Hager vs police – suppressing debate

Written By: - Date published: 6:46 am, October 24th, 2014 - 71 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, David Farrar, law, police - Tags: , , , ,

The police are taking legal action against Nicky Hager:

Police taking Hager to court over docs

The police searched Mr Hager’s home earlier this month looking for the source material for his book, Dirty Politics, which alleges underhand activity by National Party politicians. … However, they were sealed with the High Court when Mr Hager claimed they were privileged. The police are now asking a High Court judge to let them review the documents.

The action against Hager was and is designed to intimidate, to suppress debate. Hager, however, has his own ideas, and is taking legal action against the police:

Press statement in relation to search of Nicky Hager’s home

On 2 October 2014, Nicky Hager’s home in Wellington was searched by police. Mr Hager asserted that documents kept at his house were protected by privilege, including because they contained information that might identify confidential sources. Rather than search those documents, the Police sealed them and lodged them with the High Court pending directions from the Court. Mr Hager had concerns that the search was unlawful and sought legal advice.

Mr Hager has now had a chance to consult his lawyers. He believes even more strongly that the Police have acted outside of the law in seizing his property and seeking to search through all of his documents. Mr Hager has decided to challenge the Police’s actions by way of judicial review. He expects to launch those proceedings during the next few days.

Hager’s legal fund on Givealittle stands (at time of writing) at NZ$57,742 – and still climbing! It is not too late to donate.

Fundraising for Hager has also gone international, with a separate fund started by the Freedom of the Press Foundation (whose directors include Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden.) That fund stands (at time of writing) at US$18,217, and its not too late to donate to that one either.

Let’s remember what’s at stake here. Rod Oram in the Sunday Star Times:

Suppression of debate in NZ

Is free and rigorous debate increasingly suppressed in New Zealand?

No, says, John Roughan, John Key’s biographer and a New Zealand Herald editorial writer, in his article available at http://bit.ly/Roughan

Yes, says, Nicky Hager, investigative journalist. He laid out chapter and verse in a recent article in the UK’s Guardian (http://bit.ly/Hager), as he did in his book Dirty Politics. His piece triggered Roughan’s blistering response.

I say yes.  Suppression of evidence, ideas and debate, in ways subtle and now increasingly brutal, is my experience as a business journalist in New Zealand. It is no consolation we are just a micro example of an accelerating trend worldwide.

…

I say to the Slaters, Grahams, Odgers, Farrars, Edes, Lusks, Williamses, Collinses and all their ilk, you are destroying some good people and good society.

And all of their ilk…

71 comments on “Hager vs police – suppressing debate ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tom Gould 1
    24 October 2014 at 7:10 am

    That nice smiling man at the top really has an extremely ugly underbelly and the fear is we are stumbling, in a very Kiwi ‘she’ll be right’ and ‘nothing to hide’ way, toward our own Tory version of one-party-state fascism, with the police in cahoots. Our only defence will be the courts, so it’s only a matter of time before these Tories start on them too. Some conspiracies are real, they just have a different name.

      • greywarshark 1.1.1
        24 October 2014 at 9:53 am

        @ vto – The smile for the day.
        Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it……….

        • vto 1.1.1.1
          24 October 2014 at 10:09 am

          ha ha yep, human nature – its a strange and difficult thing to understand at times, yet it is the most crucial to understand in order to do the good and right things for us and our wee planet with all its critters and flowers…

          • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1.1.1
            24 October 2014 at 3:43 pm

            Mate, you are quite right. The people we should be most concerned about are the ones who deny that conspiracies for profit, personal or political gain exist. Because either they are naive, or they are deliberately lying to us – and hence one of the conspirators!

        • Chris 1.1.1.2
          24 October 2014 at 12:26 pm

          …let’s do it, let’s eat a banana.

          • greywarshark 1.1.1.2.1
            24 October 2014 at 2:07 pm

            bananas – NZs favourite food I hear. And very nourishing. Good idea Chris.
            With climate change we should be able to grow them as a crop up north. Some have been successfully grown already, not commercially I think.

    • tc 1.3
      24 October 2014 at 10:09 am

      Tories started on them soon as they took office.

      Many senior legal figures very unhappy with Power and Findlayson’s slammed through changes to a system that was working just fine till they arrived with the tory sledgehammer.

      Our law society is taking it’s issues to the UN about our own gov’t, as the MSM of course side with team key.

    • Chris 1.4
      24 October 2014 at 11:31 am

      They started on the courts a long time ago. Look what’s happened to our NZBORA.

  2. vto 2
    24 October 2014 at 7:42 am

    For Rod Oram that is a heavy piece. For him to take personal aim at people such as Roughnan, Ciollins, Farrar, and other feral scum like Slater is a big step. Such pieces are never written lightly.

    Oram’s opinion carries weight in this sphere.

    • greywarshark 2.1
      24 October 2014 at 10:04 am

      I have just read Oram’s piece. I have admired his straightforward clear thinking and regarded him as a jewel in the crown of NZ journalism, like Kim Hill. Now with this piece of warning backed with the authority of past experience, he has given us something we must bear in mind always, and adopt the same credo that he has. I’ve bolded the very relevant quote from The Economist that he supplied.

      When The Economist magazine began in1843 it committed itself to:
      “A severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.”

      That’s the credo I live by – because of the society I grew up in and I live in now, the education I was given and the learning I keep doing, the people around me then and now, and the journalism I’ve done for almost 40 years and will do for decades to come.

  3. Anne 3
    24 October 2014 at 7:51 am

    I have the impression that the latest attempt to discredit Nicky Hager is to question his “journalist” status. It might work among the ignorant and gullible, but it won’t work in a court of law. That is assuming they don’t also become part of the government conspiracy to outlaw anyone who dares to challenge the status quo by speaking the truth.

    As for the police. They are no longer impartial bystanders. They are donkey deep in this government’s political agenda as their actions to date have demonstrated on numerous occasions. I [metaphorically speaking] spit on them.

    • Chooky 3.1
      24 October 2014 at 9:59 am

      I think it is not Hager’s journalist status that is in question…but rather what else he has to reveal….it is an attempt to stifle journalistic freedom, investigative journalism and thereby undermine democracy….because journalists like Hager are the defenders at the gates of New Zealand democracy….

      It is New Zealand democracy that is under attack here and is at stake here!

      • Anne 3.1.1
        24 October 2014 at 10:04 am

        Yes. It is that too Chooky. But, at the government’s behest, they are questioning Hager’s journalist status as a means to achieve a certain political end.

        • alwyn 3.1.1.1
          24 October 2014 at 2:01 pm

          I thought that a New Zealand Court had ruled on the question of whether writing a book was considered to be “news” and covered by the various legal protections available to journalists.
          The New Zealand Herald journalist wrote a book, which the judge ruled, if I am reading it properly, was not entitled to protection from having to reveal the author’s sources. Investigative journalism covered articles but not books.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11277377

          Was this appealed and reversed? If not doesn’t this cover the Hager case as his work was also a book?

          • Tracey 3.1.1.1.1
            24 October 2014 at 5:32 pm

            could you link to the decision, its hard to trust the herald to have

            a. read the whole thing
            b. understood it
            c. explained it properly

            • alwyn 3.1.1.1.1.1
              24 October 2014 at 7:11 pm

              I have to say that it is hard to trust me to have
              a. read the whole thing
              b. understood it
              c. explained it properly
              particularly part b.
              I am not a lawyer and the 31 pages of the ruling are basically unintelligible to me.
              The ruling, which is linked to in the Herald article, is here.

              https://zen.nzherald.co.nz/media/webcontent/document/pdf/201425/CIV2013-404-2168%2016-06-2014.pdf

              Maybe there is a lawyer out there who understands the status of this decision and whether it is relevant.

            • Murray Rawshark 3.1.1.1.1.2
              25 October 2014 at 12:28 am

              The relevant sections are 69 and 70 of Winkelmann’s decision. Basically she’s saying that Fisher didn’t research the book as part of his job for Granny, therefore it’s not a news activity. It’s a decision designed to give ngati poaka what they want, and looks eminently challengeable.

              • alwyn …
                25 October 2014 at 3:26 pm

                Thank you.
                I would have a few questions then.
                It may be, as you say, “eminently challengeable” but has it been challenged?
                Is it similar enough that if it is not challenged it become a precedent for the Hager claim?
                I seem to remember reading that precedents only apply to courts at the same or a lower level. Is that the case and is Hager appealing to a higher court than Winkelman’s and would that affect things?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 October 2014 at 3:28 pm

                  Different law in play. Hager case turns on the Evidence Act, Fisher’s the Privacy Act.

  4. Pat O'Dea 4
    24 October 2014 at 7:56 am

    The latest police action against Hager is vile, it is an affront to everyone who supports democracy.

    • Chooky 4.1
      24 October 2014 at 9:54 am

      Pat O’Dea +100…but they are working at the direction of John Key and Nactional….who have lots to hide…and who are scared of the corruption that Hager will reveal!

    • Murray Rawshark 4.2
      25 October 2014 at 12:32 am

      Most police actions are an affront to supporters of democracy, Pat. This one is just a little more direct and open in its support of Key’s totalitarian ways.

  5. RedBaronCV 5
    24 October 2014 at 8:07 am

    And the R Wingers coming on here say “NZ is over it” meaning dirty politics. If the Nacts are so ” over it” why are they raiding Hager. And I’d be more convinced that the MSM were sorry if they had headlines for Hager

    • greywarshark 5.1
      24 October 2014 at 9:51 am

      ‘NZs are over it?’ Dirt like that couldn’t and shouldn’t be swept under the carpets. It’s bad Housekeeping. We need better public servants maintaining our national entities.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1
      24 October 2014 at 8:25 am

      I’m glad he articulated the problem in such strong terms. The fourth estate, like the courts, is a fundamental pillar of democracy and cannot function if confidence can be violated so comprehensively.

    • emergency mike 6.2
      24 October 2014 at 2:40 pm

      He did but I thought he should have rubbished the interviewer’s repeated suggestion that Dirty Politics might not be a work of journalism because, wait for it, it’s a book.

      The lawyer replied that it didn’t matter since the police raid scooped up documents that might compromise Hager’s sources for other unrelated things. Which is true and an important point but, wtf, since when does being in a book form disqualify a piece of writing from being journalism? Give me strength.

      I think the MSM just can’t get their heads around the importance of Hager’s book. They are a bunch of careerist intellectual lightweights. Mixed in with some with one more notch of brains enough to realize that Hager’s book says a lot about them, their failings, gullibility, and cozy gravy train riding in the blue coach.

      Nicky Hager is more journalist than the lot of them put together. It seems that some don’t even know the meaning of the word.

      • Murray Rawshark 6.2.1
        25 October 2014 at 12:36 am

        The interviewer is relying on Winkelmann’s decision on Fisher’s research, see my comment at 12.28. I suspect Winkelmann will be overturned anyway, because it would seem impossible to differentiate material Fisher had obtained during his Herald work from stuff he’d got in his spare time. Research is not like that, and if judges actually were learned past a bachelor’s degree, they might realise this.

  7. philj 7
    24 October 2014 at 8:25 am

    Keep up the good work John. Fox News is lookin for Journo’s just like you. Dime a dozen tho’ y’all.

  8. Rodel 8
    24 October 2014 at 9:25 am

    For the first time I have just read an article by Roughan.

    His statement, “….. the effect on his readers, which is a journalist’s only concern.” says it all.
    His only concern is the effect on his readers? Is he really saying his only concern is to manipulate the thoughts of his readers?

    That concern I can appreciate, but there are other concerns that a professional journalist should have. Hint John…truth/objectivity/impartiality/ evidence..I could go on.

    I’ll now donate a few more dollars to Hager to protect those concerns.

  9. cogito 9
    24 October 2014 at 9:26 am

    @ Tom Gould.

    Spot on. We have our very own Keyitler and he is strengthening his stranglehold bit by bit each day. It is frightening how kiwis are allowing this to happen.

    Hager absolutely needs our full support.

  10. ianmac 10
    24 October 2014 at 10:02 am

    Are digital files property? This must be a factor for the Hager case since if the files given to Nicky were not property, then there is no theft to explore.

    In the bouncer/Dixon case,“However, in a submission seen by the Otago Daily Times, lawyer David Boldt said a hearing was appropriate to test the Court of Appeal’s principal conclusion, that digital files are not property.”

    and “Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal cited the Dixon case in quashing the convictions against James Watchorn who, it was alleged, dishonestly downloaded data from his former employer TAG Oil’s computer system.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11347179

  11. venezia 11
    24 October 2014 at 10:35 am

    As a member of the public with no links to journalists I am wondering how much support there is among journalists in NZ for the points made by Felix Geiringer this morning. Rod Oram has made it clear where he stands. But are all the others in the pocket of the Big Corporates and the Nactional Party?
    If it were my own profession, I am sure there would be a great deal of support from my peers if confidential information were illegally siezed by police. Protecting sources is fundamental to the work.
    This smells strongly of collusion by “Journalists” not really worthy of the name. And speaks volumes about the abysmal state of the profession in NZ.

    • Anne 11.1
      24 October 2014 at 10:50 am

      Thank-you for that venezia. I, too, have wondered about the dearth of noise coming from many in the MSM. Noticeably, they are the ones we now know were in a very cosy arrangement with Cameron Slater. What is more, they would have been well aware much of Slater’s information was coming from John Key and “his office”.

  12. tc 12
    24 October 2014 at 10:46 am

    From across the ditch’s crikey:

    “Freya Newman, the 21-year-old student who blew the whistle on a secret scholarship awarded by a private design school to Tony Abbott’s daughter, should be applauded for her bravery.

    Whistleblowers like Newman take massive personal risks. In return, they often face smear campaigns and a lifetime of being branded a “troublemaker”. Taking on powerful individuals and institutions takes a financial and emotional toll, too. ”

    That’s why media outlets must take a stand in their defence and acknowledge the critical role they play in exposing information those in power would prefer remained hidden. ”

    Abbott’s gov’t has been attacking and undermining ABC/SBS from day 1 as it attempts to do what teamkey did years ago and get all the MSM aligned to their agenda.

    • Colonial Rawshark 12.1
      24 October 2014 at 3:51 pm

      In modern western “democracies” speaking and acting on ones inner conscience is now considered a criminal, political act.

      This is where the 0.1% corporate power elite are taking us. And by not presenting vigorous dissent, the comfortable liberal, intellectual and well off middle classes are complicit with them.

  13. Jay 13
    24 October 2014 at 10:51 am

    Cameron slater was illegally hacked. Some of this was published. Now there is an investigation to find out who the criminal is that hacked him. Journalists who publish such information, and who know the identity of the hacker, and who profit from the information, surely can’t expect to be exempt from the ensuing investigation

    Should it be legal that end justifies the means? Is that not a slippery slope? Who will judge what is right to hack and publish, and what isn’t? Don’t we often talk about our right to privacy? Is it okay for hackers to invade our privacy but not the police or other government departments? Are we possibly letting political leanings cloud our judgement here?

    We don’t want dirty politics, although it is evident in all political parties to some degree and it may be naive to think we can avoid it.

    Neither do we want to start excusing criminal activity on the basis that it is “right”, since right and wrong can be awfully subjective.

    [lprent: I suggest you read s68 of the Evidence Act rather than extracting psuedo law from your arse. It always looks so unseemly and frequently starts flamewars that I have to stomp out (like this).

    There is no particular concept of ends justifying the means or the inverse in the legal structure. What there are a weightings of conflicting legal principles and legislation governing what is best for society, with very very few of each being absolutes. That is why we have judges whose job is to balance the conflicting demands.

    And before the next idiot brings up the decision on Fisher – that was based in the Privacy Act which has a whole different set of weightings to those in the Evidence Act.

    I have a tendency to regard fools talking about “right” and wrong when they are talking about legal principles that are irrelevant in law are usually just trying to start flame wars. It triggers my anti-trolling instincts. I’d suggest that you start concentrating on what actual legal principles apply in this situation or what your opinion is on the morality without trying to pretend to understand legalities – which is all that you are really doing anyway. ]

    • Anne 13.1
      24 October 2014 at 11:08 am

      Neither do we want to start excusing criminal activity on the basis that it is “right”, since right and wrong can be awfully subjective.

      Too right Jay. Now how about you take note of your own advice and stop being so “subjective” in your analysis.

      For instance… recognising that Cameron Slater started it by “illegally hacking” into the Labour Party’s website and pinching confidential details (including financial details) of the party’s members? Oh, and shall we add the “receiving of illicitly (at the least) obtained contents of a person’s hard drive in order to destroy that person’s reputation and to receive thousands of dollars payment for doing so?

      And btw, only one political party indulges in the despicable two-track dirty politics game – National.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1
        24 October 2014 at 11:11 am

        You’ve got your motives a bit mixed up there Anne – Rawshark said the tipping point was the abominable remark Slater made about Judd Hall.

        • Anne 13.1.1.1
          24 October 2014 at 11:25 am

          Nah… you’re being pedantic. I’m pointing out the police can’t justify hassling and intimidating one person while choosing to ignore the fact that the person’s complainant is guilty of similar activity – for venal and highly questionable purposes and personal financial gain. So run along…

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1
            24 October 2014 at 3:54 pm

            “…similar activity…”

            There’s no equivalence between Slater crimes and Hager’s justifiable release of Slater’s emails. Even if they had raided Slater that wouldn’t justify raiding Hager.

            So no, Slater didn’t start “it” – he received stolen property and conducted a personal vendetta with zero public interest.

            In response to your final jibe, next time you’re throwing your temper get your facts straight.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2
      24 October 2014 at 11:08 am

      Take a deep breath. Calm down, try and understand something.

      The hack (not theft, and there is a difference between the two in law, whatever you wish were true) is/was illegal. Crimes act s.252

      Publication of hacked (not stolen) material where the publication is in the public interest is not illegal. Protection of confidential sources is covered by the Evidence Act, s. 68.

      Do you respect the law or not?

    • blue leopard 13.3
      24 October 2014 at 11:30 am

      Perhaps we need to start bringing in laws that hold politicians accountable for their actions?

      As far as I understand, there are no such laws i.e. politicians are not legally bound in anyway with regard to their public duties (other than following the usual laws, of course) and this is justified by the fact that politicians cover so many things and represent so many people that they are protected from being legal obliged and instead, we leave it to their conscience, integrity and honour to be honourable i.e. the expectation is that they cultivate a respectful attitude and behaviour toward both the democratic process and the public (It would be great if someone could correct me if I am wrong, I came to these conclusions from reading rules for politicians on the parliamentary website).

      If politicians start disrespecting the democratic processes and undermining public trust and start behaving in underhand and corrupt ways to bypass this non-legal requirement for honourable behaviour there is no real recourse for us, particularly if they are being sneaky about it.

      It would appear that the hacking law protecting journalists who report hacked information acknowledges the above.

      However, perhaps it is time for us to redress the rules around politicians and start getting them held personally responsible for their actions and this might obviate the potential proliferation of these hacking events.

      • Colonial Rawshark 13.3.1
        24 October 2014 at 3:53 pm

        Perhaps we need to start bringing in laws that hold politicians accountable for their actions?

        The problem is that current laws are not even fairly enforced. So you could bring a law in as you suggested. But chances are that it would only ever be applied to Labour and Green MPs.

        • blue leopard 13.3.1.1
          24 October 2014 at 4:12 pm

          That is a very good point.

          I don’t think bringing in laws is the answer, because I see the reason behind not having them- I am really attempting to get people to think about why the hacking, and the journalism based on it, is occurring in the first place.

          Also highlighting the value of politicians who have respect for processes and the damaging effects of those who don’t.

          I am grateful for all those politicians who do act decently and respect the public. Those awful ones who don’t are giving the ones who make the effort a bad name. (No cheap jokes re politicians reputations’ already being shot through, please)

    • BM 13.4
      24 October 2014 at 11:36 am

      Also.

      At the time Cameron Slater was quite unhinged mentally, If I remember correctly he was unable to work due to mental illness.

      I really don’t know how much weight you can put in on the ramblings of a stressed out, mentally unwell blogger.

      • felix 13.4.1
        24 October 2014 at 11:56 am

        Hasn’t stopped you from quoting him, linking to him, and running his lines for him for years though, has it?

        Bit late for you to try that line of defense, fucko.

        • Tracey 13.4.1.1
          24 October 2014 at 5:28 pm

          it seems bm can show us how we got this govt that openly lies and breaks laws. he cannot make connections between matters if they are seperated by time.

      • Tracey 13.4.2
        24 October 2014 at 5:26 pm

        the prime minister and the former minister of police and justice, katherine rich, fonterra, carrick graham, anne tolley all give it quite a bit of weight, and some of them gave him money.

        • BM 13.4.2.1
          24 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

          Never deal with people with mental issues, you never know what they’re thinking or what they’ll do.

    • JeevesPOnzi 13.5
      24 October 2014 at 12:00 pm

      “Is it okay for hackers to invade our privacy but not the police or other government departments? Are we possibly letting political leanings cloud our judgement here?”

      I’m not sure- are you?

      Nobody, anywhere, has suggested that what the hacker did was not illegal.
      Nobody, anywhere, has suggested that Hagers ‘ends’ justify Rawsharks ‘means’.
      Nobody, anywhere, has suggested that Rawshark must be let off scott free.

      What is being said here is that a journalist came accross some information of such overwhelming public interest that he decided that although it was allegedly stolen
      (and it is still only an allegation- the theft has not yet been proven before the courts)- it was still important enough to seek a detailed legal opinion and consider publishing select passages detailing the acts of certain persons-

      These public officials/publicly known bloggers/political activists/ and other persons who appeared to be trying to undermine the democratic process by enacting a longterm plan to gain and hold power of NZ through a secretive cohort of deliberately trained, influenced and carefully placed individuals.

      So no- the Ends don’t ‘justify’ the means- they were just an awesome bonus. While burgling a house- the burgler stumbled upon the worlds most devious child porn ring.

      Nobody, anywhere, is suggesting Hager should be ‘exempt’ from any investigation.
      There is no proof anywhere that Hager actually knows who the hacker is. He may think he knows- but how can he really know?

      Hager is NOT a suspect in any crime. Why is he being treated like one? What is the probable cause, or even prima facie the police have to suggest that there is any evidence of who the hacker is, in Hager’s house? He could have picked up a 300 page printed pdf off a park bench in the domain for all they know.

      Don’t police normally ask witnesses for statements and then accept what they say?

      Do you have his details Nicky? “No, I don’t- but I do have an almost complete investigation into Police corruption on my harddrive- but you’re not interested in that are ya?”

      So when exactly did Nicky Hager become a quasi-suspect in a quasi-crime???

      “Are we possibly letting political leanings cloud our judgement here?”

      You are so fucking clouded you left what you call ‘judgement’ back in the slime trail that leads to Camerons lair.

      • Murray Rawshark 13.5.1
        25 October 2014 at 12:51 am

        I’ll suggest right now that Rawshark should be let off scott free. He performed a public service. He should be allowed the same defence as the priests who attacked the squirrel balls, or the nuns who sabotaged Hawk aircraft destined for Indonesia. He broke the law to prevent far greater harm. I’m not going to say he did anything wrong.

    • Tracey 13.6
      24 October 2014 at 5:23 pm

      you are calling for the resignation of john key for admitting he and his govt deliberately break the law i presume?

  14. Steve 14
    24 October 2014 at 11:10 am

    Jay – we have a parliament, courts and judges who decide these things. And they have set the test as “public interest”.

    I realise judicial processes are inconvenient to a right-wing world view…..

  15. Doug Stuart 15
    24 October 2014 at 12:50 pm

    suppressing debate ?

    • JeevesPOnzi 15.1
      24 October 2014 at 2:01 pm

      THat wasn’t debate- it was wilfully malinformed unqualified opinion designed to use deliberate mistruths to criminalise by association anyone who may dare to criticise our Dear Sheepler.

      It was smearing by logic obfuscation.

  16. Anne 16
    24 October 2014 at 3:58 pm

    A refreshing development:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11347803

    A high-powered legal team has formed around Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager to challenge the validity of the police search warrant which was used in the hunt for the hacker Rawshark.

  17. Fear all 17
    24 October 2014 at 3:58 pm

    As I have always maintained I believe the actions of this govt to be in the general doctrine of a FASCIST right wing and Zionist aligned direction merely by their stated aim to remove socialism and the freedoms that it has brought to NZ society
    Without the action of the first Labour govt we would have been run by this extremely right wing offshoot (The National Party)of the most deplorable forms of Conservatism and by their own doctrine the power of the people would have been severely repressed long before now
    This govt has got away with some of the most destructive abuses of democracy that this country has seen for along time and it is really beyond decency that we should have to tolerate it

    • cogito 17.1
      24 October 2014 at 4:24 pm

      “Zionist aligned direction”

      Yes, and won’t be long before our Zionist PM sends off Kiwis to fight Arabs.

  18. jay 18
    24 October 2014 at 5:38 pm

    I understand legalities and the Evidence Act including section 68 very well. Section 68 merely protects a journalist from revealing his source in a criminal proceeding, unless a Judge orders otherwise. It is clearly meant to protect a journalist if he is summonsed to Court and compelled to give evidence.

    Section 68 doesn’t in any way prevent the Police from executing a warrant looking for evidence that might support a charge of an offence punishable by imprisonment, in this case I expect said offence being dishonestly accessing a computer system (which is a Crimes Act offence). Why not? A search warrant is not a “criminal proceeding”.

    The basis for a search warrant is that it must be to intended to obtain evidence of a offence punishable by imprisonment. The magnitude of that offence is irrelevant. If we imagine for a moment that the hacker had murdered Slater to obtain the emails, would we still expect that the Police couldn’t search Hagers address looking for evidence that might lead to the identity of the offender? Of course not. The principle must remain the same regardless of the offence, as long as it is punishable by imprisonment. If not this would be a major legal loophole that “journalists” could exploit to conceal criminal offending of any kind.

    We can talk about the “spirit” of section 68, and discuss whether or not the Police have violated that, however there is nothing in the black-and-white letter of the law that prevents the Police from seeking to identify a criminal, who happens to be a journalists source, by searching that journalists home address.

    Call me a fool and a troll if you like, but I expect that as long as the search warrant application was well set out, and as long as the law was followed in terms of the warrant’s execution (which it may not have been since the law is quite intricate and easy to fall-foul of), the Police search will be found to be justified. There is no way though that Section 68 offers anybody protection from being the subject of a search warrant. And the issuing officer (a Judge, JP or Registrar), must have agreed also.

    • lprent 18.1
      24 October 2014 at 6:27 pm

      Sure they can obtain a search warrant, I never said that they could not. However there is nothing in the act that says that the disclosure is them standing up in court and disclosing their source. It could be as easily seizing their information to do that disclosure. You will find that almost all cases on this stuff here and overseas invariably turn on the evidence obtained as much as the disclosure. Why? because it is hard to get conviction on unsupported testimony.

      Similarly there is nothing that says a search warrant overrides a privacy act act violation. Which is what the police and registrar have achieved

      Seeking further afield, the police typically hold such evidence for considerable periods of time – usually years. There are considerable civil penalties for such restraints of trade.

      And a pile more..

      Basically you are a legal simpleton

    • Tracey 18.2
      24 October 2014 at 6:41 pm

      you are calling for the resignation of john key for admitting he and his govt deliberately break the law i presume?

      you also have to examine the intent of the law to protect sources

  19. RRM 19
    24 October 2014 at 5:47 pm

    I love how you lot repeatedly name-call Farrar as though he is somehow to blame for he police searching Hager.

    There are a number of VERY libellous allegations about Farrar being some kind of sex offender still live on this site, The Standard and one or two commenters here are very fortunate Farrar isn’t as litigious as some other people in the political arena are…

    [lprent: No there are a lot of comments implying such things. There aren’t any stating anything of the sort as a fact. However you obviously don’t know the difference. Let me demonstrate the difference to you.

    You have asserted as fact that there is such a comment. That is to me a defamatory statement because we spend a great deal of effort making sure that no such comments are left.

    You have a 3 month ban unless you can find a comment asserting as fact that Farrar is a sex offender.

    If there is such a comment, I want it to be removed. But if I am right, then I get rid of a fact asserting liar for a while. I can’t lose..]

    • BM 19.1
      24 October 2014 at 6:51 pm

      Have a look at some of the stuff Rhinocrates has put up, some of it’s pretty rough, to be honest.

      There’s been a few posts like this
      http://thestandard.org.nz/no-changes-for-kiwiblog/#comment-869553

      [lprent: RRM pointed to this, so i will comment on it.

      Rhinocrates confined himself to the hearsay in “Dirty Politics” and the rawshark dumps, and the logical inferences from that hearsay.

      None of that material has been disputed as being inaccurate by the authors and is in fact the subject of the police actions referred by the post. The police would have had to have been assured in a sworn statement that it was the actual material from a theft to take the actions they did. So we have to treat it as being an accurate statement by Farrar’s “friends” – people who knew him well.

      Personally, if the hearsay wasn’t accurate, then I would suggest that Farrar should look closely at the low quality of his “friends” making such accusations about him. If it was accurate, then rhinocrates drew some logical inferences and wrote a public good warning as part of a debate on that particular topic.

      I did read that comment and the following discussion closely for obvious legal reasons and the ban button under my finger. I have to say that it pushed my estimation of rhino up a couple of notches. He always made it clear exactly what was from the rawshark material and what was his speculation. ]

      • Murray Rawshark 19.1.1
        25 October 2014 at 1:03 am

        Rhinocrates was writing about stuff that NAct operatives seem to have done. It was pretty rough, all right.

        He also mentioned the famous Jimmy Saville disguise for a fancy dress party, but said he didn’t know if it were true or not. There is a photo of Farrar dressed as Saville going around. I have a copy. I don’t know if it has been faked or not. It looks genuine to me.

        Rhinocrates correctly stated that getting young NAct females drunk to have sex with them, if not consensual, would be rape. Rough alright, but not on Rhino’s part.

  20. Chooky 20
    24 October 2014 at 6:48 pm

    @RRM..re your assertion ….”I love how you lot repeatedly name-call Farrar as though he is somehow to blame for he police searching Hager”

    …..who has said Farrar has something to do with the police searching Hager..? citation please…. only you have suggested this by making this accusation …and where is the name- calling?

    … or perhaps you know something we don’t?

    ..or maybe YOU think Farrar really is guilty of something?

    …. or maybe you are trying to smear the Standard ?

  21. fdx 21
    25 October 2014 at 1:08 pm

    To be fair, Farrar does look like a creepy uncle, albeit with a supercilious smirk on his gob.

  22. Sable 22
    26 October 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Hard to know who the real criminals are these days.