Red Alert

Surveillance Bill update VI

Posted by on September 28th, 2011

I’ve attached my email exchange with the Office of the Clerk, the new SOP and a Media Statement by the Justice and Electoral Committee to this post. They all show that Finlayson’s attacks on me yesterday are wrong.

If people want to submit on the Bill, they should use the online method outlined in the press statement or, if in Wellington, come along to the committee meeting this evening. This is not an ideal situation by any means but is better than not being able to submit at all and is what we have managed to get the committee to agree to.

Media statement 110928

KT SOP VCS (TM) Bill(2)

Exchange of Email with Office of the Clerk Showing that SOP criticism from Finlayson Unjustified

13 Responses to “Surveillance Bill update VI”

  1. Dave says:

    It didn’t look like an “attack”, Charles it looked like a calm response to what he sees as evidence of sloppy work. Are you saying Finlayson is not correct in his response to your criticism that you used the wrong sections and outdated sections of the draft bill? I’m not sure I follow.

  2. mickysavage says:

    Oh Dave, so calm and reasonable, how could anyone doubt your bona fides?

    The Supreme Court have emphatically said that the Police knew there were major problems with video surveillance. THe Attorney General has said they were completely surprised by the decision. Either four Supreme Court Justices are lying or the Attorney General is spinning things for political advantage.

    I know who I believe.

    So Dave have you looked at the evidence? Do you feel slightly concerned at how the office of Attorney General is being politicised?

  3. Dave says:

    Micky, none of what you have said argues my point. Chris claims to have been attacked, wrongly. The facts are quite different. If an MP supposedly looking after his constituents cuts and pastes a bill and gets the sections mixed up, the response is predictable. It wasn’t an attack, it was pointing out Chris messed up his proposed changes and he got called on it. Attacked? Hardly. Not everyone who disagrees with you is attacking you, Chris needs to be less precious about things. As far as the evidence goes, how can anyone have access to it, its suppressed isn’t it? If you’ve seen the evidence I’d love to know how you did.

  4. Grassed Up says:


    When you say “Chris”, I take it you mean “Charles”? ‘Cause it would be quite funny if you were criticising an MP for making a mistake in preparing a bill whilst calling that MP by the wrong name … .

    And no – the “evidence” is not suppressed. It’s right there on the Ministry of Justice’s judicial decisions online. If you can’t find the Supreme Court’s judgment, get someone who knows how to us Google to help you out.

  5. Dave says:

    Yes Grass I meant Charles, mea culpa. By ‘evidence’ I meant the film of the criminal activity. Pretty sure thats still suppressed. But again if you have it lets make it public in the name of ‘transparency’ eh? If it isn’t why are Labour getting pink and wobbly about it? Seems strange if thats the case.

  6. mickysavage says:

    How do you feel about Finlayson’s claim that the law was settled Dave?

    And can you tell me who said the following about covert police surveillance?

    “I regard it as a significantly exacerbating factor that the film surveillance was undertaken deliberately without legal authority, in the knowledge that there was no lawful investigatory technique available to be used. … [i]n circumstances where the police officer in charge of the inquiry knew that there was no authority to be obtained for such filmed surveillance, the deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming, maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months, is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice.”

    Or who said this?

    “In view of the conclusion I have reached, it is not necessary to determine whether this state of affairs amounted to bad faith. It is enough to say that I find it impossible to hold that the police honestly believed that the video surveillance was lawfully undertaken.”

    Or this?

    “ … [e]ven taking the view most favourable to them, the police seem to have been prepared over and over to run the risk of acting in breach of the law. They did not obtain legal advice and should have done so … [t]he police understood that the warrants did not authorise the video surveillance and that their conduct in relation to the video surveillance might well be legally questionable.

    So do you want to debate Labour’s SOP or what on the face of it appears to be a statement by the Attorney General that is in conflict with some fairly conclusive findings?

  7. Grassed Up says:

    In what way is that “evidence” relevant to the discussion at hand? Clearly Mickey Savage was referring to the “evidence” that the Government’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision is an overreaction that is being sold using untruths about the previous legal situation.

    As for what the actual videos show, you can get a description from the High Court’s judgment that now has been “unsuppressed”. But the point at hand is not what they show, but how they were obtained – as well as what the Government is now proposing to do.

  8. jeff says:


    While you were picking on someones mistake, you may want to check on how to spell “Use” as in “get someone who knows how to USE Google to help you out”.

  9. Grassed Up says:


    Oh – burn!

    But while you’re picking up on someone’s mistake, you may wish to check out how to use possessive apostrophes, as well as when to capitalise ordinary words.

    Have we mined the seam of silliness deeply enough now?

  10. jeff says:


  11. jeff says:

    But you started it!!!

  12. Grassed Up says:

    “But you started it!!!”

    And I finished it, too. Isn’t that a beautiful symmetry?

  13. Tracey says:

    Dave if you are suggesting the public is a better judge of the application of law in NZ by looking at a film than the Supreme Court, then I have missed your point entirely?

    Where the SC felt the offences were serious they ALLOWED the illegally collected evidence. That shows the current law worked, insofar as no injustice has been done of potential harm to society. The PM went straight to headliners, as did Mr Findlayson with their references to possible serious criminals etc etc when they knew or ought to have known that the serious offences remained n play because of the SC ruling.

    In the end Dave it’s not about Chris or Charles it’s about the law, understanding it, applying it, and being honest about those things. You’re entitled to pick up Charles on anything you like and I am entitled to ask this thread be about a VERY important legal issue already determined by the highest court in the land making URGENCY unnecessary, but reasoned debate and examination crucial.