given a choice of John Key's emphatic statement, and Idiot/Savant's supposition, I know which option I'll be taking. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the seriousness of the charges against the remaining Urewera defendants justifies the use of the evidence in question.
"However Key said the legislation would specifically exclude the Urewera decision but would be retrospective for other cases."
Is that so?
I accept that then Inv2.
That's good news.
Graeme Edgler said
The Police were not acting in the spirit of what they (the Police or the Courts?) thought the law was. The Law Commission issued a report in 2007 which let Police know there was no legal basis for this sort of surveillance.
Not sure if I am understanding this part. Please clarify.
The retrospective law does not make lawful acts by the accused unlawful.
Just allows the Police the ability to prove the offence was committed (if an offence was committed).
Graeme Edgeler said
The Law Commission issued a report in 2007 which let Police know there was no legal basis for this sort of surveillance.
What did the Minister of Police at that time do about it?
Be afraid Iv2, be very afraid you are now "old friend".
Don't be surprised when that bunch of traditional roses turn up next Feb 14th.
Since good ole Robert became a support part in Ally Browns food show the other night peace and good will have broken out.
ps just in case you hold your breath Robert and read the senile old fools inane comment, your concept of "forest gardening" had an attraction for the 'gypsy' in me.
The 'traveller' in you would be well pleased by a visit to my forest garden, GD but I can't guarantee you'd not get lost amongst the vines and fruit trees.
I invite you, old friend :-) to come and visit. Perhaps we'd find that we're on common ground.
I leave my politics at the gate (though there is no gate).
Anonymous #5:
The Police have known for a number of years that they did not have the power to conduct this sort of covert video surveillance.
That there was no power to engage in illegal video surveillance of this kind was pointed out by the Law Commission in 2007 and was likely known for some time before that.
The Police have been deliberately flouting the law for some time. Heads should roll.
Graeme, could you clarify?. Given that there is apparently some threshold of seriousness of offence under investigation and even a split decision at the supreme court with respect to the charges recently thrown out, how should the police have been certain they were wrong to carry out their surveillence?
Thank you Graeme, and then so they should.
And the Minister?
The Law is a mess.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/editorials/5646351/Editorial-Law-hinders-police
James - s 30 of the Evidence Act allows a prosecution to use evidence they've obtained illegally (sometimes criminally) if the charges are serious enough.
That's what happened in the Urewera Case. The Police knew they didn't have the power to conduct the type of illegal surveillance they were conducting and did it anyway. Because many of the defendants faced only pretty minor charges, the police evidence wasn't able to be used against them, but for the defendants who faces much more serious charges, it is.
I imagine the Minister was advancing the Search and Surveillance Bill.
As Ministers under this government have done as well.
Peter Williams QC said the retrospective law was 'abhorrent."
"Most governments will not pass retrospective penal legislation, even countries like Fiji. It's really repulsive to anyone who is interested in criminal law."
Inv2 - do you support our Government making retrospective legislation now?
When Labour did it you screamed blue-murder!
I can't reconcile your two positions.
Peter Williams QC; that last bastion of sensibleness eh Robert? I prefer the opinion I heard on the radio coming in to work from a criminal law expert at Chen Palmer (as Sir Geoffrey Palmer; former Labour PM) who said that whilst patched legislation could be fraught with difficulties, this measure was "sensible and pragmatic".
And as Christopher Finlayson has noted, the law to be passed next week has a sunset clause, which will require the 50th Parliament to move on the Search and Surveillance Bill without undue delay. With the election so close, that is a sound process IMHO, even if MHO differs to Peter Williams'.
RG agree that retrospective law is always bad. It should also be noted: Liabour's retrospective lawmaking benefited themselves (and their New Plymouth member) whereas this is to clarify law around criminal cases. They are leagues apart.
Paranormal
"The introduction of urgent temporary legislation next week will be telling as to who would rather let criminals walk than fix the errors of the past."
This is a damning statement from you Inv2. I hope against hope that you don't really believe what you have written - that there are politicians who would like to 'see criminals walk'.
It's a stupid and simplistic claim from you. I urge you to think about this more deeply.
Post a Comment