Here’s my media release from this morning regarding the letter the Labour Party wrote to the Government last year confirming its support to pass the Search and Surveillance Bill.
Surveillance bill letter on public record
[UPDATE] In addition, here is the correspondence exchange between Labour and the Government on the Supreme Court decision so far:
Letter – AG to Labour MPs (September 19 2011)
[ANOTHER UPDATE] As mentioned in the comments below, here is the Government’s latest response, with the draft Bill attached as well.
Draft Bill – Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures)
Wouldn’t want to get bogged down in details. Reading these links was a bit too hard. It stopped me being able to be aspirational…
Thanks though, I’m going down to the dairy to smile and wave alot.
Stand your ground, Labour. We do not want this done JK’s way. It is possible to give the police clear operational guidelines without surrendering significant civil liberties. I’ve stood by you all the way so far, but if you cave in on this, you really lose my respect. To demand a detailed and considered change is not going soft on law and order. Resist the simple narrative!
Perhaps John Armstrong, a doyen amongst political commentators will raise the bar from commenting on comments and tomorrow choose to comment on facts! Wouldn’t it have been great to wake up this morning and find out that someone had investigated and found out how many cases might really be in jeopardy, how many are likely in jeopardy, how many serious criminals (innocent til proven guilty and all that) will get “off”. How many might not even need this particular evidence to gain traction for a conviction, how many the Judge might rule admissible despite being illegally obtained (as they can now).
If the police have given the PM the numbers he has used to base his public comments on, then logically that is from a prosecution point of view, and not necessarily balanced.
Great letter.
As a spectator it seems to me that the November 2010 offer was clear and timely. It was ignored.
The 40 + 50 cases in “jeopardy” needs scrutiny. The rhetoric from the PM has shifted to “some” may be in jeopardy. Mmmmm.
Charles’ response to the letter from Findlayson seems to be on the ball. Hope the ref doesn’t award an offside penalty.
Should be clearly framed in the wrongness of retrospective hasty legislation. I for one would understand that and so would my friends. (Be tough if a traffic habit became retrospectively unlawful.)
Someone learned said the other day that unexpected issues can take over Election Campaigns rather than just debates about policies. Bretheren? Genetic modification? Shower heads? Light bulbs?
Now Retrospective Hasty Legislation?
Finlayson has just responded – along with a draft bill – at last (it only took 19 days from the delivery of the SC decision, despite claims that we face an urgent crisis that must be dealt with by suspending all norms of parliamentary procedure). The response is not encouraging. I’ll post it and the draft bill here shortly and continue to welcome comment.
Great idea Charles. Crowd source the analysis of the bill!!
One comment about Finlayson’s letter. He states that there are a number of Court of Appeal decisions dating back to 1997, presumably to suggest that this decision is a bolt out of the blue. The 1997 decision is R v Gardiner (1997) 15 CRNZ 131. That case involved filming of a house from another property where permission was obtained. The part of the house filmed did not have an expectation of privacy. The facts were entirely differenht.
@Ianmac
Someone learned said the other day that unexpected issues can take over Election Campaigns rather than just debates about policies.
I think you might be referring to Mike Williams on the Nine to Noon political spot with Matthew Hooton. Williams made the observation (and I paraphrase) that there will be issues emerge – there always is – but it’s impossible to tell what they might be. I think there is a chance this Surveillance Bill might be one one of them – indeed the whole concept of governance by urgent decree!
It looks ok to me. Most of the public I suspect would have the expectation that video cameras are an essential tool in investigations and won’t object to that being spelt out -how many times do we see security camera footage used let alone speed cameras, and the SC decision on the urewera crowd is preserved so no second go at them. What’s to object to?
Couple of thoughts.
(1) cl. 5(2) says that the use of video surveillance as part of, or in connection with, a “search” is lawful.
(2) cl. 4 defines a “search” as “includes the acquisition, whether or not pursuant to a warrant, of information about any person, place, or thing”
(3) Doesn’t this mean that any time the police want to “acquire information” about anything or anywhere, they can plant a video camera (with or without a warrant), and information gathered via the video is then “lawful”?
Also,
(1) cl. 5(2)(a) says video surveillance as part of, or in connection to, a search is lawful;
(2) cl. 5(2)(b) says that the use of video surveillance “does not of itself render the search unreasonable.”
(3) But what is the connection between (a) and (b)? Yes, an unlawful search may/may not be “unreasonable” under the NZBORA s.21. So I guess a “lawful” search also may/may not be “unreasonable” under the same section. But if a court considers a particular use of video surveillance is “unreasonable” as per s.21, then can that make it “unlawful” (and thus subject to the Evidence Act 2006, s 30) despite 5(2)(a) saying it is “lawful”?
Insider — security cameras are in public places or in private places with the permission of the owner. Placing monitoring devices on private property without the permission of the owner is considerably different. Don’t you think?
I personally want Labour to oppose urgency on the propsed legislation and to work for narrow limits on granting police powers to install spy cameras without owner permission.
I think you may have been asleep for the last couple of years. This is entirely normal parliamentary procedure
Not asleep Graeme (although I soon will be). Just appalled.
@Stephen
I don’t see the ability to put cameras on private property that different from the ability to put listening devices on that same private property. In the ureweras case both types of device were used but only the video recordings were in dispute afaik. In what way is one more intrusive and offensive than the other?
Insider,
The Police can only get an “interception warrant” to listen to private conversations if the suspected offences are pretty serious (membership of organised criminal enterprise (10 years jail) or serious violent offences (7 years jail or more)).
Under the proposed Bill, Police could go into your house and plant hidden video cameras to see whatever you are doing whenever they get a search warrant under the Summary Proceedings Act. And all that is needed for such a warrant is a reasonable belief there is evidence that a crime has been committed punishable by ANY term of imprisonment.
So – even if listening devices and video surveillance is equally intrusive, the situations in which the Police can do each will not be the same.
The proposal is extraordinarily wide. If enacted the Police will be given carte blanche. If and when the search and surveillance bill is passed then those powers will be considerably limited and subject to Judicial oversight.
The proposal to make the changes retrospective is something you would expect to see in North Korea, not godzone.
Please Labour oppose the bill.
Greg – why do you not want this bill to be consulted on, and providing a satisfactory version can be agreed on, supported?
The alternative is for no video surveillance to be allowed for several months at least. Don’t you think something needs to be worked out in the short term?
I rarely find myself in agreement with ACT but on this occassion I am.
“Deputy leader John Boscawen…
He’s unconvinced by government claims that any delay will allow serious crimes and trials to go unpunished.
“We are supportive of police. We want to protect New Zealanders but it’s also important to understand that if for example this legislation was not passed, it doesn’t mean that more serious criminals will roam free,” he says.”
The AG is being mischievious with statements like this which the herald regurgitates without clarification
“The Attorney-General’s office released a list of the types of offences that police use hidden cameras to investigate, including homicide, serious drug offences, gang activity, and sexual offending, including against children.”
Of importance he does not suggest a single one of the so-called 40 or 50 trials falls into these categories, but the implication is made nonetheless.
Before anyone jumps on me for being a sympathiser to child abusers, I was sexually abused as a child and that makes me no more willing to see the task of guilt and innocence passed into the hands of the police as sole arbiter of evidence. We have rules for a reason, to ensure integrity in the decisions made on guilt and innocence so that we can trust the outcome. Retrospective law-making in this regard ill-behooves a democracy.
ACT have taken an appropriate stance on the Bill I think – recognise that there is an issue that needs sorting, but on a transitional basis only, reject the more extreme rhetoric from Finlayson and Key that it has to be their bill or nothing, refuse to be painted as soft on law and order because they simply want a debate, and insist on a select committee process to ensure that alternative solutions (such as Andrew Geddis’) can be heard and discussed. That is more or less the position I took in my first post on this (Over-ruling the Supreme Court); it’s the position Phil Goff took on morning report today; and it is also the position that Labour seems likely to arrive at when our caucus meets on Tuesday.
@Pete
There has already been a select committee process and a statutory scheme developed whereby if the police want to conduct covert surveillance they need to go to a Judge and persuade them that it is appropriate. There are a number of safeguards built in, for instance the power is only there for serious offences.
This current proposal will allow carte blanche. Besides it is not going to be consulted on. It is going to be rammed through under urgency.
Greg, as is obvious here the proposals are being circulated to all parties and to a number of law organisations and to individuals. It seems likely it will get to select committee, albeit briefly. It is receiving widespread attention.
It’s far from ideal but what are the alternatives? How do you think it could be done better in the interim? Do nothing until next year and halt all video surveillance?
As a law-abiding citizen, I’m afraid I can’t get too worked up about this.
“As a law-abiding citizen, I’m afraid I can’t get too worked up about this.”
So you say, Richard 1. But how can we be sure you are what you say you are? Only safe way would seem to be to have a wee watch of what you are up to in your living room (and maybe other places, too … what exactly IS in your bedroom closets?).
All of which I am sure you will not object to … being law abiding and all that.
Thanks Grassed up. Funny how an audio bug is not considered a ’search’ but a video one is. Perhaps that’s the thing that needs to be redefined. But then that would probably completely undermine the Search and Surveillance Bill…what fun!
So Charles, after all this bluster and now having seen the Bill, is your party going to oppose it or not?
Grassed Up. No skeletons in MY closets I can assure you. The most important thing to me is that I know what I say I am, and any surveillance would be a waste of time. S..t, that makes me sound boring doesn’t it!!
Richard 1,
My point is that the assumption this is not a problem as only criminals will suffer under it assumes the Police are able to identify who is/is not a criminal … which is what covert surveillance is intended to establish … so even though you MAY be pure as driven snow, that does not mean it is not a risk to you (or to others like you).
But, hey – if living under a rule that says the Police may video whomsoever they want whenever they think it is necessary to do so in order to detect a crime is OK with you, then yes – this is a non-issue.
Having now read the Bill, it is clear that it’s deeply flawed, it needs major amendments, and there needs to be a public testing of the claims that have been made in its favour. All this should occur in a select committee. If National agrees to a select committee, we will vote to send the Bill to one, test the evidence, and push for change there. If they don’t, we’ll vote against the first reading of the bill. If there is a select committee, and if there is sufficient change, we will vote for it further. If there is not, we won’t.
Thank you for that clarification Charles, so you’re saying that Labour won’t support it passing through all stages under urgency, which is what is needed for it to pass in this Parliament. What you’re saying is that you are demanding that this Bill be delayed to the next Parliament before passing.
I think it is disingenuous to say about it: “We would like to support the Bill, but only if it is delayed for several months”. Because that’s the effect of sending it to Select Committee at this point in the parliamentary cycle.
BWS,
You seem more concerned with finding points to needle Charles on than actually looking at what is proposed. Both ACT and Labour have made it clear they are prepared to accept a shortened select committee process (as occurred with the second round of legislation to deal with the Christchurch Earthquake) that still permits legislation to be on the books before Parliament rises for the election.
As a rather dispassionate observer of this thread, your behaviour is quite childish. Grow up or step away.
The Rule of Law must be adhered to but the Government seems happy to be lenient about police unlawful activity and even condones it.
Yet “unlawful” activity by schools re National Standards must be punished as the Government is strict about the letter of the Law!
Ambiguous? Two-faced?
It is illegal to listen or record video on private property without either the permission of the occupier, or a judicial warrant. The police broke the law. End of story.
There is absolutely no reason why the rights to privacy, of all of us, should be further reduced just to make life convenient for the police.
I hope Labour decides to do the principled thing. Reject any further extension to, the already excessive powers, granted to the police.
RT1
“As a law-abiding citizen, I’m afraid I can’t get too worked up about this.”
Every one of the so-called serious criminals who will be released and are allegedly in these trials which will fall over are also currently law abiding citizens, until they are found guilty of something.
As law abiding as you are, I wonder how many of us would feel comfortable in a world where every single thing we did, move we made was under surveillance, including in your home, bedroom etc. It would be suffocating.
I for one am not comfortable with the police determining what it’s ok to do and not do in relation tot heir pursuit of a charge. It’s for their protection as well as ours that they have processes in place.
KJT, my understanding is that warrants were issued by a Judge, but the supreme court 3-2 determined the Judge did so erroneously. Clarification is required, but not knee jerk populist politicking.