John Pagani
Well here's some context around the decision to drop charges against the Urewera 13.
Crown prosecutor Ross Burns said the Crown case relies heavily on video footage taken in the Urewera Ranges.The Crown says footage captured by police shows the group carrying out military training exercises in 2006 and 2007.The exercises are alleged to have taken place on private Maori-owned land. Police went onto the land after getting search warrants and installed motion-sensor cameras.A High Court ruling found that putting the cameras on private land was illegal.But because the Evidence Act allows unlawfully gathered evidence to be used when the alleged crimes are serious and when the evidence can not be gathered any other way, the court ruled the evidence could be used.Lawyers for the accused appealed against that ruling at the Court of Appeal, which found the cameras installed by police were lawful and the evidence could be used.But the defendents appealed against the second ruling in the Supreme Court, which ruled earlier this month that the evidence had been gathered illegally.By a majority verdict of three to two, the court found the evidence could not be used against the 13 accused facing firearms charges alone, but could be used against the four facing more serious charges.
So just adding that up:
- The High Court said the evidence could be admitted.
- The Court of Appeal said it could be admitted.
- The Supreme Court overruled, in some but not all cases, by three to two.
(Why doesn't it surprise me to see the Supreme Court once again judicially legislating? But that argument can wait for another day.)
As Greg O'Connor of the Police Asociation says:
the Supreme Court has ruled on what it has identified as a gap in New Zealand's law covering the use of any video surveillance by Police. It has essentially ruled that because there is no affirmative provision in law making such surveillance legal, it must by default be considered illegal. As such, it has ruled any evidence gathered from such surveillance is inadmissible except in narrow circumstances where other considerations 'on balance' mean it should be allowed despite being improperly obtained."That is different to how the law has been interpreted by the Courts up until now, where it has essentially been assumed that because video surveillance is not prohibited, it is generally permitted.
And this is supposed to be evidence of police incompetence? I don't think so.
Too many people have been far too quick ignore the seriousness of what's at stake here. Just imagine if the variety of ethnic nationalism at issue was the type preached by the Norwegian monster.
It is alleged that the group would have committed violent offences including murder, arson, intentional damage, endangering transport, wounding with intent, injuring with intent, aggravated wounding, discharging a firearm or doing a dangerous act with intent, using a firearm against police, committing a crime with a firearm and kidnapping.They are also facing firearms charges.The Crown have listed the guns which they allege the group had. They include a sawn off shot gun, a Lee Enfield .303, a rifle, a sawn off rifle and four other rifles.It is also alleged that the group had Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic rifles, including an AK47 style rifle.
The idea that the local cop should have wandered up there and told them to calm down is naive to the point of contemptible.
Greg O'Connor is right:
Those who were quick to leap to the conclusion that Police had no evidence justifying the arrests should now feel embarrassed. The charges were withdrawn not due to any inadequacy in the evidence, but rather due to an inadequacy in the law that had not previously been definitively ruled on"The Supreme Court's new interpretation has major implications for policing of all kinds of serious crime, especially organised crime and drug dealing. The Supreme Court has invited Parliament to pass a law authorising video surveillance, and this must be done urgently. Until then, Police's ability to take successful action against methamphetamine dealing gangs and other serious criminals is now in serious jeopardy,"
