Onya, Granny!

Written By: - Date published: 11:05 am, October 10th, 2014 - 46 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Today’s Herald editorial raises important questions about the police search of Nicky Hager’s home.

In response to a complaint of theft – common old theft – five police officers spent the best part of a day searching the Hager home and taking away everything from computers to an iPod. Not because Hager was considered a “suspect” but because he could be a “witness” to the crime. If every theft complaint made to police resulted in this kind of response, searches under warrants of houses and businesses would be constant and not much else would be achieved by our constabulary.

46 comments on “Onya, Granny! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. wtl 1
    10 October 2014 at 11:22 am

    Unfortunately, by calling what happened ‘theft’ the Herald is playing right into the hands of those who are erroneously asserting that Hager was in possession of stolen property, when according to expert legal opinion Hager faces no risk of criminal liability at all.

    • Sacha 1.1
      10 October 2014 at 9:13 pm

      Yes, copying is not stealing because it does not deprive the owner of continued use of the information. Different offense.

  2. ianmac 2
    10 October 2014 at 11:28 am

    Andrew Geddis has an important discussion going on re the rights and wrongs of the Hager Raid case. The commentary also raises some important points.
    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-case-for-and-against-nicky-hager

    For example Andrew writes’“Of course, a “legal right” is not the same thing as a “legal duty” to act. The police have investigative independence, so nothing says that they must search Mr Hager’s property (and take away his devices and materials) in this way. Furthermore, Mr Hager is not a suspect in any offending – he’s an “innocent witness”, in the sense that he’s simply lawfully** in possession of information that might help with identifying the hacker.

    • Sacha 2.1
      10 October 2014 at 9:19 pm

      Is there any precedent for Police taking action like this against a witness rather than a suspect?

  3. wekarawshark 3
    10 October 2014 at 11:47 am

    Anyone got an idea of how long it will take for Hager to get a hearing?

    • ianmac 3.1
      10 October 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Imagine being without your phones and laptop and notes and contact numbers for say, umm well Courts are all busy so how about July 2015 for a prelim, then maybe a hearing before the end of 2015? Wait a minute. A Mr Key is on the the line and he thinks 2016 would be a better time to start. OK?

    • Tracey 3.2
      10 October 2014 at 1:44 pm

      If he goes for injunctive relief he could have an initial hearing in a few days or weeks… If he goes the usual civil route this is months and months and months.

  4. wyndham 4
    10 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

    The chief objective of the whole confiscation exercise is surely one of intimidation.

    Any of you journos step out of line . . . . .

  5. RRM 5
    10 October 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Big old BS – the e mails were STOLEN, it is as simple as that.

    Political-type people will make of that what they will.

    Perhaps if Hager had interviewed a few people, instead of just writing a book of one-sided allegations ABOUT them, based on STOLEN e mails, and published at a slightly less cynical time than a few weeks before the election, he might not be in this position today?

    [lprent: Based on reading the blog posts of the various people that were referred to in the emails passed to him. You really can’t get much more independent that the actual actions of arseholes.

    Plus doing a pretty widespread verification among many people who read those blogs and keep an eye on Slater, Odgen, Farrar, Ede, and others of that dirty brigade. Like me and the score of people that I pointed to and introduced to Hagers people.

    Why would you ask Slater? He is currently saying that yes he made those statements in those emails, but that he was lying and bullshitting. What makes you think that he wouldn’t lie or bullshit to a journo or for that matter the police or a judge?

    You appear to be an idiot troll. ]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      10 October 2014 at 1:21 pm

      Legal type people will see that you don’t even know what the law says, and dismiss your ignorant opinion out-of-hand on that basis alone.

      • RRM 5.1.1
        10 October 2014 at 1:23 pm

        We’ll see.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          10 October 2014 at 1:36 pm

          Which section of the crimes act do you think applies here?

          • RRM 5.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2014 at 1:43 pm

            No idea but I’m sure the search warrant would make interesting reading.

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2014 at 1:48 pm

              You must be ropable that Slaters home and office, computes and servers werent siezed under warrant in 2012. Such injustice. Almost made you take out a private prosecution of the police for failing their duty to prevent the use of stolen emails? Yes?

              • hoom …
                12 October 2014 at 11:04 am

                Indeed.

                And the Cops really ought to have confiscated all the IT gear of the Nats & related parties back in the days of the Hollow Men because, you know, at least one of them might have been a witness…

            • wtl 5.1.1.1.1.2
              10 October 2014 at 1:48 pm

              So you are acknowledging that your assertion of something being “as simple as that” is completely plucked out of you arse, rather than being based on what the law in NZ actually says.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.3
              10 October 2014 at 1:56 pm

              Get a clue, S. 252.

              Get another clue: precedent:

              We conclude that the convictions entered in the District Court should be quashed, but only on the ground conceded by the Crown, namely that computer data is not ‘property’ as defined.

              My bold.

              • Tracey …
                10 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

                it depends on context in a way OAB. for example the brambles case stated that data that was client related could never pass to another, whether legally obtained or not, if the clients had not authorised the release.

                repeated in nz high court in citibank v white

              • ianmac …
                10 October 2014 at 5:29 pm

                Great Anon Bloke. I referred to that a few weeks ago but could not find a definitive reference.
                A piece of paper might be property. But data copied and nothing material taken is a problem.
                A bit like stealing the words spoken. Not property really.

            • framu 5.1.1.1.1.4
              10 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

              “No idea but I’m sure the search warrant would make interesting reading.”

              so – you dont know what your on about AND your avoiding any replies

              wonderful effort – the drop kick bin must be getting really empty

              • Tracey …
                10 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

                bear in mind

                “… Perhaps if Hager had interviewed a few people, instead of just writing a book of one-sided allegations ABOUT them, based on STOLEN e mails, and published at a slightly less cynical time than a few weeks before the election, he might not be in this position today? …”

                is just a rehash of slaters statement along the same lines which has been taken by his accolytes or his numerous aliases and dispersed… an ebola of the mind if you like

              • wekarawshark …
                10 October 2014 at 2:46 pm

                “No idea but I’m sure the search warrant would make interesting reading.”

                This would be the search warrant issued by the police who claim Hager is a witness not a suspect?

              • RRM …
                10 October 2014 at 3:34 pm

                have it your way then, the police are a private security force, outside of the law, obedient only to the PM’s office. It’s all dirty politics.
                Dirty politics, dirty politics, dirty politics.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 October 2014 at 3:43 pm

                  Get a grip. The Police exhibit clear bias in their approach to crimes – there’s nothing controversial in this statement – they themselves acknowledge and pledge to tackle such biases when they occur.

                  If they were implicated in the abuses of power made evident by the Rawshark hack, the right wing death threat factories would be redundant.

                • wtl …
                  10 October 2014 at 3:45 pm

                  have it your way then, the police are a private security force, outside of the law, obedient only to the PM’s office. It’s all dirty politics.
                  Dirty politics, dirty politics, dirty politics

                  Which has absolutely no relevance to the preceding comments by your critics. No one has said in this thread that the police acted “outside the law”, they have simply said that your comments regarding the legal situation were incorrect. Yet you fail to respond to these criticisms and simply refuse to engage.

    • NZJester 5.2
      10 October 2014 at 1:26 pm

      Why was Slater not treated in the same manner for his writing an attack on someone that was not in the public interest. Slater had actual physical stolen property in the form of a hard drive and a file cabinet of documents. He made a lot of allegations that had a lot of people investigating his target and yet all the investigations got dropped as the allegations proved false.

      All the allegations made in the book Dirty Politics that so far have been investigated however have fond to be true.

    • RRM 5.3
      10 October 2014 at 3:45 pm

      [lprent: Based on reading the blog posts of the various people that were referred to in the emails passed to him. You really can’t get much more independent that the actual actions of arseholes.

      Plus doing a pretty widespread verification among many people who read those blogs and keep an eye on Slater, Odgen, Farrar, Ede, and others of that dirty brigade. Like me and the score of people that I pointed to and introduced to Hagers people.

      Why would you ask Slater? He is currently saying that yes he made those statements in those emails, but that he was lying and bullshitting. What makes you think that he wouldn’t lie or bullshit to a journo or for that matter the police or a judge?

      You appear to be an idiot troll. ]

      Nice, that’s like saying that all you need to have a fair trial is the prosecution counsel (Hager) and the prosecution’s witnesses (you and “your people” you introduced to Hager’s people.)

      No defense required or even allowed.

      The ends justify the means. Just another beautiful day under the People’s Glorious Revolution.

      [Lprent: so you didn’t read my note, instead you start jerking off? Typical.. ]

      • Once Was Tim 5.3.1
        10 October 2014 at 10:28 pm

        “[lprent: I don’t try to eliminate them. I just try to keep the rabbits down to an acceptable level. Why would I spoil the fun. ]” (http://thestandard.org.nz/police-raid-hager/#comment-905342)

        You’ve a studier cardio-vascular system than I. I just want to say Christ! and eeeeee by gum! Jesus, Fcuk Me! and fuck me with a feather duster. I ‘spose the fuckwit is “fun” – sort of ….
        But then I guess your tolerance of complete fucking idiots is one reason why visiting this site is on the daily agenda for me
        I just got thru’ reading the post “Noam Chomsky on Student Debt”. I’ll bet RRM has a tertiary qual of some sort (maybe not).

        ……. anyway, back to Hobbitville else I run the risk of seeing you (lprent) as oikonuk?

    • Murray Rawshark 5.4
      11 October 2014 at 3:48 am

      Perhaps if someone using the pseudonym RRM hadn’t made a post so foul on Kiwibog that a bloke who disguised himself as Jimmy Saville felt moved to delete it I would worry about your opinion. Given that, and the fact that you’re also spewing a load of ignorant rubbish, you can go and…………….

    • Redbaiter 5.5
      12 October 2014 at 11:30 am

      “You appear to be an idiot troll. ”

      I banned this guy years ago for his comments dripping with vitriol but lacking any substance on my own blog.

      But back then he was virulently left wing. And IMHO he is still pretty much a left winger.

      Why is he today over here being accused of being a left wing troll? And I think he voted for National last election.

      Maybe he’s a good case for study.

  6. NZJester 6
    10 October 2014 at 1:13 pm

    Don’t forget also that Hager is on record before the election as saying he had removed all files relating to Rawshark from his home just in case it was raided.

    Funny how someone such as Slater who actually had physical stolen property in the form of a Hard drive and a file cabinet of documents in his possession never received the same treatment of a raid.

    Only one officer is apparently assigned to that case and I think I read they are on holiday at the moment.

    I’m curious also why Slater has not yet been back before the courts over not having given up the names of the people who gave him that property.

    • RRM 6.1
      10 October 2014 at 1:45 pm

      Well if Nicky Hager said he no longer has them, then that must be true; Nicky Hager’s word is unimpeachable, because he’s Nicky Hager!

  7. Kevin Welsh 7
    10 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Maybe the whole objective was to find out about what he is writing about now rather than anything to do with what has already been written.

    A nice little smokescreen indeed.

  8. ianmac 8
    10 October 2014 at 5:36 pm

    I believe that every item seized was receipted, tagged, and sealed under the eyes and insistence of Nicky’s lawyer. Mr Price I think? And will remain sealed until Nicky’s court hearing which will determine whether the police acted within the law and then whether they have the right to trawl through the contents.
    Will be a benchmark with far reaching consequences.

  9. Richard RAWSHARK 9
    11 October 2014 at 6:56 am

    The herald opens today with a call for DC’s resignation. Yawn… again..

    but as I read through I spot this beauty

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11340711

    Fran back to her old self? slight possibility, pity it’s all for her own skin but still a reasonable article for once. Perhaps she does have a glimmer of ethics, or perhaps she is more worried about the link to her name exposed by Dirty politics and is getting a good alibi in order, and the fall guys are already going down so they threw her a life jacket saying she didn’t receive/give information with Keys dogs of media war.

    Even Armstrong criticizes English and Key, has the Heralds blue walls started to show a slight crack? Is the light seeping out?

  10. hoom 10
    12 October 2014 at 2:14 pm

    It was well-known that Hager – like Slater – sees himself as an investigative journalist, experienced in dealing with sensitive information from whistleblowers and political operatives.

    Fuck you Granny Herald that sentence is a disgrace.

    Above anything else, Hager is a fully legit & globally respected for decades real investigative journalist.

    Slater is little more than a well-connected ratbastard.

  11. Dramaticus 11
    12 October 2014 at 10:39 pm

    Sort of looks like Key, on reflecting after the election, had a pissed off mood about the inconvenience of Dirty Politics and decided to use the police in a very Sunday afternoonish way ,as they say in the old midlands ,”go round and do the little bugger” for upsetting the guv
    God help us from the arrogance of authority that is in question of its actions but feels it has more right than the majority to not be answerable to the nation
    Key should have been gone this election but we all know what happens when sheep get scared in a hill paddock they run to the top corner

Links to post