No charge for “teapot” cameraman

Written By: - Date published: 3:14 pm, March 26th, 2012 - 12 comments
Categories: election 2011, law - Tags: ,

In breaking news 3News reports:

Freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose will not face charges over the ‘teapot tape’ saga – despite investigators concluding the café conversation was private.

In a police press conference this afternoon, Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess told media Mr Ambrose will be issued with a warning.

I’m surprised at the “private” conclusion (international advice differs). But the decision not to charge Ambrose was surely correct. The issue of the punitive attempt to fine Ambrose is still to be decided.

A 'private' meeting...

12 comments on “No charge for “teapot” cameraman ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    26 March 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Hey what’s that little black bag on the table there? Surely their security crew noticed that, right??? 🙂

  2. ianmac 2
    26 March 2012 at 3:34 pm

    That needs clarification:
    Was it unlawful to leave his recorder on the table?
    Was it unlawful to retrieve it?
    Was it subsequent actions that made it unlawful?
    What does unlawful mean compared to a criminal act?
    Sort of cleared but damned.

    • Pete George 2.1
      26 March 2012 at 4:12 pm

      If Armbose had in fact completely accidentally made the recording, and then destroyed it when he found out about it, then this would have been cleared up very quickly.

      • ianmac 2.1.1
        26 March 2012 at 4:35 pm

        But which part is unlawful?
        Was it a private conversation?

      • McFlock 2.1.2
        26 March 2012 at 4:36 pm

        But then the censor would have been in his head.
           
        He found he’d made the recording, and referred it upstairs for his employer to make the call. Probably what I would have done, even without being a reporter. 

      • Anne 2.1.3
        26 March 2012 at 7:43 pm

        Oh joy, I can just imagine if Pete George had been the journalist in question. He wouldn’t have been able to get home fast enough to decipher the contents and spread them all over his blog-site.

      • Pascal's bookie 2.1.4
        26 March 2012 at 7:53 pm

        Ambrose maintains that it was, in fact, accidental Pete. The police say they have some doubt about that (which means they do not think a conviction would be correct http://t.co/6Rbodwma ).

        But yeah, if he had deleted it, there would be no story, And if he had been sick that day, there would be no story. And if john key had said “You know what, we invited the media, we were in a cafe, with the media everywhere, go ahead and print it” the story would have been different.

        But so what?

      • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.5
        27 March 2012 at 11:30 pm

        You’re assuming that two elected representatives talking in a public place have either a right or a reasonable expectation to privacy, neither of which I feel have been adequately established.
        (And no, I’m not talking in terms of the law- in the law they clearly have the right as they are public citizens. What I am talking about is whether such a thing is good for democracy or not, and whether it is morally acceptable for our politicians to be having one set of meetings in public and another in private. Generally issues, whether political or not, should either be discussed openly or not at all)

  3. Treetop 3
    26 March 2012 at 3:42 pm

    So everytime that Key wants to misled or dodge questions, he can now say that it was a private conversation.

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      26 March 2012 at 5:21 pm

      Yes, and it’ll be just as truthful as everything else that comes out of his mouth: correct when taken at face value, but after digging in you’ll find massive grey areas and huge room for different opinions.

  4. David H 4
    26 March 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Sorry I reckon that Key should have been charged for wasting police time!