No prosecutions under the Terrorism Suppression Act
The Solictor-General has decided not to authorise any charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act for the Urewera 17.
This is a huge blow to Police credibility. It is rare for the Solicitor-General to decline any request made by the Police. Add to it, the use of the Act to justify the nature of the Police raids, and Commissioner Broad is in a very vulnerable position.
This doesn’t mean those charged have not broken the law and done some stupid or bad things. The evidence on that awaits a trial. It also doesn’t mean the Police were wrong to arrest them.
But it does most seriously call into question the need for 300 armed Police doing simultaneous raids around the country.
There will be questions in Parliament next week, no doubt, on whether the Police Commissioner still has the confidence of the Minister.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Broad has just been on radio strongly implying he would apologise to the people in Ruatoki for the way they were treated.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
How do you feel now David? Irresponsibly bandying about the term “alleged terrorist” with regard to the activists who were only ever charge under the fire arms act? And all just to gain a little political capital against people who have had the courage of conviction to stand up for our civil liberties – in particular, the greens.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
oh, and I meant to say..
Disgraceful David, bloody disgraceful
November 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
so you comment here but not on the previous post regarding Labours efforts to ram through there election rort legislation?
You can take your talk of “our” civil liverties and stick them up your hypocritical ass woger.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Gutlass son of a bitch was staking his reputation on this ,we don`t want his apology[he is one] we want his resignation, quickly followed by that of Winston and anyone else that loudmouthed off overseas with the T word. What`s the bet compensation by way of Cullens slush fund. They should build a new wharepak at Ruatoki to accommodate all the apologetic crap about to be delivered to Tuhoe.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
“so you comment here but not on the previous post regarding Labours”
You’re posting erratically and off topic kimble. However, I will address your point. You have no idea what the bill will look like after the SC stage. I think you may be pleasantly surprised.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
DPF was stating a fact, Roger/Phillip John. They were alleged terrorists. We know they were alleged terrorists because the Police alleged they were terrorists, and charged them under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
More importantly, Woger/Phillip John: How do you feel about supporting a Government that runs a police force that appears to have got things so spectacularly wrong, YET AGAIN?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Kehua, they havent been found innocent
November 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Hang on roger, “alleged terrorist” was the right term as that was the basis of the arrests but nothing was proven. Just as an alleged robber is someone arrested under that section of the crimes act but not proven.
Scoop have been shamelessly (almost proudly) calling them terrorists for the last couple of weeks.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Tane, speaking out against government policy during the election period IS a civil liberty.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
The apology will be to those not arrested regardless of the twits who may or may not be guilty.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
The keystone cops under the direction of Ms Antoinette King and MR Egg O Connor are going from bad to worse . Anyone got a spare shotgun ?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
What it means is Clark has egg on her face – not DPF. And Broad should be gone by lunchtime – thought I doubt if he will be. Lots of people quietly cheering on this one.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
IP
“We know they were alleged terrorists because the Police alleged they were terrorists”
How would you feel if the police “alleged” that you are a rapist, and yet didn’t have a solid enough case to proceed with a prosecution against you. Would it be fair in that circumstance for me to go around publicly referring to you as an “alleged rapist”?
Just because David was technically correct in referring to some of the “Urewera 17″ as alleged terrorists, doesn’t make it responsible or right. The label “alleged terrorist” is very loaded and inflammatory, and so when it’s flung at someone it tends to sticks to them – as with the term “alleged rapist”. As such it’s a term that should only be used where it has been established that there is a case to answer to. Not before. Unfortunately in this case, the mainstream media, along with DPF have used this term irresponsibly, which will probably mean that the terms “activist” and “terrorist” in NZ are now going to have an undeserved association in the consciousness of many New Zealanders for many years to come. This is a real shame.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
For goodness sake, Phillip. Its not like there was no evidence.
Secondly, from teh news tonight, it appears that the solicitor general was implying that it was the legislation that was the problem, not the evidence – he recommended that it be entirely re-written. No wonder the police couldn’t make charges stick.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Spam, you beat me to it. The SG describes the law as “”incoherent and almost impossible to apply” which leads me to wonder why such complexities were not picked up in the SC process, if there was one for this act, and consequently will the EFB pass through the SC in a similar fashion? And will it, in turn, cause similar anguish when the government tries to apply it?
G
November 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
As an aside, I feel very uneasy about the state of my country at the moment.
G
November 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Another bad piece of legislation courtesy of Margaret Wilson.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I dare anyone here to go into the tuhoe nation and try to place a citizens arrest on someone for beating their wife or whatever. I suggest you would want to have 50 of your mates behind you as well.
Which probably means you dont need to worry about the law too much on a day to day basis.
There is nothing wrong with the term “alleged terrorist”, it means exactly what it says. You are just trying to control people via their language. You might as well complain evertime we fail to call the greens “the good party” and national “the party of evil” or whenever anyone implies Nai Yin Xue is guilty of anything.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Would it be fair in that circumstance for me to go around publicly referring to you as an “alleged rapist”?”
If it has been alleged that you raped someone, then you are an alleged rapist.
Nome is flailing around, grasping at straws again. This time he is objecting to the meaning of the word alleged.
“As such it’s a term that should only be used where it has been established that there is a case to answer to.”
The Police thought there was. They alleged these guys were terrorists. These guys were allegedly terrorists. They were alleged terrorists.
Nome’s standard seems to be that the word alleged shouldnt be used until the case has been proven. Get thet? It shouldnt be used until it is no longer necessary to use it!
Stop humiliating yourself on a daily basis with your obsession with DPF. Get a life, Nome!
November 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Perhaps if they are now forced to rewrite the terroism laws Dear Leader will want to throw in a few laws for those who think her EFB is a sack of shit and treat it as such. No doubt the scum on the 9th floor would like nothing more then calling those that oppose them terrorists. Think I’m mad, whatever, given what is happening to this country it’s only a matter of time, only a matter of time.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
“For goodness sake, Phillip. Its not like there was no evidence.”
But that’s totally beside the point. At the time DPF was shouting “alleged terrorist” it wasn’t known whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution under the TS Act. That’s the point any way – as usual it’s a case of pushing shit up hill at good ol’ kiwiblog.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Give up Nome, you are just looking more and more foolish with each comment.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“Nome’s standard seems to be that the word alleged shouldnt be used until the case has been proven.”
You’re really thick aren’t you kimble? I said that the term “alleged terrorist” shouldn’t be publicly bandied about until it has been established that there’s good enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution – the proving of the case comes after that.
Anyway, I’ve made my case, and it’s a solid one. I’m not going to keep on repeating my self for dim-bulbs with comprehension problems like you Kimble.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Roger
most normal people understand the word “alleged”
November 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
The Solicitor General explicitly excused and justified the Police Action. He also explicitly stated the law was an abortion. What would you expect from a Law Commission headed by the author of the Resource Management Act. What is needed is clear simple law. The Solicitor General viewed hundreds of video tapes and intercepted calls and he was clearly concerned. It seems obvious that conspiracies and preparations to engage in terror abounded.. The Arms Act is largely regulatory, if the Terrorism Act is unworkable what do you charge them with. Due to our quaint legal system of suppression and secrecy we are unlikely to ever find out if the Nation was under threat or not…I fail to see how David and others can read into anything the S.G. said that the Police acted wrongly.Then again what may have happened had they not acted at all.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Helen Clark’s government passed the terror act.
And Dear Leader appointed Howard Broad as police commissioner.
I see nothing for the Liarbour supporters to rejoice in tonight.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
How do we all feel about Helen Clark’s leap to defend the ‘alleged terrorist’ in Fiji, with her use of the media prior to the court-case in New Zealand reminding people that the arrestees were considered to have been using firearms at the very least, and in possession of napalm?
Is it ‘fearless libertarian’ when the UN might be watching activities abroad, and ‘kangeroo coutmeister’ at home when they aren’t?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Nome, you are obviously drunk. The term alleged can be used whenever anyone has been alleged to have done something. The police alleged these guys were terrorists simply by seeking to apply the Act.
You were so eager for an I-told-you-so moment, so eager for the opportunity to say “DPF look at me! Pay attention to me and my scowling disapproval of you! See how much I disapprove? Grrrr, disgraceful. DPF, DPF, I said you are disgraceful, did you see that? Did you see me calling you disgraceful?!”
Sad.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
The SG said that there was plenty of evidence, but not enough to satisfy that specific Act. He said it was almost impossible to apply to domestic terrorists.
So the definition of a domestic terrorist isnt dependent upon the application of the Terror Suppression Act.
Nome, your case ISN’T solid, but you can cut the air of desperation for DPF’s attention with a knife.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Roger Nome said “I’m not going to keep on repeating my self for dim-bulbs with comprehension problems like you Kimble.”
Does this mean Roger Nome is going away? I don’t see much point in him coming back to Kiwiblog if he feels so negative about the posts and commenters.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Nome will never be able to go away. He is emotionally dependent upon this blog.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
*snorts with laughter*
November 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I can shorten that one for you Kimble -
Nome emotionally dependent
November 8th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Phillip,
In Dear Leader’s New Zealand, the police still have to have reasonable suspicion to get a warrant in order to arrest anybody. They had to get permission to actually act on the evidence they had collected. Ie – enough evidence to make an allegation that these people were engaged in terrorist activities.
This is the case at the moment, at least. In New Zealand, it may change.
You are floundering to justify your silly claim.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Reading back through his blog, DPF appears to have been reasonably sceptical about this issue:
<i>Like most, I find it hard to think there was a conspiracy amongst all those arrested to set up a terrorist army. But if people were breaking the firearms laws they need to be accountable for that. If they regularly talked about using the illegal firearms they had collected to kill prominent NZers, well I don’t want a Police force which says “Nah, we don’t think they are serious”. On the other hand it is an open question as to whether the evidence does add up, and whether they really needed to raid as aggressively as they did.</i>
[DPF: Thank you. I think I blogged several times on my reservations. I was very careful to use the term alleged, and in fact quoted the PM's own words on the arrests, except she failed to use the term "alleged" so poor little Roger should really be decrying Helen]
November 8th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
bloody hell. Black is white for people like phillipjohn as long as they can get a right-left spin.
In case you hadnt noticed the labour party are in government. The police acted under terror legislation that the labour government passed. The prime minister made a huge thing out of announcing the terror arrests, the police tried to lay charges under the terrorism legislation.
and somehow this is all David Farrar’s fault, well I know he has some delusions of grandeur, but even he probably isnt in charge of what the New Zealand PM does.
If anyone is embarassed here it should be the police commissioner who made another very bad call and should be sacked, and the Attorney General who oversaw crappy legislation.
oh hang on, they have the labour get out of anything free card, yup move along, nothing to see here.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Kimble
“Nome, you are obviously drunk.”
No, just as mad as a march hare.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I think there are two ways of characterising the degree of wrongdoing by Police; on the one hand they can fall back on the argument that the TS Act wasn’t , ipso facto, used to justify the police raids; that the raids were undertaken in a proportionate manner to the perceived threat, and how they were carried out was purely an operational matter — the S-G was very clear that he had no objection to the way that the police had conducted themselves or the physical operation itself. Regardless of whether you define the subjects of the operation as “terrorists” or just activists with guns, I think the police could argue that there was a legitimately perceived danger, and in terms of the operation itself this definitional issue is not really relevant — they presented a clear and imminent threat. It was only AFTER the shit went down that the legal implications became relevant, and now, after due diligence has been completed the terrorism aspect won’t be pursued.
On the other hand, and this is the objection that I have, the way in which the police, after the raids, and in the context of their withholding salient details about the what the illegal activities entailed, seemed to cynically and exploitatively use the fact of their secret, and ostensibly authoritative knowledge to distort the public discourse through invocation of the very loaded spectre of “terrorism”. The cinematic nature of the raids themselves feeds into their constructed narrative which served to undermine the credibility of those they had captured and their respective causes and organisations. Given that a degree of secrecy in Police operations is tolerated (which subsists in the present case), presumably on the basis of maintaining the efficacy of the criminal justice system, which (I assume) is considered to outweigh, at least in the short term, the right to robust and democratic scrutiny and debate, a concomitantly high burden should be imposed upon the Police to act honestly and fairly, and by spinning it the way that they did (in light of the S-G’s findings) they breached this duty.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Of course Chris Trotter praised Howard Broad as being politically reliable.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
If the keystone cop Broad is a fraud, what of the illustrious SIS they are probably still making love to themselves deep in Tuhoe country. God forbid that our country ever needs serious protection.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
First I am a a labour supporter, but Clark has
managed to piss me off over this issue.
Say goodbye to the Maori seats Labour, they are
gone.
Now you absolute police supporting fools, you idiots believe that some hori would put a backpack
on containing five kilo of home made explosive,
and then go and blow up a Wellington train full of
Pakeha and Maori, yes, you are complete dickheads.
Oh, they were going to have a go at a politician,
but they needed automatic weapons, spare me.
And now we have Broad suggesting he is disappointed we have no terrorists in NZ.
It seems that Maori coppers are not to be
trusted, did they mention a thing to the Maori
liason coppers , did they hell.
Definition of a would be Maori terrorist, a fourteen
year old girl who needs to taken off a bus by
our armed paramilitary coppers and photographed.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“God forbid that our country ever needs serious protection.”
If the politicians decide this country needs serious protection, it will be against its citizens who are fighting to retain freedom. The day that happens is the day the red sister will have the chinese here to help her.
No US warships allowed here.
I wonder how the US felt about A chinese warship in Wellington harbour.
Must’ve been a shock to their systems.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
What role was played by the Special Tactics Group and the committees convened from the Beehive in all of this? They were consulted at least one month before the raids weren’t they?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
David, you wrote
“This is a huge blow to Police credibility.”
The credibility of Helens police service has been eroded at an increasingly frantic pace ever since she Lied to the SST about Doone. Since that night of the long knives against our police, they have succumbed completely to the will of Clarke and her party.
It is now 6 days since WE ALL witnessed an aggravated assault by a member of the labour party on film.
has he been charged? Has anybody in the labour party been charged with anything in the last few years?
People too stupid to read now know the words prima facie.
Each time these mutts break another law we all wail for a few weeks and then let it go, until the next time and then the cycle begins again…. ad infinitum.
I wrote at the time of the arrests that this would all be a big beat up and so it has come to pass.
A few drunk maori and fellow travellers have a whinge in the woods, having a big whiny circle jerk, is not terrorism.
The timing of these arrests was suspect at best and deliberate at worst. Clarkes new terror laws are currently before parliament and the right response from the solicitor general today would have helped clarkes plans immensely.
Lucky for all of us Broad and Clarke have been shown up for the liars they are.
And roger nome. you must have compromising photos of david because if you came into my house and behaved the way you do here you would be going home in a wheelie bin.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“Lucky for all of us Broad and Clarke have been shown up for the liars they are.”
If the media were really anti Labour this would be the time to bring up the EFB. Even questioning the opposition would be responsible journalism.
Journalists have never been known to be appropriate in trying to solicit answers from prominent identities if the law isn’t being broken but it seems careers are being guarded very tenuosly. In fact, as if the risk of a journalism body bag count is to be avoided.
We know what happened to the last journalist who documented body bags.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Its a shame the sheer ignorance and hysteria being spouted off here by people slagging off the police. Ironically also including the rather right-wing author of this blog who should know better and be able to read more than just a sensationalist headline on scoop.
If you actually bothered to read his decision he actually commends the Police, states that they were fully justified to act they way they did, given the evidence he has seen and that its the Terrorism Suppression Bill that is the problem and that it needs to be amended to include such groups as those accused in this instance.
“But, while commending the police investigation, he described the terror legislation as “complex and incoherent”, and said it should be reviewed by the Law Commission. He said it was almost impossible to apply to domestic terrorists.”
So he infers that the ‘accused’ are domestic terrorists and that the act is basically crap and needs to be improved to include such ‘domestic terrorists’ and that somehow attacks the credibility of the Police?
He justifies the ‘raids’, commends Police, attacks the terrorism suppression act as in-effect being too weak against domestic terrorists and people on here are somehow turning it into some hysterical attack on the Police and demanding that heads must roll.
Learn to read people.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
grumpyoldhori – bloody interesting point about the police Maori liaison officers. I can understand that the police would want to avoid compromising them, but maybe the Maori party should ask in Parliament.
“How many of the armed police involved in arresting Maori in the recent ‘Terrorism’ sweeps were themselves Maor?i”
It would be very intersting to see the answer to that.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
None of the Urewera 17 charged?
Can someone explain why the alledged terrorists had naplam and firearms?
Allegation is possiblely made on past behaviour.
Sure it is deer, pig hunting country.
Well known fact is terrorists will use women and children as shields to get their point across.
Whether the Police were right or wrong is irelevant, the question I ask is:
Why are these people in a possible training camp?
November 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
This is excellent news for John Boscawen and all those that see the EFB for the disgrace that it is.
What it means is that no one will ever be prosecuted under the EFB, even for putting a billboard on the front lawn, because the EFB is so bad as to be “incoherent and almost impossible to apply” – the same as the Terrorist Act!
Yippee! H1 & H2 won’t even be able to pass a decent EFB that allows a prosecution. Priceless.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Jean
Good cops don`t get slagged off, but they sure as hell are fed up with having to make excuses for the Broads, Rickards and Robinsons all overpaid, underperforming and generally a disgrace to the uniform. I know of one maori cop involved a 3 month veteran?????
Steve
What napalm? Firearms to Tuhoe and most Central North Islanders who live on farms and near bush are tools of trade. The police would recover more unlicenced firearms annually in Metro Auckland per year than the whole of Tuhoe country.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
milo
What comes across is the feeling that some in
police HQ believed that the liasion officers were
not to be trusted.
Steve, napalm.
got a wine bottle at home, petrol for the lawnmower and some polystryrene .
You are guilty of having napalm.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Well, we can all agree with one thing. It’s a mess.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I see the police did not muck around in their choice of spokesman concerning the the terroist decision. The guy was so high up he made a district commander look like a junior constable.
Not a rare sight to be seen in future times methinks.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Crikey, Woger/Phillip John.
If the police ever charge me with rape, then I give you permission in advance to refer to me as an alleged rapist.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Allegation: A statement by a party in a pleading describing what that party’s position is and what that party intends to prove.
This surely is Broad’s position. He should be making the statement with prima facie evidence to back this up.
We will see what evolves as the prosecution proceeds.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
On a slightly different note though did anybody see the piece on TV3 news this evening about the person in Palmerston North who ended up with a broken neck while being arrested and was then left on a police cell floor for 9 hours before being transferred to a hospital?
Not a good day for the NZ Police Department at all.
Link to TV3 Video
http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/NationalVideo/tabid/309/articleID/38750/Default.aspx#video
November 8th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Now that I’ve read David Collins’ statement, it’s clear the police aren’t at fault. The SG advised that the Police had good cause to bring the prosecution–sadly for Phillip John/Woger: it hardly exonerates the alleged terrorists.
The real fuck-up is the Government’s inability to draft legislation that the SG can apply.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Mr Nobody NZ ,,
Yess, I saw that.
Hope there’s a follow up story. you just can’t let something like that die.
The police spokesman did not sound responsible in his tone at all.
The family will certainly be seeking legal redress. Legal action was swift!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
“hinamanu Says: “Lucky for all of us Broad and Clarke have been shown up for the liars they are.”
This incident proves no such thing.
They have lied previously, but the media haven’t caught up with it. Parliamentary privilege denies an MP in the House, using the word “Liar’ otherwise her pants might catcth on fire
November 8th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Insolent Prick: So where is David Collins in the EFB debacle. No where to be seen and he leaves it to a n unknown junior to pass judgement on the EFB’s infringement into our NZ Bill of rights.
I would also ask where is the Governor- General ex Ombudsman in this aspect? Nothing is wrong in the State of Denmark?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Police wont charge mallard….
It seems police have been a bit previous over this terror thing……
Im starting to think that its time we started to become a bit worried about what the police leadership are up to. I dont like the way things are starting to go.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Gooner: What it means is that no one will ever be prosecuted under the EFB, even for putting a billboard on the front lawn, because the EFB is so bad as to be “incoherent and almost impossible to apply”
Unfortunately, the problem with the EFB as drafted is that it’s incoherent and almost impossible NOT to apply.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Police abuses in the name of terrorism at home (the U.S.) have made me more wary of police abuses abroad, and as such, I was reasonably sure that the terrorism charges were bunk the instant I heard about them and heard who some of the people were.
Honestly, I’ve got a feeling the arms act prosecutions are going to turn out to be bunk too – the result of the police feeling pressure to find SOME reason to justify the $8M they spent on surveillance and came up completely empty.
I’m not saying that there are real threats from terrorists, but terrorism is, by definition, an act of a civilian against other civilians – in other words, there are already crimes on the books to deal with this – the police do not need expanded power because the motive for harm is “political” instead of “motivated by greed” or “a crime of passion.”
But, that said, those of you who are beating up on David for using the phrase “alleged terrorist,” need no longer do so.
When it comes to these things, the New Zealand government has a much better track record at not overreacting – and that the overzealousness in the raids have been an aberration, not a pattern of abuse like we have here in the U.S. So if Farrar trusted that the police got the right guys? I don’t know if it’s a reasonable assumption but it’s an understandable one.
Now, I believe that there should be people in the police force sacked over this debacle – and maybe Clark should be one of them – and the reason that they should is because these people seriously wrecked the lives of 17 people for no good reason. When people screw up like this, they need to be held accountable. The ability to hold people accountable for mistakes and malice is, indeed, what separates New Zealand from the United States.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:21 am
“I believe that there should be people in the police force sacked over this debacle – and maybe Clark should be one of them. ”
Nice call Brian , however in New Zealand both government and the associated parasitic departments like police and cyfs are built on a hierarchically structured administration which unfortunately allows people promoted up to their level of incompetence , for example , Miss Clark and Animal Farm Howard . This process of climbing up hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely , until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent . This scenario could see someone like the inept – noncompliance James Sleep as a future Labour warty Prime minister .
Mr Beyer would be a happy clapping person if that happened on a day the ky would get a many lubrication applications at the big red play out .
November 9th, 2007 at 6:24 am
OK people, settle down, settle down.
The Solicitor General is now on record as stating thet the police raids ended some “very distrurbing activities”, and that no charges were laid inder the Terrorism Supression Act because the Act was poorly written, not because of the actions of police.
He has also stated that he may revisit these charges if new evidence is presented.
When the whole story comes out, as it should, perhaps more people may be concerned at the inefficiency of the law, rather than the methods used by those tasked to enforce it!
November 9th, 2007 at 6:34 am
I see the Maori Party is calling for Howard Borads resignation.
WHY?
The Solicitor General has had nothing but praise for the way the police acted.
His inability to lay charges under the Terrorism Supression Act is due to the poor quality of the legislation.
And wasn’t Tariana Turia a member of the Government that WROTE that legislation? Oh dear!
November 9th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Its not a blow to the police at all. The solicitor general said they handled it appropriately, They never said terrorism charges would be laid – they passed it on to the proper authority to consider the terrorism charge. The solicitor general, for whatever reason, decided not to lay charges. He has to live in the country and under its political system and may have taken that into account when making his decision, who knows.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:36 am
And the whole story doesnt come out if terrorism charges are not laid, so thats another reason the govt mightt like to duck the terrorism charges.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:31 am
They were never charged as terrorists. The police referred the evidence to the SG to get his opinions as to whetther charges under the TSA could be laid. He said the evidence was not supportive of such charges. The reality is that they will not be charged under the TSA.
By the way it seems a little strange that the Crown Prosecutor (an officer of the Crown Law Office) in Auckland provided legal advice to the police at the outset of the operation. Now the solicitor general (the head of the Crown Law Office) takes an opposite view.
Perhaps there is a need to review the function of that office to prevent such contradictory opinions emanating from the same organisation.
It would be a brave policeman or any other public servant for that matter to thumb their nose at pronouncements from officers of Crown Law.
Oh and by the way now we have the politised Law Commission getting into the act.
The poor old police have to operate in this confused disjointed environment
November 9th, 2007 at 7:34 am
The fact that the SG didn’t proceed actually gives me huge confidence in our system. All those people who scream this is a police state should shut up now. The police have to obey the rule of law, and have had to back down here. A sign of a healthy functioning civilian government
November 9th, 2007 at 7:40 am
“Now, I believe that there should be people in the police force sacked over this debacle – and maybe Clark should be one of them – and the reason that they should is because these people seriously wrecked the lives of 17 people for no good reason.”
Wow its a good job we have your ‘feelings’ to let us know whose guilty and innocent.
Maybe in future you could try doing a little bit of research prior to commenting on a decision you clearly know absolutely nothing about. It would perhaps take a couple of minutes of your time but would save you looking so stupid in the future.
Its a simple process that a few people on here seem unable to perform.
Step 1 – Actually read the information your going to comment on.
Step 2 – Form an educated opinion based on that information.
Step 3 – Comment.
For step 3 to actually be valid, steps 1 and 2 actually do have to be performed. For all those unable to complete steps 1 and 2 there is still hope and a community out there to support you where you will find people suffering from the same affliction
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Threads.aspx?topic=7
November 9th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Mike S: You say: “The police have to obey the rule of law, and have had to back down here. A sign of a healthy functioning civilian government”
This is utter and complete nonsense. Police in this matter are not backing down. Involve Thr Prime Minister and they do back down.
No person on this thread seems to understand that those in the Service of
the Crown are singled out in the Crimes Act of !961. They cannot advantage themselves to the disadvantage of others. They have to obey the Law like any else.
A prime example is the offending law breaking that has gone on over the last few elections. Get found out stealing and and you pass a law to justify your theft.
This Parliament is rotten to the core simply because Police bury legitimate complaints. We have a Police State.
Prove me wrong
November 9th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Dominion Post:
“Police will “almost certainly” be sued over their actions in the raids against alleged terrorist training camps, one of Tame Iti’s lawyers says.”
Will the situation concerning text message, e-mail and phone evidence [allowed under the terrorism act but not under the firearms legislation] also apply to any action suing the police, so the police will not be able to present any of the evidence they have and on which they based their decision to carry out the raids in the way they did?
And will the police be blamed for the post-trauma syndrome Turia says the people of Ruatuki now suffer or will she, Harawera and other politicians apologise for passing unusable law?
DPF:
“This is a huge blow to Police credibility”
“There will be questions in Parliament next week, no doubt, on whether the Police Commissioner still has the confidence of the Minister. ’
Shouldn’t this perhaps be the other way around?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Can’t believe that it has taken them this long to ask for compensation
November 9th, 2007 at 8:31 am
In time I think we will find it is the legal system that has lost credibility (if indeed you seriously considered it had any in the first place) not the police.
I think Mike S is tongue in cheek eh – we are moving ever closer to a totalitarianism with a rubber stamping “democracy” as witnessed by the EFB.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Jean: Maybe in future you could try doing a little bit of research prior to commenting on a decision you clearly know absolutely nothing about. It would perhaps take a couple of minutes of your time but would save you looking so stupid in the future.
Bit early in the morning to be so snotty, isn’t it? Besides, it’s Friday.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I have lived in a police state – for 8 years.
In that state, if the police had made a call like this the SG would NEVER have denied them or made them look like fools like this. If he had, the Police , and Army would have had him removed from his post and sent off to a small town on the Syrian border.
In a real police state the cops rush in and beat the living shit out of anyone standing near a group protesting.
In NZ, the Police are still largely accountable. God they are talking about rebuilding their relatinship with Tuhoe!
If this were really a Police state they’d go in and shoot them !
You have no idea what a real police state is like, the terror and fear that the sight of a uniform can bring. When was the last time you were sitting in a bar or cafe here and the cops came through demanding ID cards, and grabbing anyone who didn’t have one (or whose card was slightly out of order) and throwing them in the cells? Often for days and days, with their family having no idea? That is a police state.
this is nothing like one.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I didn’t say we’re in one, I said we are taking steps towards one.
“In NZ, the Police are still largely accountable.”
Pity the judiciary aren’t. That’s what needs an overhaul in this country.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Mike S: Some where in my correspondence of some years ago, I have an email from the Office of Rt Hon Winston Peters agreeins that we do have a Police State. surely such an astute politician would be sure of his ground in admitting this.
All that is required to have a Police State is to have Police preventing and defeating the course of justice in partnership with the Government
November 9th, 2007 at 9:03 am
What was the voting for the Terrorism Act and did the Maori Party in particular vote for it or against or abstain?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am
In New Zealand the definition of a police state is when you don’t get your own way, have to obey the law and don’t get enough compensation, payments or other tax payer money for nothing.
Like Mike I have also spent time in a police state (well two police states actually).
I am deeply pissed off at those howling down the Police and claiming innocence for those accused based solely on the Terrorism act being a pile of crap.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am
This is bollocks guys.
Does anyone really think that the cops would go in as they did, fully armed etc without legal advice? They had these guys under surveillance for over a year. Why would they go in, therefore without an expectation that the crown would proceed with the case?
Logic says, look higher up the food chain for the reason that the cases aren’t being prosecuted. And keep in mind that Aunty Helen had been briefed on all of this.
I feel sorry for the cops (can’t believe I just said that) who, IMHO, it looks like have been dumped on by all sides. Looks like what is right will be set aside for what is politic.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:26 am
And nome, wake up! If you a really arguing about the term “alleged terrrorist” then perhaps a University education is not all it used to be.
I would have expected better out of you at least – you normally put forward your view with rationality but that call is out of line.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:38 am
What the hell is wrong with you guys? The police have done nothing wrong. I’m glad these people have been pulled up. It was the law that failed. These people will still be charged.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:44 am
As one of the prime functions of Government is to ensure law and order and a credible police force to achieve that, it will be very interesting to see how Helen handles this, especially since the laws Parliament has passed are apparently ineffective. She already this year made a bloody meal out of the so-called police culture of late last century and the actions of a handful of officers and ex-officers [following the logic of which, all parliamentarians must be violent and liars - and unproceuted for either].
And will action be taken against Helen for the sub judice remarks the Solicitor General points out she made?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am
If there was any action to be taken, Sofia, I’m sure that Aunty H would merely introduce retroactive legislation to make her remarks legal.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I havent read all the above comments but IMHO this is yet another nail in the Socialists coffin.
Unlike those who post here the great unwashed dont understand the subtlies of governance and so will see this as one part of the Gumint (the SC) shitting on another part of the Gumint (the Police) and to add insult to injury the SC says the Act is a crock of shit to boot.
Hardly a ringing endorsment for the Socialists. Cant write a law to achieve the objective.
Cant wait for the next poll.
Mind you thats been par for the course over the past 9 years. A bunch of amateurs.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Pattern of poor law making here – Electoral Finance Bill, Terrorism Supression Act, and Forehore & Seabed.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Just in case you guys have misinterpreted my comments at no time did I criticise the police or say we were headed into a “police state”.
It would be generally accepted that tyranny is perpertrated by the poltical elite and the police are their instrument. In NZ we are starting to go down the route of the political elite, including the judiciary, having a lot more power than they should, with the police still, thankfully, standing between us and them.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Forehore & Seabed
Was this the prostution bill??
November 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am
sorry “prostitution Bill”
November 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am
You guys should tone your comments down, shit the arseholes might bring in a gagging law. Oh thats right they are trying. More power to you then.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:34 am
woo, some of the labour supporters can be so dumb…
“ALLEGED” – an alleged fact has been STATED but has not been PROVED to be true. – Collins Cobuild.
the government never confronted maori activists. tame iti was not even charged after shooting national flag in public. a guy like that in china would be executed that night. weak sauce!
November 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
(Hopefully) bye bye Broad. He staked his reputation on this didn’t he?
He’s a tool, but I do feel a bit sorry for him this time. He’s been shafted.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Methinks this is payback from Clark to Broad and his mates over the Louise Nicholson affair. Clark being the feminist that she is was highly pissed off about that matter. And remember Broad was in the Police when these actions occured and was accussed of stuff himself.
Shades of the Doone affair
November 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
The issue here appears to be disgraceful legislation that has been foisted upon the unsuspecting public by Parliament. The SG seemed very clear that the police action was appropriate having read the evidence. Seems a bit early to start celebrating some sort of victory for the oppressed minority (who seem to have a penchant for illegal/unlicensed firearms).
November 9th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Now, an optimist might say that if the Solicitor-General decides not to authorize charges sought by the Police, that is THE SYSTEM’S OWN CHECKS AND BALANCES WORKING, and a sign that we are in the very privileged minority that live in a country with a judicial system that can more or less be counted on.
90% of the world’s population live under the sort of authority where there is no chance of a Solicitor-General or anyone else stepping in to prevent the police bringing charges without appropriate evidence.
Although I doubt that some of the more extreme contributors to this blog – who seem convinced that New Zealand operates under a socialist dictatorship – would appreciate this small mercy…
(which is actually a rather large mercy!)
November 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Heads will have to roll.
Maoridom needs to realise that Labour have for years glibly used Maori to support their agenda both negatively and positively as it suits that is why the Maori party is so successful because they do act principally in interest for the Maori people first and then the wider community.
Broad has foolishly put his head on the block for stating his reputation etc was at stake and now he needs to resign honorably before the issue becomes an albatross around his neck.
More importantly both Annette King and Helen should resign as Helen knowingly released false trumped up information about the alleged “terrorists” which affected there right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty effectively sub-judice and allowed a public wave of sympathy to go her way with trumped up allegations of imagined threat that the Prime Minister was a target for the “terrorists” !!
November 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
LMAO, the stoopid cops done it again.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
For Pete’s sake everyone, how should we feel about having anti-terrorist legislation that is impossible to apply? If this is Margaret Wilsons fault, its her head that should be rolling forthwith, and seeing our government has shown willing already to pass retrospective legislation on a matter of political convenience, surely they can do it now?
The people most wronged here are the poor b. cops. I wish some of them would comment on this blog. The most frustrating thing for a cop is having criminals, and dangerous ones, that they’ve gone to a lot of trouble to catch, often at personal risk of their own life and limb, walk free because some b. lawyer, bureaucrat or politician stuffed up.
In more volatile countries, the cops would be storming parliament now if the government had stuffed them around as badly as this one has, starting with the despicable frame-up of their respected “straight man” Commissioner Doone.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
New Zealand A Police State? Proof below? Long standing.
Helen Clark Hansard
1. “This Government does not tolerate corruption. Any allegations are investigated”.
2. “I repeat that this Government does not tolerate corruption not (nor) has any New Zealand Government tolerated corruption. All allegations will be investigated”.
3. “It is the responsibility of every citizen to report wrong doing to the appropriate authorities and it will be investigated”.
May 2003 Directive: To link with pps a complaint concerning fraud (It was actually a complaint (16 April 2003) concerning corruption amongst Senior Police Officers sent directly to Helen Clark in view of her above statements in Hansard. It was forwarded by her Office to the Office of the Minister of Police, and thence to the Office of the Commissioner.
3 June 2003 Directive: For filing to link with pps. No response is required to this correspondence, of alleged fraud, forgery, corruption (Public Sector). This was to do with a complaint laid directly with the Prime Minister.
5 April 2006 Directive: “To police for reply (if any); CLO for information, concerning this complaint concerning corruption among Senior Police Officers forwarded from the Office of the Attorney-General Hon Michael Cullen.
So what is happening with this complaint lodged with Police Commissioner Howard Broad?
‘I allege that those Members of Parliament who supported the Electoral Finance Bill through the House have done so in an endeavour to advantage themselves over other parties and the voter. In so doing, they are in breach of the Crimes Act 1961, under those sections that are applicable to those in the Service of the Crown.’
As the present radio message urges I’ll email it to the Parliamentarians and Media along with my EFB submission. Could be an appropriate time.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
RRM Ive just looked out the window and saw the pink piggies fly past. You must be joking So lets get this straight.
The Police charge a significant number of persons under an Act of the Parliament. The Police have access to top level legal advice and opinion before they do so.
Then the SC tells us that the police were right to do what they did but sorry folks the Act is such a crock of shit that the charges wont stick.
Well HELLO!!!!!
November 9th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Clark had plenty to say and made capital on this just last weekend at Labour’s conference yet would not front on Campbell last night.
I wonder why.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
And yeah, it looks painfully obvious that Roger Nome is a thread-hijacking stooge for whom there is no bottom level of inanity.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Note the press release at 2.07 this arvo from Greg O’Connor and the Police Association. (See it at Scoop NZ). This is right on the nail. Like I said above, the cops are not happy chappies right now.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
It appears that a lot of commenters failed to read the Solicitor General’s full statement applauding the Police for their actions stating that something disturbing was going on and making it very clear that the problems lay with poorly written legislation. There is nothing there to suggest that Broad should resign or get sacked. In fact reading from the Solicitor-Generals statement left me with the view that the people who drafted the legislation and provided legal advice to our MPs should be resigning or preparing to recieve the boot.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Further to the bit on the news about the guy spending a night in a cell with a broken neck I think the blame there lies with the doctor that was brought in to see the guy and made the wrong call.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
How did the Solicitor-General get involved? Who directed him – informed him or drew the matter to his attention
or
Did he become involved through his own concerns. If this latter, then he has double standards. He has effectively cut out information that should be available to the Public. As much as the Validation Act
He is conspicuous by his absence in the EFB debacle which is odd in the light of criticism of the proposed EFB legislation – deemed flawed by the the Law Society etc and condemned by over 50 % of the submitters.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Surprise, surprise a watertight case springs leaks to no other than John Campbell when the job turns to shit, not just a hint or two, the whole bloody volume.Now who do we know that specialises in leaks. Smells like Heather the Plumber. At least it must have come out of a bloody big hole.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Would we be having the same debate if exactly the same circumstances pertained except the alleged terrorists were Islamic fundamentalists?
It’s a shame to me that no-one except for Brian above has picked up on the wider issue, which is that NZ’s anti-terror laws came about as a result of multi-national liaison to combat the global terror threat, and its provisions largely reflect those enacted in other jurisdictions. Unlike in NZ however, that legislation has given rise to a consistent pattern of abuse, as Brian says.
I suggest it’s naive to imagine that the framers of the legislation innocently got it wrong, rather I think it’s been deliberately designed to cast the widest possible net. Given that terrorism is not a threat to a state (e.g. even if Washington, LA and NY were attacked, the U.S. would still function), and that existing laws already covered such acts, you have to ask why these laws are deemed necessary.
Even though I think the legislation is unecessary, I also know the police, SAS and SIS wouldn’t have acted without good cause, and I hope that the accused take up the poodle’s challenge and waive their right to maintaining secrecy with respect to the evidence gathered.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Interesting:
On Morning Report [audio] this morning, Police Commissioner Howard Broad was asked the obvious question: why didn’t he try and prosecute the Urewera 17 under the Crimes Act, for something like conspiracy to murder? His answer is revealing:
Those options were not available to us… The offences under other legislation had not been committed. So conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to do those other sorts of things, those offences had not been [committed?] at all.
(Emphasis added)
So, despite the lurid claims leaked to the media about plots to kill political figures, there was no conspiracy to do so. Given the low bar for conspiracy – essentially it requires proving an agreement between the parties (which need not be explicit) to carry out a crime – what this means is that the police had, at best, a few dumbarses mouthing off, with no plan, agreement, or intent to do anything.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/11/no-conspiracy.html
November 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
roger – conspiracy requires a specific crime – agreeing to assassinate a political leader, stockpiling weapons and ammo, and training for it at length is not a conspiracy to murder if you haven’t yet chosen which political leader you’re going after.