Kiwiblog

Rochelle Rees has put out a release:

Further in the emails sent by Rob Gilchrist to the police counter-terrorism units, was an email sent on 30/07/2005, containing naked photographs of a female and then teenage activist, sent with the subject line “needs a shave….”.

Now Gilchrist was not a police officer, and I suspect he sent a lot of unsolicited e-mails to his police handlers, but nevertheless you would at a minimum expect the Police to have told him not to send such material ando/or reconsider his value to them, if his judgement is this flawed. Any person who circulates naked photos of someone they have been intimate with is a scumbag.

There is no evidence that the police objected to the “needs a shave….” email, and clearly Rob Gilchrist had reason to believe that police would want to receive such an email. On the contrary, the fact that the police continued paying Rob Gilchrist $600 per week for over another 3 years, shows they did not view his conduct as grossly inappropriate.

Maybe they did, maybe they did not. But this is just another reason why the Police Complaints Authority (or another suitable body) should be asked to investigate the activities of the Police with regards to Gilchrist.

Also discovered on Rob Gilchrist’s computer were naked photos of a then 16 year old activist, which look to have been taken while she was sleeping. Naturally, I am left wondering if those were forwarded to the police, and whether any photographs of a similar nature were taken of me and sent to the police.

An understandable concern.

The Greens are understandably upset that Rob Gilchrist also spied on them for the Police. Not to be fair to the Police, I very much doubt they asked him to do so. He probably just sends them any stuff he thinks is useful. But there are real issues of judgement for the Police involved. They should have made very clear that he should only report on activities where people planned to break the law, not all sorts of protest action. If they are paying him $600 a week, they do have some responsibility for his actions.

If a group of protesters are planning to break the law by breaking into private property, and digging up GE potatoes (something that elements of the Greens have done in the past), then the Police are acting properly in monitoring this and trying to prevent this.

But if a group are just planning to hold a public protest against say the Police having tazers, then the Police have no legitimate role in collecting information about that protest.

This issue is posing some dilemmas for the Government, even though it all actually happened under the previous Government.

On the one hand the new Minister of Police doesn’t want to start the job, by undermining the Commissioner. They need to have a healthy working relationship. And also generally Police Ministers should stay as far away as possible from operational issues. Of course this rule is not absolute as we saw with the Commission of Inquiry into police conduct in the 80s.

But the element of possibly spying on a political party makes it a problem for the Government, especially as Rochelles Rees has scores of e-mails, documents and phone calls between Gilchrist and the Police. I imagine these documents will be revealed to the public a bit at a time over the next few months. And that means every few days the Government will be asked what is it doing about the issue. And the Greens will try and portray National as endorsing or being unconcerned about Police spying on protesters and even other political parties. The irony is of course it happened under Labour, and National has been victim of spying, leaked e-mails and secret taping more than any other political party. But perception is more important than reality, sometimes.

So is there a solution for the Government? Well, yes, a simple one occurs to me. Why not refer the issue to the Police Complaints Authority. This wipes the issue off the front page, and will ensure that some independent scrutiny is given to the issue. This is ideal for the PCA and is much better than having a formal external inquiry by a QC.

And here’s the clincher for me. I am 99% sure that after two months of released emails, documents and phone calls, Mr Hager or Ms Rees (or someone from the activist community) will themselves complain to the PCA. So why let it drag out in the media for weeks, and months. Just refer it to the PCA now.

Interestingly Garth George is also supportive of the Greens criticism.

We now know that at least one activist has been working for the Police, and also that several activists worked for private investigators.

I wonder if it is possible that some of the smaller activist groups are 100% made up of informers?

Trevor Loudon has blogged the reaction on Indymedia to the revelations.

Also Bryce Edwards has blogged an e-mail from three years ago raising concerns about Gilchrist.

The Dom Post reports what John Key said on Breakfast:

Mr Key today said police investigations were an operational matter and the Government could not direct who it investigated.

But the spying allegations raised some concerns, he said.

“I think the main point here is we would need to be satisfied as any New Zealander would that those being investigated were worthy of investigation, in other words, they present a real or credible risk to the safety and security of communities, not just a group the police target because they feel like it,” he said on TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.

He said he would be concerned if frivolous investigations led to a loss of public loss of confidence in the police’s judgment.

“I wouldn’t like an individual group like Greenpeace to be targeted,” he said on Newstalk ZB.

However, he would be more comfortable if it was individuals who were being investigated rather than organisations.

But he said police based their actions on a wide range of information and even environmental groups could “undertake quite violent behaviour”.

And Judith Collins is sounding more concerned than initial reports suggested:

Mrs Collins said she wanted to know the facts before deciding whether an inquiry was needed, but would be concerned if innocent people were being watched.

She has asked Mr Broad for a report at their weekly meeting today. “I would be very concerned if law-abiding groups and activities were being spied on.”

It will be most interesting to see if anything eventuates. Ministers need to be very careful about second guessing the Police, but there certainly seem to be some questions that need answering.

The SST has a collection of fascinating stories on how the Police have been spying on various protest groups for many years, through a paid informant who was active in the groups.

The informant, Rob Gilchrist, was exposed by his (presumably ex) girlfriend Rochelle Rees. Rochelle is an animal rights activist and also got well known for her Google Bomb against John Key.

Gilchrist, in one of the more stupid acts known to mankind, asked Rochelle to help fix his computer. Now if you are spying for the Police, and communicating with them via e-mail, asking your girlfriend (one of those you are reporting on) to fix your computer is monumentally stupid. He also gets stupid marks for not using a Gmail or web based mail account for his spying, so that there is little trace on the computer.

So who were the Police spying on. According to the SST, it was:

1. Anti-Bases Campaign
2. Auckland Animal Action
3. Beneficiaries Action Collective
4. GE-Free NZ
5. Peace Action Wellington
6. Greenpeace
7. People’s Moratorium Enforcement Agency (GE Free)
8. Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE)
9. Save Happy Valley
10. Wellington Animal Rights Network

I do wonder how much overlap of membership there is – some people may belong to all 10 groups

So should the Police be spying on these groups, if they are protest groups. Well the answer is, it depends.

If they never set out to break the law, and organise legal protests, then the Police should be taking no interest in them. Presumably that is what Forest & Bird are not there or the World Wildlife Fund.

If however the groups have a deliberate strategy of breaking the law, of commiting damage, of theft etc – then the mere fact they are a protest group doesn’t make them immune from the law, and doesn’t mean the Police can’t use informants to find out what illegal activities are planned.

So do the ten groups above all take part in organised law breaking activities? I’m not sure they do. Save Happy Valley certainly does and I have no problem with the Police monitoring them, if done within the law. But I suspect in some of the cases, the Police would be stretching it to justify their surveilance through an informant. The question I would ask is whether the use of Gilchrist as an informant actually prevented any crimes? I not, then they should not be spying n the groups. If however they were planning illegal activities, some surveillance can be argued as justified

There are a number of interesting questions, especially about Gilchrist himself who is profiled here.

1. How did he become a Police informant – did they turn him, or did he offer? If he offered out of the blue, then no surprise the Police said yes.
2. Was he informing just for the money of $600 a week, or did he disagree with what these groups did?
3. He is reported to have been a ringleader is advocating some of the illegal protests. Could this not be entrapment if he promotes some form of illegal direction action to the others, and then gets them arrested?
4. Did anyone ever wonder how he managed to live for so many years without working? Did they just assume it was the generous welfare state?
5. Did he pay tax on his informant income?
6. How many other spies are there in these protest groups?
7. Does anyone else find it ironic that it was under a Labour Government, that all the leftie groups were spied on?