ODT on Search and Surveillance Bill
The ODT editorial:
There has been a good deal of fuss made about the possible consequences of the Government’s decision to implement a Bill based on the Law Commission’s 2007 report “Search and Surveillance Powers”. Many fears have been raised about what the legislation might mean were it to be implemented and, according to some interpretations, enforced to the letter.
The first point that needs to be made is that the Clark Labour government actually introduced a Search and Surveillance Powers Bill last year; this has been withdrawn and a substitute Bill introduced which includes powers being granted to a wider range of law enforcement and regulatory agencies, including the Inland Revenue Department, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Reserve Bank.
Both National and Labour have supported the law changes to date.
The Government argues the new Bill will provide a coherent, consistent, and certain approach, and claims it will balance law enforcement and human rights. Those who have expressed opposition say it gives far too much power to the bureaucracy, which should be restrained by independent authority such as the courts. They are correct. The powers granted by the Bill are excessively broad.
They apply a one size fits all model, when it is inappropriate.
For people who have been under the impression that one of the principles of our criminal law is the right to remain silent, this Bill proposes a challenge, since agencies of the State are to be given an examination power – available now only to the Serious Fraud Office – to compel a person to answer relevant questions when “reasonable grounds” exist to suspect that a crime punishable by imprisonment has been committed or will be committed and that the suspect has evidential material – a compulsion order subject in most but not all circumstances to the approval of a judge.
Another angle that hasn’t been well publicised.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Ministry of Fisheries ?
Is there a threat to democracy here? I await the billboards
November 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
to compel a person to answer relevant questions when “reasonable grounds” exist to suspect that a crime punishable by imprisonment has been committed ”
And what happends if they don’t answer? Do they get shock treatment or waterboarded?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Nick, wouldn’t not answering questions when you have no right to silence be an offence in itself? Like refusing to provide a blood sample in drink/drive cases.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
“Nick, wouldn’t not answering questions when you have no right to silence be an offence in itself? Like refusing to provide a blood sample in drink/drive cases.”
Yes, I Guess so F E.
But hey, lets trust politicians with this one, give the Meat Board power to detain you, the politicians have our best interests at heart after all.
F E if you have not already done so, I would strongly suggest you watch Q & A:
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/judith-collins-interviewed-paul-holmes-3105218
I almost fell off my seat when I heard this:
Paul Holmes: So you are actually proposing reversing the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?
Collins: Yes, it’s wonderful isn’t it? Its the only way we can catch these people
November 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
NickB
Innocent till proven guilty is the cornerstone of a democracy even though some extend that to the right to silence. When I think of Nia Glassy’s people and the twins I’m not so sure.
But then I think of NZPolice not getting it right in searches etc and think on the myriad others this bill will empower and that fills me with trepidation.
For SIS, MILInt, GCHQ, Customs they should have extended powers but with judicial review and it should be against designated terrorist groups,
Local govt? No way.
But why not name and list gangs while we are at it as one should terrorist orgs.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Nick, I saw that elsewhere too. Please tell me she did not really say that?
Is it really the policy of the National Party to reverse the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Oh, it is only for the proceeds of crime stuff. The cops have wanted to do that for a long time because they want to take the assets of people they believe are crims even if there isn’t enough evidence to prove they are crims.
Still, we must trust the police implicitly because obviously they wouldn’t to to confiscate the property of anybody who wasn’t actually a crim in some way, right?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Well something must be wrong somewhere, FE, cause I’ve noticed there’s a lot of rich crims.
I’m not really inclined to tolerate that, and I’m very keen to find a way to express my inclination.
I don’t really think that this will result in innocent people being stripped of their assets, because if that person is genuinely innocent and not some relation of some scumbag, then I think in this country the media would be all over that person and the authorities would find themselves in very hot water indeed.
That may not be enough protection from a lawyer’s perspective, but given that I want to prevent all criminals from benefiting in anyway from their crimes, including being prevented from passing any of those benefits whatsoever onto their families or associated persons, how would you suggest such a framework might be designed?
November 6th, 2009 at 6:09 am
not so many as you might think, reid.
I don’t share your optimism re the media holding the government to account in any way at all where potentially innocent people are concerned. In my experience the media are uniformly pro-crown and have neither concept of justice nor any real legal knowledge to allow them to understand what is really going on.
The question that you must answer is this: am I willing to have my assets stripped from me even if I have done nothing wrong, in order to allow criminals to be pursued? If you answer yes, then all is well for you. If no, then you have an issue with this legislation.
Personally, I have an issue with this legislation.