Police raid on Hager ruled illegal

Written By: - Date published: 4:41 pm, December 17th, 2015 - 264 comments
Categories: accountability, Dirty Politics, police - Tags: , , , , , ,

Reprinted from Scoop.

High Court finds police raid on Nicky Hager was illegal
Thursday, 17 December 2015, 4:15 pm
Press Release: Felix Geiringer

Wellington High Court judge Justice Clifford issued his judgement today on the legality of the police search of Nicky Hager’s home on 2 October 2014.

The judge found that the search was illegal. He said that the Police had failed to disclose relevant information to the Judge who issued the warrant. As a result, he formally declared that the warrant was “fundamentally unlawful”. He also found that the search was therefore unlawful. Justice Clifford also expressed concerns about other aspects of the Police’s actions.

Mr Hager said he is very happy about the decision, for his family and because of the important principles it upholds.

“The heart of the case is the public’s right to receive information about the actions of people in positions of authority. This decision acknowledges that confidential sources used in investigative journalism, in this case my book Dirty Politics, deserve legal protection.”

More hearings will follow on other police actions taken against Mr Hager and on the subject of costs and damages. But Mr Hager said this decision was the most important one, affecting all news media and also present and future whistle blowers. “This decision is very good news for New Zealand journalism,” he said.

Mr Hager thanked the large numbers of people who donated money to help cover court costs and the experts who wrote affidavits supporting his case.

264 comments on “Police raid on Hager ruled illegal ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    17 December 2015 at 4:50 pm

    Wow. There needs to be an inquiry. I am pretty sure the Crown will appeal tho …

  2. NZJester 2
    17 December 2015 at 4:59 pm

    At the next chance they get we will see National put in a law under urgency making it a retroactively legal raid and to prevent him claiming any money over the raid!

    • Johan 2.1
      17 December 2015 at 7:58 pm

      I can’t see National being that stupid, the negative press would be unbearable.

      • Lara 2.1.1
        18 December 2015 at 7:24 am

        I dunno. I think much of middle NZ would be okay with that actually.

        They think that because Dirty Politics was written based on information which was stolen, that therefore Nicky Hagar received stolen goods and is a criminal.

        That’s as deep an understanding of investigative journalism as they have.

        And so for Hagars home to be raided is okay with them. Because he’s just a lefty criminal anyway. They’d probably be okay with him being thrown in prison without trial for a rather long time.

        • Tautuhi 2.1.1.1
          18 December 2015 at 5:23 pm

          Unfortunately JK and the Natz don’t understand investigative journalism and they believe it should be outlawed, any journalist or reporter in NZ who writes anything remotely controversial will be removed from their positions.

          One has to a pet parrot like Mike Hoskins on the State Broadcasting Channel or Paul Henry at TV3

  3. Tracey 3
    17 December 2015 at 5:06 pm

    The only people surprised will be supporters of Key and this government. I reckon the crown told the police (if the police didnt already know) that it was pushing shit uphill. So who made the Crown push the shit? The documents I read made this very clear.

  4. ropata 4
    17 December 2015 at 5:14 pm

    (repeating my comment from Open Mike...)

    Great result for Nicky and his team. A true Kiwi standing up against a sick establishment. I hope he wins some kind of compensation after this saga. Were the cops attempting to stifle his next book about Police malfeasance?

  5. Paul 5
    17 December 2015 at 5:15 pm

    Key will have fled to Hawaii.

  6. One Anonymous Bloke 6
    17 December 2015 at 5:17 pm

    That’s made a good day even better, apart from the awful spectre of poverty haunting so many of our peers.

  7. Manuka AOR 7
    17 December 2015 at 5:28 pm

    “The heart of the case is the public’s right to receive information about the actions of people in positions of authority. This decision acknowledges that confidential sources used in investigative journalism, in this case my book Dirty Politics, deserve legal protection.” …bears repeating

  8. Bill 8
    17 December 2015 at 5:28 pm

    Question. Unlawful as it may have been, am I right in supposing the polis got to trawl the stuff they seized anyway? I mean, I know some stuff was meant to be sealed and whatever, but does anyone really believe they didn’t go through at least some of the stuff they had before any ‘sealing’? Meaning that they got what they wanted, if what they wanted was there, and lawful/unlawful or legal/illegal is a retrospective nicety they don’t have to give a flying fuck about.

    • Lanthanide 8.1
      17 December 2015 at 5:35 pm

      Yip, that seems to be the problem with these things.

      There needs to be some sort of fines and punishment, as well as taking the information away.

      If there’s no penalty, or even if there is a penalty but they still get to enjoy the fruit of the crime, then there’s no true disincentive not to simply do it all again in the future if the cause is decided to be worth the penalty.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1
        17 December 2015 at 6:00 pm

        I like the idea that the management in the police that organised/carried out the raid all get fired at the very least. A good fine and possible imprisonment would go a long way as well. They should also never be employed, either directly or indirectly, by the government again and they should be banned from a management position anywhere for at least five years.

        • Bill 8.1.1.1
          17 December 2015 at 6:39 pm

          I like that. Throw in loss of pension…

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 6:54 pm

            Prosecution for perjury would be just, and yet I cannot help but observe that a society that tolerates the National Party gets what it deserves: criminal cops are an inevitable consequence of right wing thinks.

    • Chooky 8.2
      17 December 2015 at 5:35 pm

      +100…we still dont know why they did it and what they wanted…and whether they got it…and who they were acting for

      • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1
        17 December 2015 at 6:03 pm

        They did it because, IMO, they were told to by this government and they were acting to protect this government. If they were acting for the people then Dirty Politics should have had the police investigating this government and bringing criminal charges.

        • ropata 8.2.1.1
          17 December 2015 at 6:18 pm

          how f*cked up is that.
          i thought the police were supposed to enforce the law on behalf of the Courts.
          not act like the PM’s personal militia and bust into people’s homes without due process.

          this theme of cops acting fast and loose with the law is totally wrong and heads must roll.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 7:10 pm

            Yeah nah: rolling heads will roll straight into private security positions and nominations for the National Party list.

            Prosecute them for perjury, burglary, oath-breaking, human rights abuses, wasting police time, and conspiring – with Cameron Slater and the National Party – to commit hate crimes.

          • Lara 8.2.1.1.2
            17 December 2015 at 7:11 pm

            IKR

            That’s what we expect of tin pot dictatorships.

            NZ is looking more and more like a tin pot dictatorship everyday.

        • Anne 8.2.1.2
          17 December 2015 at 8:02 pm

          As simple as that!! Thanks DTB.

          What I want to know is: who else has been protecting this government? The Ministerial offices? The Public Service and SOE chiefs? The Banks? The high level business and professional organisations? The media? The police and the security services? None of them did – or even needed – to cover to protect the Clark govt. so why are they covering up for this corrupt bunch of incompetents?

          I would appreciate what others think might be the answer to the conundrum.

          • ropata 8.2.1.2.1
            17 December 2015 at 10:51 pm

            lots of toadies, leeches, PR men, dirty operators like whaleoil, big polluters, big profiteers, bullshitters and con artists, and the self styled “elite” of society, all have a lot invested in NatCorp™ and will do anything to keep the property bubble party rolling as long as possible

        • Johan 8.2.1.3
          17 December 2015 at 8:05 pm

          You forget that in the type of society that we live in, people with wealth call the shots. There are always lots of followers awaiting crumbs that may fall their way.

      • dave 8.2.2
        20 December 2015 at 6:34 am

        hacking labour party computers no action ,trying to hack the standard no action ,molesting a waitress no action from the police . there 3rd world banana republic police force who are now a tool of political oppression to maintain a corrupt ruling elite in power

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3
      17 December 2015 at 5:40 pm

      I think it depends how the evidence was “sealed”, given that at that point (from memory) a lawyer was involved. Breaking a seal should be obvious: that’s what they’re for.

      • weka 8.3.1
        17 December 2015 at 6:15 pm

        How would that work with an external HDD that they need to search for traces of Rawshark?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3.1.1
          17 December 2015 at 6:26 pm

          For example: bag it, then seal the bag with a sticky paper label signed by the evidence officer and a lawyer.

          • weka 8.3.1.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 7:13 pm

            I thought they had access to some material and not others?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.3.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2015 at 7:20 pm

              I’m just explaining how I think sealed evidence works.

              • weka …
                17 December 2015 at 7:42 pm

                yes, and I was suggesting that something like a HDD that has material that needs to be accessed and material that shouldn’t be accessed makes that tricky.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  17 December 2015 at 8:08 pm

                  Not really: you put the hard drive in a bag – the lawyer and the cop both sign the label, which is then stuck over the opening of the bag in such a way as to prevent access without damage to the label or the bag.

                  If the court decides the cops get to open the bag they get to search the HDD.

                  All this presupposes that the cops can act with integrity and honesty, naturally, and if they’ve gone that far over the line it’s probably the Odgers-Hooton chop-chop for Nicky anyway.

                  • weka …
                    17 December 2015 at 9:04 pm

                    Ok, so you *are saying that all the seized material was to be sealed not just some of it?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 December 2015 at 9:45 pm

                      That’s what I think was supposed to have happened.

                      Whether Bill’s scenario is correct depends on whether the “authorities” had time to illegally copy Hager’s stuff. We know they took a few steps down the path of conspiring to do so, because they admitted as much. I’m just not sure they had enough time to commit the offence with respect to all but the trivial material.

                      The thing is, the damage has been done: there’s a possibility that right wing criminal elements within the police force have successfully conspired to steal Nicky Hager’s confidential work-related information.

                    • weka …
                      18 December 2015 at 10:17 am

                      Thanks OAB, I couldn’t remember the details or the timeline.

            • Bill 8.3.1.1.1.2
              17 December 2015 at 7:20 pm

              So ‘here’ I have a pile of electronic shit that I’ve been ordered to ‘seal’. Thing is, if I anticipated that possibility, the first thing I did was copy the whole damned lot. And if I didn’t foresee that instruction, then I’ll stall for the 30 min or so it will take to copy every damned thing.

              Of course, the copies never exist and any action I take in the future has no reliance on any info that was in the copied materials. It won’t be based on or prompted any of that info either – honest.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 December 2015 at 7:50 am

                From the court file:

                Seized and cloned material is taken to Auckland and stored at the Auckland High Court.

                So they had time to make copies. There was also an email exchange.

                10:13 am
                Det Abbott finds a piece of paper containing two email addresses and a password relating to another of Mr Hager’s confidential sources. Police use the information to try to access the accounts.
                11.32 am
                Det Abbott finds another piece of paper containing information
                about accessing an internet storage service. This contained
                information provided by another of Mr Hager’s confidential
                sources. Two officers photograph the paper. One photo is sent to the National Cyber Crime Centre. Staff there point out that it will take a new warrant to access it. They then try to access it without obtaining a warrant.
                1:36 pm
                Det Abbott finds a printout of an email exchange between Mr
                Hager and a confidential source. Det Teo takes a photo of it and
                emails it to DC Smith, saying “can you do some inquiries please”.
                1:47-2:14pm
                DC Smith sends a series of five emails to Det Teo recording various aspects of searches she has made on the internet for information taken from the document she was sent by Det Teo

                From the get-go they were dead set on breaching privilege.

              • Tracey …
                18 December 2015 at 9:04 am

                In 2001 the POlice seized evidence under a search warran tfor theft (despite knowing the evidence was lawfully purchased) and took it back to Auckland Central. They then called Citibank and allowed 2 of its staff to go through everything, without any police supervision.

                That was also under a National Government.

                • D'Esterre …
                  18 December 2015 at 1:12 pm

                  Tracey: ” That was also under a National Government.”

                  Not in 2001; the Clark administration was in power by then. Though whatever the issue was, it may have dated back to before 2000.

      • Tracey 8.3.2
        18 December 2015 at 10:06 am

        If you have the time, or the inclination, read this exchange between Peters, Prebble, Banks and East in 1992/93 over police ocnduct in similar circumstances.

        You need to scroll down a bit, Use “White” as yofu find.

        http://www.vdig.net/hansard/archive.jsp?y=1992&m=09&d=17&o=28&p=74

        Or

        just read here from page 24

        http://briefingroom.typepad.com/files/paradiseconpreview.pdf

        23 years ago and Nothing. Has. Changed.

    • Tracey 8.4
      17 December 2015 at 5:42 pm

      Yes. You cant unread what you read. A huge damages payout is needed. Not joking, in these cases, big damages. I presume high level resignations will now follow? Cue Tui

    • greywarshark 8.5
      17 December 2015 at 6:12 pm

      I remember lprent stating that police have been known to return computers so full of bugs, loaded with pornography that they are practically munted.

      Can they be sued on the basis of being a restraint to trade amongst other things. A person cannot go about his business or his trade if others are stealing or interfering with his resources,information, and equipment, and he is brought into disrepute by police interest in his life and work?

      • lprent 8.5.1
        18 December 2015 at 8:59 am

        They certainly did on one of rocky’s windows computers back in the mid-2000s. It was fully protected when they grabbed it with Kaspersky.

        They’d turned off the anti-virus and anti-malware. Then they must have hopped on to the internet completely unprotected.

        When we got it back more than a year later and went to clean the system out, it was full of viruses, trojans, and other malware. We killed more than 70 in the first scan. Had to wipe it down to bare metal to get it clean again – including the boot sectors on the hard drives.

    • weka 8.6
      17 December 2015 at 6:13 pm

      Hager was working on a separate investigation/book that was critical of the police. Safe to assume that at the least they now know what he is intending.

      • Whispering Kate 8.6.1
        18 December 2015 at 8:24 am

        I agree Weka, Nicky was working on other research and the police probably had an inkling of it so they did a fishing expedition, took this new research along with the Dirty Politics files and although everything was sealed supposedly, you can betcha the police did a thorough sift through his documents hard drive etc. I wonder how long Justice Clifford will now keep his job. How are Judges appointed, is it political appointment or through their own Justice systems??

    • Mandy Hager 8.7
      18 December 2015 at 7:15 am

      They did indeed look at stuff – the court papers revealed, for instance, that they illegally took photos of papers and emailed them, despite knowing he had sought privilege.

  9. Richie 9
    17 December 2015 at 5:31 pm

    So i take it the police officers who sought the warrant will be prosecuted? why not if not? Who’s responsible what are the consequences? if any. whats the point in having a law if the police can abuse it all the time..and i mean all the time.

    Why can the police break laws but only get a employment reprimand as i thought it goes.

    Because if i broke the law well….

    • mickysavage 9.1
      17 December 2015 at 7:11 pm

      Privilege applies as long as they did not tell fibs to the court when they applied for the warrant.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1
        19 December 2015 at 7:40 am

        What applies when they fail their “duty of candour”, in such a way as to render the warrant “fundamentally unlawful”?

  10. Jenny Kirk 10
    17 December 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Good news. But does this mean Nicky Hagar gets any sort of compensation, and does he get all his documents/computers back ?

  11. Chooky 11
    17 December 2015 at 5:50 pm

    maybe this is why Key is acting so strangely in the cage with the soap?

    … a jonkey jokey diversion…and a psychological sign /metaphor for something?

    …maybe jonkey thinks he is the one who should be locked up?

    • Jones 11.1
      18 December 2015 at 8:13 am

      Well he was (and still is) a rising star in the criminal cartel that masquerades as high-finance.

  12. AmaKiwi 12
    17 December 2015 at 5:52 pm

    Thank you to the judges.

    Parliament: The elected dictatorship detesting any outspoken opposition

    Police: Handmaiden of the National government

    Civil Servants: Bullied into silence and forced to take early retirement so they can be replaced with more compliant servants

    Media: John Campbell is an example of anyone not towing the Government’s line.

    The ideal business is a monopoly claiming to be part of a free market.

    For politicians in power, the ideal is a monopoly claiming to be a democracy.

    Welcome to Planet Key.

    • Tracey 12.1
      17 December 2015 at 6:01 pm

      +1

      Withheld info from judge when seeking a warrant.

      That is fundamental stuff right there. The highest ranking person with any knowledge of the process needs to go. No PERF. No handshake. A sacking for misconduct.

    • ropata 12.2
      17 December 2015 at 6:25 pm

      `
      NatCorp™

      Enemies: Scientists, teachers, reporters, anyone who questions the Regime

      Friends: Foreign Corporations, Banks, Oil companies, Casinos, and other vehicles of the one percent

      Purpose: Keeping the elites happily ensconced in power and extracting the wealth of NZ into their offshore tax havens

    • Tautuhi 12.3
      19 December 2015 at 2:55 pm

      National are always quoting free market ideology?

  13. Muttonbird 13
    17 December 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Ironic that the only people who committed a crime in the whole Dirty Politics event was…

    … the Police?

    • Naturesong 13.1
      17 December 2015 at 6:22 pm

      The original hack that led to it’s uncovering was also a crime.

      Despite much good coming from it, the motivation behind the hack was retribution not public service (also not a defence).

      • Muttonbird 13.1.1
        17 December 2015 at 6:28 pm

        The original hack that led to it’s uncovering was also a crime.

        – Naturesong

        Was it? That has not been proven in a court of law. The Police breaking New Zealand law (for political purposes) has been.

        • Naturesong 13.1.1.1
          17 December 2015 at 7:03 pm

          Seems clear to me: Crimes Act 1961 #249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose

          The parties directly involved (WO and Rawshark) as well as those in the periphery (Hagar, other journalists with access to the source material) are all agreed that the hack occurred and was a crime.

          I seem to remember either Edgeler or Geddis pointing this out at some stage when separating the criminal / privacy aspects of the case.

          Rawshark was even more explicit when he/she signed off advising kids NOT to try this at home.

          • ianmac 13.1.1.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 7:26 pm

            Rawshark committed the crime of “stealing” the data. Nicky did not.
            National announced the other day that they would create a law that would make it illegal to have/store said data. eg Hagar crime.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2015 at 7:37 pm

              *Hager.

              National announced…link?

            • acrophobic 13.1.1.1.1.2
              17 December 2015 at 11:14 pm

              Nicky knowingly received stolen property. Surely that’s a crime?

              • Gangnam Style …
                18 December 2015 at 6:37 am

                public interest, moron, its like you are being an idiot on purpose.

                • acrophobic …
                  18 December 2015 at 10:57 am

                  There is no public interest in permitting the receipt of stolen property.

                  • Pascals bookie …
                    18 December 2015 at 11:07 am

                    That depends on the nature of the property, this is pretty basic stuff.

                    • acrophobic …
                      18 December 2015 at 11:14 am

                      There is no ‘depends’. Theft is theft. If someone hacks into your computer and steals your emails, that is theft. If they then go on to publish those in the public domain, that is ratbaggery of the highest order. Whatever I think of the victim.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      18 December 2015 at 11:23 am

                      So, hypotheitically,
                      Say a military officer was planning a coup,
                      and was working with some terrorist group to seize power and institute a military dictatorship
                      and a hacker discovered it all a few weeks before the plan was launched into operation

                      and gave the info to a journalist..

                      you are saying there would be no public interest in that information coming to light because it was stolen information, and the damage of that theft outweighs the damage of the existence of terrorist plotters

                      Seems perverse.

                    • Tracey …
                      18 December 2015 at 11:39 am

                      Actually there are depends, and they usually unfold in the defence to the alleged crime.

                      Many journalists have printed information based on employee’s telling them things to which the employee is subject to confidentiality with their employer.

                      So there are depends, no matter how much it aggrieves your soul. Just as supporters of John Key use depends all the time to defend his lies and selective memory and broken promises.

                  • Tracey …
                    18 December 2015 at 11:35 am

                    I wish some peopel who keep trotting this stuff out would take the time to actually educate themselves about public interest, in legal terms.

                    It’s not hard and yet some just steadfastedly refuse to do so.

                    It’s diversion of the most annoying type.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 December 2015 at 5:52 pm

                      diversion

                      Obsession, more like. Either that or incoherent attempts at ‘social engineering’ – a Bellman lacking both rhyme and meter.

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 December 2015 at 8:54 pm

                      Oh I fully understand the public interest. It is a very subjective concept, that can be used to justify anything, such as the current and prurient interest over Jonah Lomu’s finances. My view is the public interest should never trump a persons right to the protection of their personal communications unless peoples lives are in danger.

              • Lara …
                18 December 2015 at 7:30 am

                And so consider this.

                If it is a crime for which someone can be charged and punished, then how would investigative journalism work?

                Generally when people who are in positions of power are abusing that power they try to hide it. And when they try to hide it someone close to them might notice. And that person we call a “whistleblower” might steal some documents to show how power was being abused, and the dodgy goings of on of those in power.

                Generally the evidence of wrong doing in powerful places is NOT just lying about for everyone to see. It has to be taken and then handed to the media for exposure.

                So generally that is how this kind of investigative journalism works.

                So if we make it a crime for those journalists to receive this kind of information by making it a crime for them to hold and access this kind of stolen material, how exactly would the public get to hear about the dodgy dealings of those in power?

                And that is why we have a “public interest” caveat.

                To let journalists do their jobs. And hold those in power to account.

                • acrophobic …
                  18 December 2015 at 10:58 am

                  Journalists have been exposing wrongdoing and corruption for centuries without knowingly accepting stolen property.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 December 2015 at 4:10 pm

                    I’m sure you would make a much better high court judge if only you knew one section of the crimes act from another.

                    No, wait, you’d be a corrupt partisan shill, wouldn’t you.

                  • McFlock …
                    18 December 2015 at 4:22 pm

                    lol
                    Some examples would be nice.

                  • Lara …
                    18 December 2015 at 5:47 pm

                    They’ve also been knowingly receiving information based on documents stolen by whistleblowers.

                    For centuries also probably.

                    So in your world if there’s any possible theft of documents then no journalist ever can report on it. And so it stays hidden.

                    How do you think that would work out?

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 December 2015 at 8:57 pm

                      Fine. I tend to consider personal and private communication to be personal and private, unless someones life is at risk.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      20 December 2015 at 9:29 am

                      that ‘unless’ there blows your whole argument away.

                      You conceed that in some instances there is a public good in realeasing private comms, so now we just arguing over the threshold.

                      So much for your black and white ‘theft is theft never any public interest’ malarcky.

              • Pascals bookie …
                18 December 2015 at 7:32 am

                “Nicky knowingly received stolen property. Surely that’s a crime?”

                Nothing ‘surely’ about it. ‘Knowingly’ would imply he knew it was stolen. To know that he would have to assume you can ‘steal’ info, which is a controversial idea. ‘property’ implies copies of data all belong to the original owner.

                But think about it, if a journo recieving ‘stolen property’ is ‘surely’ commiting a crime, then what about leaked data? How is that not ‘stolen’? In what way is it different from an employee stealing money? Every newspaper in the world worth its salt would be shut down. You are basically saying journalism is a crime.

                That’s whay I think it’s silly to think of hacking someone’s network and copying data (which is a crime) is the same crime as ‘stealing’. So while the fuits of that crime were illegally ontained, they are not ‘stolen property’

                • acrophobic …
                  18 December 2015 at 11:05 am

                  A fine, but unsuccessful attempt to dance on the head of a pin. Hager was well aware the emails were stolen. They were, after all, hacked. Receipt of stolen property is a crime. Good journalists don’t publish information they know to be stolen. They may use it to prompt them to do some real investigative work, but simply republishing with commentary for personal gain is lazy and dishonest.

                  • Pascals bookie …
                    18 December 2015 at 11:15 am

                    Yes they were hacked. But there has been a lot of dispute over whether hacked data is stolen. Google will be your friend on this if you won’t take my word for it.

                    You think it is ‘just obvious’ and that claim is doing all the work in your argument. But the fact that it has been a matter of great dispute shows that it is not obvious at all. At which point your arguemnt falls on its face and gets walked on by laughing law students, various QCs and the neighbourhood dogs.

                    Journalists write stories based on leaked data all the time, for example, the Pentagon Tapes.

                    Under your argument, isn’t it obvious that every newspaper that stories based on those tapes is ‘in receipt of stolen property’? And what about when you buy the paper? Are you then also in receipt of the ‘stolen’ property reproduced in the journalism?

                    Perhaps you can point me to an example of a newspaper being charged with receipt of stolen property for publishing leaked data. Seeing it is so obvious that this is what is going on.

                    • acrophobic …
                      18 December 2015 at 11:23 am

                      The arguments are ongoing, true enough. So here’s my argument. To ‘hack’ data, you have to illegally access the victims property (their computer). You then have to remove (electronically) copies of their private data. To me that is no different than entering someones home, copying their private videos and posting them on youtube. It is theft.

                      I would also argue there are similarities to what is known as ‘identity theft’. With identity theft there is no physical asset removed, but it is theft nonetheless.

                      As for criminal proceedings, this is a very new area of law, but this is a sign of things to come http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13789336.Five_men_charged_with_theft_of_data/.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      18 December 2015 at 11:31 am

                      “To ‘hack’ data, you have to illegally access the victims property (their computer). ”

                      That is what hacking in the criminal sense means yes.

                      “You then have to remove (electronically) copies of their private data. ”

                      this is more problematic, because copying is not removing. Theft implies that you deprive the victim of their property. That is why the ‘hacking = theft’ analogy is controversial. I’m not being snarky when I say google will be your friend on this. It’s a fascinating area of law

                      “To me that is no different than entering someones home, copying their private videos and posting them on youtube.”

                      If I’m following you here, I think that would be breaking and entering, followed by a breach of copywrite law.

                      “if it was you affected, I’ll bet you’d be arguing the same thing”

                      this is what I call the ‘hypothetical hypocrite’ argument, and it’s bullshit even if it was true, which we have no way of knowing.

                      Because even if I did argue that, (and I think I wouldn’t), that wouldn’t make the argument any better, it might just be that I was being stupid due to my emotional involvement

                      EDIT I see you edited some stuff out, but that’s cool. ‘Identity theft’ is fraud, you aren’t charged with stealing someones uidentity, but with impersonating them. You seem to be suggesting the police lay charges based on colloquial language use.

                      I could murder a beer right now, whoops.

                    • Tracey …
                      18 December 2015 at 11:41 am

                      acrophobic

                      What about leaked information? Don’t jounralists of the political type almost rely on this for their bread and butter?

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 December 2015 at 8:59 pm

                      Identity theft is theft, not just impersonation. It involves the theft of private data, and then the subsequent use of that data.

                    • Pascals bookie …
                      20 December 2015 at 9:26 am

                      “Identity theft is theft, not just impersonation. It involves the theft of private data, and then the subsequent use of that data.”

                      nah, loads of ‘identity theft’ occurs with data that is obtained quite legally. It’s a metaphor, not an actual theft, An identity theft victim isn;t running around with no identity because someone stole it, they just have another person out there pretending to be them and clocking up debts in their name. that’s fraud, and it sucks, but their identity hasn’t been stolen you big nonce.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 December 2015 at 9:03 pm

                      Identity theft is theft, not just impersonation. It involves the theft of private data, and then the subsequent use of that data.

                      I do admire acrophobic’s unabashed willingness to blatantly invent complete and utter bullshit whenever reality doesn’t suit.

                      Almost MacGuyver-esque, but with lies and cherry-picking instead of duct-tape and a pocket knife.

              • Ross …
                18 December 2015 at 8:09 am

                Surely that’s a crime?

                Well, it’s a crime for the person who stole the material, assuming it was stolen, but Hager didn’t steal it. You already knew that.

              • Tracey …
                18 December 2015 at 9:11 am

                That is certainly the most crucial thing arising from the court decision. Well spotted, everyone else here is just diverting.

                🙄

                • acrophobic …
                  18 December 2015 at 11:12 am

                  Hi Tracey. The court case is very important, and clearly holds the police to account, which is healthy. But Hager is not a victim here as he is being painted. He knowingly received stolen work-product and regurgitated it (with selective and often dishonest commentary) for personal gain. That makes him as much of a ratbag as Slater IMHO.

                  • Tracey …
                    18 December 2015 at 11:46 am

                    The constant attempt to put Hager and Slater int he same pot annoys me.

                    Please, just read up on “public interest”. Receiving stolen goods is one thing. In thats ense Slater (Blomfeld) and Hager (Rawshark) are int he same boat. That is where the similarities end, in OH so many places.

                    Slater posted personal information
                    Hager explicitly withheld personal information

                    Slater was acting for a friend who was pissed off
                    Hager was publishing in the public interest to disclose collusion between Ministers and a blogger to create a political advanatge and to misuse processes such as the OIA and the Ministerial warrant

                    The public being interested is not the same as being in the public interest.

                    You appear prepared to harp on about hager receiving stolen goods to the exclusion of everything else.

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 December 2015 at 8:50 pm

                      Hager is no better than Slater. He published private and stolen correspondence for personal gain. He’s an opportunist rat with no scruples at all.

                  • lprent …
                    18 December 2015 at 12:54 pm

                    That could also make him a journalist talking to a whistle blower. Almost all work-product produced by whistle blowers is ‘stolen’ or in violation of contractual arrangements. The difference is a genuine public interest of the non-prurient sort.

                    Perhaps you should read the Evidence Act and various other acts that provide protections for journalists talking to sources that are put in place specifically to encourage leaking of information for in the interests of public knowledge. You know, like disclosed attacks on people because others paid for them to happen.

                    Comparing Hager’s work which was clearly in the interests of the public to know, with Slater doing something because someone paid him to attack someone else is like comparing food with a turd.

                    What your comment does indicate is that you have a poor understanding of why laws are made, and that you lack a reliable moral and ethical compass.

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 December 2015 at 9:06 pm

                      Any public interest in what Slater did was clearly negligible, given that National’s vote increased and Slater’s blog is enjoying increased support. Private communication, stolen and then reproduced by some opportunist journalist is not my idea of a reliable and ethical moral compass.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      20 December 2015 at 10:13 pm

                      @ acrophobic

                      Just because the scum is popular does not mean that they or what they did is either moral or ethical. And you may not have noticed but Slater is in court meaning that there’s a high probability that what he did was also illegal.

                  • Sacha …
                    19 December 2015 at 9:08 am

                    “with selective and often dishonest commentary”

                    Tell us which parts are dishonest. Go on.

              • Pat …
                19 December 2015 at 7:03 pm

                lets pretend for a moment your right about the receiving aspect and all involved have been identified and prosecuted….what do you think should occur about the actions uncovered by the illegal activity of hacking?

                • acrophobic …
                  19 December 2015 at 9:16 pm

                  If the actions are illegal, the perpetrators should prosecuted under the law. If they are not illegal but immoral, then the perpetrators will be judged in the court of public opinion.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    19 December 2015 at 9:18 pm

                    How would you know? Everything you say is other people’s warmed up effluent.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    19 December 2015 at 11:56 pm

                    If they’re immoral but not illegal then we need the government to pass legislation making them illegal.

                    Do you think that this government will do that or will they act immorally and leave such acts legal?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2
        17 December 2015 at 6:29 pm

        Justice also demands retribution: this is a fundamental aspect of the social contract, and why we don’t tolerate lynch mobs like the National Party

        • Naturesong 13.1.2.1
          17 December 2015 at 7:05 pm

          Justice also demands retribution?

          Are you asserting that retribution is a fundamental part of justice?

          Or have I misunderstood you.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 7:18 pm

            The courts take the responsibility to pass sentence, and administer punishment, so that the National Party (and other authoritarian bigots) are less able to form lynch mobs the way they used to (I’m paraphrasing).

            Where the courts fail in their responsibility to punish bullies and criminals like Cameron Slater and the National Party, people have a tendency to take the law into their own hands, like Rawshark did.

            That’s how it’s always worked.

            • Naturesong 13.1.2.1.1.1
              17 December 2015 at 7:34 pm

              Ahh, I understand where you are coming from.

              Yes, it would be a criminal prosecution, so the offense is against the state not the victim.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.1.2
            17 December 2015 at 7:23 pm

            The courts have negelected their duty to prosecute the Cameron Slater/National Party lynch mob. In these circumstances vigilantes like Rawshark thrive. That’s how it’s always been.

            • North 13.1.2.1.2.1
              17 December 2015 at 8:33 pm

              Having no legal duty to investigate “the courts” did not fail.

              Other wings of governance in New Zealand did fail. The police principally. Possessed by their typical weakling right winger pose of “following orders” (having already taken sides).

              What is apparent following Hager’s book is that failure in lesser wings of governance was secondary. The primary failure/betrayal was the Prime Minister/Prime Minister’s Office positively setting out to have wings of governance fail.

              These are John Key’s “higher standards”. Oh My God The Fraud The Fraud The Fraud !

            • Sacha 13.1.2.1.2.2
              17 December 2015 at 9:05 pm

              It is the Police who prosecute – or not, as we have seen. I wish there was a separate prosecution service like some other countries have.

            • Tracey 13.1.2.1.2.3
              18 December 2015 at 9:14 am

              Slater’s cronies will soon start trumpetting this

              “he heart of the case is the public’s right to receive information about the actions of people in positions of authority. This decision acknowledges that confidential sources used in investigative journalism, in this case my book Dirty Politics, deserve legal protection.”

              …in support of Slater’s Blomfeld folly. They will, again, deliberately misunderstand phrases like “positions of authority”

  14. gsays 14
    17 December 2015 at 7:13 pm

    what struck me upon hearing about this on rnz was the quote from nicky hager.

    no anger or reproach.
    very dignified.
    his concern was for the larger principle and the health of democracy.

  15. ianmac 15
    17 December 2015 at 7:22 pm

    It is probable that the subplot to the invasion of Nicky’s house was to make it as hard and disruptive as possible for Nicky and to send a warning signal to others. The time span so far,and cost has achieved that.
    But now the likely appeal will further extend the disruptive effect until well into next year.

    An expert legal person might tell me if Nick’s gear will be released now or wait until all appeals are exhausted.

    • Jesus Lizard 15.1
      17 December 2015 at 7:36 pm

      Nicky’s book sold really really well (goal obtained, by Nicky). He is without doubt the most controversial investigative journalist there is. I am sure all of this controversy will make him even more appealing.

      He has made a name for himself.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1
        17 December 2015 at 7:43 pm

        I suspect you are full of shit: only political types remember why Woodward & Bernstein are famous. John Oliver’s Snowden street poll slammed the point home.

        Now, please show me your junk.

        • Jesus Lizard 15.1.1.1
          17 December 2015 at 8:07 pm

          I have made three points.

          1) His book sold really really well.

          2) All of this controversy (police raids, computer hacking, political mania etc..) makes him the ‘most’ controversial investigative journalist in NZ.

          3) He ‘now’ has made a name for himself, and he knows it. The more media he gets, the better.

          All three points are ‘true’ and ‘correct’.

          I haven’t said anything else.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 8:10 pm

            Junk..I want to see your junk.

            • Jesus Lizard 15.1.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2015 at 8:22 pm

              Actually, how can you argue that my three points are not ‘true’ and ‘correct’?

              • mickysavage …
                17 December 2015 at 9:03 pm

                We can argue your spin is really transparent and you are cherrypicking some arguable facts

                • Jesus Lizard …
                  17 December 2015 at 9:12 pm

                  I am cherrypicking some arguable facts, but they ‘are’ the ‘facts’ nevertheless.

                  (I am not saying he is the ‘best’ am I, or of ‘good intent’?)

                  • mickysavage …
                    17 December 2015 at 9:24 pm

                    Nope you picked the three facts that could be presented in the worst possible light and spun them as much as you could. What about saying he is the most respected investigative journalist the country has, that he has without fear attacked both left and right wing governments and fulfils the traditional role that journalists are meant to fulfil.

            • Jesus Lizard 15.1.1.1.1.2
              17 December 2015 at 8:22 pm

              Actually, how can you argue that my three points are not ‘true’ and ‘correct’?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                17 December 2015 at 9:25 pm

                I’m not going to bandy words with a witless fool: show me your junk.

              • North …
                17 December 2015 at 10:11 pm

                Jesus……you are such a withering pedant with your “my three facts”. Are you twelve or something ? This is not the behaviour we expect from grown men/women.

          • Sacha 15.1.1.1.2
            17 December 2015 at 9:02 pm

            “He ‘now’ has made a name for himself”

            He already had one.

          • Pat 15.1.1.1.3
            19 December 2015 at 10:13 pm

            3) He ‘now’ has made a name for himself, and he knows it. The more media he gets, the better.

            he made a name for himself years ago so that point is hardly valid, nor the second…so he sold maybe 30,000 copies and may sell a few more in years to come…hardly going to make the rich list on those figures

        • Johan 15.1.1.2
          17 December 2015 at 8:08 pm

          You mean educated or informed people do remember?

      • North 15.1.2
        17 December 2015 at 8:40 pm

        Poor Jesus Lizard……your fascination with “making a name” says heaps of rotten shit about you and nothing, nothing about Hager. Thank Christ Lizard that Hager lives at the other end of the spectrum from you.

        • Jesus Lizard 15.1.2.1
          17 December 2015 at 8:49 pm

          I was pointing out the ‘objective’ truth.

          It wasn’t on my part, a ‘subjective’ opinion.

          The three points are ‘true’ and ‘correct’.

          My argument stands.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.2.1.1
            17 December 2015 at 9:26 pm

            My argument is stronger and more relevant: show me your junk.

            • Jesus Lizard 15.1.2.1.1.1
              17 December 2015 at 9:33 pm

              Ok then, so were you just ‘away’ eating your dinner, all this time?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                17 December 2015 at 9:50 pm

                Are you going to show me your junk or not?

                • Jesus Lizard …
                  17 December 2015 at 10:01 pm

                  I came here and made THREE POINTS that are TRUE and CORRECT.

                  A simple argument, that I have won.

                  I don’t need to froth at the mouth with some hideous long rambling analytical mumble jumble, that you want to enforce, to hide the fact – you lost.

                  I am going now- you can get back to what you do best – TALKING JUNK.

                  [lprent: Don’t use owned / pwned / won arguments here. Similarly don’t use the idiotic ACToid technique of trying to define the terms of debate for others. That is the job of the authors and the moderators of the site. And learn to agree to disagree or you will find that the only person who ‘wins’ will be the me and the moderators.

                  We really aren’t interested in dickwaving from stupid juvies causing flamewars that cause unreadable comment streams.

                  I’m adding you to auto moderation until I see that you have acknowledged this note. And read the policy before continuing to comment. ]

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    17 December 2015 at 10:04 pm

                    You made a transparently dishonest attempt to validate your false narrative: why would I bother arguing with trash?

                    Your junk is the only worthwhile part of you. Show it to me.

                  • North …
                    17 December 2015 at 10:43 pm

                    Oh Darling…..such a hissy fit ! OK Jesus Lizard, you’ve WON, and you’ve WON, and you’ve fucking WON, and you’re St Heliers Tennis Club on Tory Twinks Saturday and all that detritus. By which I’m immensely (not) impressed.

                    You are also a fool fishwife type person still hangin’ on screechingly to “my three facts”. Epic fail for FlashKeySucking. Epic fail for knocking down Sir Nicky Hager !

                  • North …
                    17 December 2015 at 11:56 pm

                    While you froth and froth and froth ! Hahahahaha !
                    ‘Prent is right……”juvie”. I will add colour. ‘Punk Juvie’. Must say though I love the mock outrageous pen name of “Mr J Lizard”.

          • Naturesong 15.1.2.1.2
            17 December 2015 at 9:31 pm

            Your argument fails.

            Nicky’s book sold really really well (goal obtained, by Nicky).
            Casting aspersions, nice one. Hager was in fact surprised by the book sales. Like most people, money is not his motivation for doing anything. Exposing corruption and abuse of power is not only what he does, it’s why he does.
            Anyone who thinks a person decides to become a freelance investigative journalist for the money is delusional.

            He is without doubt the most controversial investigative journalist there is. I am sure all of this controversy will make him even more appealing.
            As an investigative journalist he is not controversial at all.
            The only thing that really stands out about his work is its consistently high standard. Likely why he is the only NZ member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
            His subject matter can often be considered controversial, but only because those who are exposed abusing their power, are … the powerful.

            He has made a name for himself.
            Nicky Hager has been a well-known and respected investigative journalist since his first book “Secret Power” was published in 1996.
            Dirty Politics is Nicky Hagers sixth book and adds to the body of work he has created over the last 20 years.

            • Jesus Lizard 15.1.2.1.2.1
              17 December 2015 at 9:43 pm

              1) The book sold well. You admit yourself “Hager was in fact surprised by the book sales”

              2) He is controversial. You admit yourself “His subject matter can often be considered controversial, but only because those who are exposed abusing their power, are … the powerful.”

              I would like to add, his house got raided, now he is a ‘one-man- revolutionary’.

              3) You forgot to add ‘Dirty Politics’ made him into a ‘media sensation’ – ‘Secret Power’ never did.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                17 December 2015 at 9:51 pm

                Junk, I want to see it. It’s the only thing of value you possess. Why won’t you give it up?

              • Naturesong …
                17 December 2015 at 10:00 pm

                That a book sells well was not your point. Your point was that money was his prime motivation. The inference being that journalistic integrity and ethics may be compromised.

                Still doesn’t make Hager, the person, the journalist, controversial.
                As far as his house being raided that speaks to the state of our public institutions, specifically the police in this case far more than it does about Hager.

                If you had seen him speak in public or attended one of his lectures you would know that celebrity and sales volumes are not the motivation for his work.

                Look, I’m sure its fun to go around and write stuff that makes it sound like Hager only does what he does for money and fame. Maybe it makes you feel big and important.
                And that casting aspersions on his character in public forums may cause a reader to question Hagers motivation.

                But all it really does is make you look small minded, hateful and petty.

          • Yeah your argument stands ,like acoat stanbd ib the coirnerNorth 15.1.2.1.3
            17 December 2015 at 10:05 pm

            You hypocritical mouthy prick Jesus. Objective facts ? You used objective facts to convey your immature pejorative. Your pejorative was an opportunistic mutation of the objective facts. Why must you lie ?

      • Muttonbird 15.1.3
        17 December 2015 at 9:13 pm

        Nicky’s book sold really really well (goal obtained, by Nicky). He is without doubt the most controversial investigative journalist there is. I am sure all of this controversy will make him even more appealing.

        He has made a name for himself.

        – Jesus Lizard

        Ian Wishart must be crying into his conspiracy theory soup tonight.

        • Jesus Lizard 15.1.3.1
          17 December 2015 at 9:25 pm

          “Ian Wishart must be crying into his conspiracy theory soup tonight.’

          I have to admit – I do have a soft spot for nutty old Wishart, when you think the guy has completely lost the plot, he pulls a rabbit out of the hat, too much latent talent that one.

          Well they do say – there is a fine line.

      • acrophobic 15.1.4
        17 December 2015 at 11:19 pm

        Or…
        1. He set out to influence an election. He failed.
        2. He set out to bring down a blogger. He failed.

        Hager is the darling of the left, a fading group if ever there was one.

  16. mickysavage 16
    17 December 2015 at 8:01 pm

    Interesting that Cameron Slater has not made any comment or post on the decision. I wonder why not?

    • Sacha 16.1
      17 December 2015 at 8:56 pm

      Too busy busking/washing dishes to support himself?

    • Muttonbird 16.2
      17 December 2015 at 9:41 pm

      Neither has his Dirty Politics co-conspirator and National Party pollster, David Farrar.

      He must be at a play, or spiking drinks at a young Nat toga party.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.3
      17 December 2015 at 9:52 pm

      Because he’s waiting for the National Party to write the article?

    • lprent 16.4
      17 December 2015 at 11:21 pm

      I think that this week Cameron paid a court ordered bill to Matthew Blomfield for his costs. The choice was bankruptcy. Expect more fundraising for the Whaleoil “flush the money” game.

      But it could also be the interesting material in the Chisholm enquiry transcripts. The PaePae has some interesting bits on Slater…

      How do you say “I made it all up, Judge”?
      I’ve experienced before, and mentioned it here somewhere, how readily Cameron Slater has deployed the ‘Oh, I was lying when I said that’ defence. The most memorable occasion, for me, was in relation to Slater’s admission (to my face) then later slippery denial, that he used fake social media profiles to target and wind up his political enemies. Either lying then, or lying now. Pick one.

      I may be mistaken, but I detect the same approach in sections of the transcript of Cameron Slater’s witness interview/testimony to the Chisholm inquiry into Allegations concerning Judith Collins. You can read/download the whole document here: [Source documents] Judith Collins Lester Chisholm Inquiry evidence, along with other evidence to the inquiry.

      It’s clear from reading Lester Chisholm’s report (available at that same link) that Mrs Collins’ overt denial of any knowledge or participation in the Carrick Graham-orchestrated scheme to undermine the head of the Serious Fraud Office Slater (or “rebalance media debate” as Graham would say) were given considerable weight.

      On the other hand, as we discussed, Slater Jnr’s evidence came to be regarded by Lester Chisholm as requiring “great caution”. Not credible.

      Or it could be something else…. Basically there are so many untold stories around Cameron Slater now, that he appears to be circling close to the event horizon that is where the bathwater is – just before it disappears down the plug hole.

    • Tautuhi 16.5
      18 December 2015 at 5:32 pm

      I don’t think Whale Slime and Kiwi Bog sites want to enflame the situation we haven’t heard how the Police Investigation is going into the hacking of the Labour Party Website. Probably not high on the Police priority list.

    • acrophobic 16.6
      19 December 2015 at 9:20 pm

      There was a very good posted on Whale Oil this morning at http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/12/open-letter-to-nicky-hager/. It’s not by Slater, and it’s short and to the point. Well worth the read.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.6.1
        20 December 2015 at 6:00 am

        Too funny – a Slater-tugger whinging about ethics: not worth the bandwidth never mind the read. 😆

        • Anne 16.6.1.1
          20 December 2015 at 9:38 am

          Somebody with the name “Nick Rockel” was making a very good job showing up the commenters for the ignorant bunch of fools and slobs they are on that site. So good, the chief slob, Pete banned him/her. Apparently common sense, reason and having a few brains is regarded as bad for morale.

        • Pascals bookie 16.6.1.2
          20 December 2015 at 9:47 am

          Though I do think “ethnically corrupt” is a deliciously Freudian auto-correct fail. ‘Hager is a race Traitor!’

  17. Rodel 17
    17 December 2015 at 8:09 pm

    I’m pleased for Mr Hagar and pleased that I donated.. We citizens need people like him rather than the Slaters of this world. Who benefits the people of New Zealand and who causes harm? No brainer really.

  18. North 18
    17 December 2015 at 8:15 pm

    This……from Justice Clifford’s decision wherein Nicky Hager’s words in an interview are quoted thus –

    “……I have never and I would never take information for one of my books for articles from a person who was in a political party or who was a political person. This is a highly valued principle to me.”

    Decent and essentially competent minds will be grateful that NZ has the benefit of Nicky Hager. He is a great New Zealander in the rank of Hilary. In contrast to the appallingly cheap sideshow Key who’ll get a knighthood.

    • Chooky 18.1
      17 December 2015 at 8:25 pm

      …and the Queen probably doesnt even like him judging by her body language….he will be a self- appointed ‘Sir’ of course

      • North 18.1.1
        17 December 2015 at 10:55 pm

        When the Queen wants oliagenous she has Sir Alan Sugar.
        When she wants gauche she has John “watch him swoon over the corgis” Key. As I’ve said many time before – “Auckland Old Money must sometimes cringe…..”

    • Sans Cle 18.2
      18 December 2015 at 9:23 pm

      +1
      Couldn’t agree more. Hager is decent and we as a Public have a lot to thank him for. Kia Kaha Nicky Hager.

  19. Chooky 19
    17 December 2015 at 8:19 pm

    Imo it was a fishing expedition on Hager to find out what he was working on and who his contacts are …with Rawshark as the the pretext

    …and it looks like a witch hunt against Hager…questions need to be asked who initiated this witch hunt…did it come from beyond the police?

    imo it was political and someone is running scared as to what Hager knows or could know

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11537431

  20. maui 20
    17 December 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Woohoo! I’m feeling the reflected glory from chipping in on the defence fund.

  21. katipo 21
    17 December 2015 at 9:14 pm

    Get ready for another Govenment obfuscation offesive.

  22. RedBaronCV 22
    17 December 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Stuff have buried it way off the front page. BTW I don’t see any spin lines on here yet? RW team caught napping or did they expect to win?

    • ropata 22.1
      17 December 2015 at 11:06 pm

      Lizard made a weak attempt at spin that was the subject of much derision and hilarity, upthread

    • Napping tonight the North 22.2
      17 December 2015 at 11:31 pm

      Napping tonight the whitey righties may be……tomorrow they’ll be snapping. “Vile shit rubbish spew hate !” Over the decision of a long serving High Court judge no less.

      Will be fun to watch. All of them suckers slightly desperate of course. The Prime Minister’s shown his dirty arse again. Obfuscate, conceal, distract, prevaricate, be flatulent, bullshit hard, if pressed, flatulence with solids,. Whatever – it’s all in service of protecting the Prime Minister’s dirty arse !

      When are New Zealanders gonna undertstand that the ‘Keynival is Over’ ? It was a a piece of shit to start with but it’s finally over. Unless we want our personification to be that effete shady Keynival person. No thank you !

  23. dave 23
    17 December 2015 at 10:36 pm

    i would like to see a future government appoint a special prosecutor to investigate any and all possible criminal activity of national party there an organized crime gang.
    i cant any difference between national and the mafia both run rackets except mafia was more honest about being gangsters

    • ropata 23.1
      18 December 2015 at 12:37 am

      i would too but it would set a dangerous precedent.

      any criminal proceedings should be absolutely free of political taint and should be purely a matter for the courts to decide.

      it would be likely to turn into a circus like the John Banks farce.

  24. Bruce 24
    18 December 2015 at 5:00 am

    Keep coming at Nicky, police and friends, and I will come out with the facts that will cause you to step down, John Key, and the National Party to lose the following snap election.

    You know who I am. You can’t win this. Keep making Nicky’s life hell, and I will continue to put mine aside. Step aside, John. It was under your watch and you cannot recover from this. Leave Nicky alone, and I swear on my father’s grave that I will remain silent.

    If you continue to pursue Nicky, Police and Co., well, you must know what is in the works.

    Your move. Apologise and never do it again.

    The Weatherman

    • Psycho Milt 24.1
      18 December 2015 at 6:05 am

      That’s all very well, but I doubt that either Key or the Police Commissioner will be following this thread. You may need to communicate your message to them a little more directly.

    • NZSage 24.2
      18 December 2015 at 7:16 am

      Bruce, I admire your loyalty to NH but if you have such information then you have an obligation to all New Zealanders to expose these scoundrels.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 24.3
      18 December 2015 at 9:50 am

      Why am I suddenly idly speculating about Finlayson’s promotion and surveillance warrants? Just my imagination I’m sure,

  25. NZSage 25
    18 December 2015 at 6:34 am

    The police deceived a judge in the course of his duties. Surely there are severe consequences for such actions?

    I’m sure there would be for any right left thinking person.

  26. Ross 26
    18 December 2015 at 7:10 am

    From the Judgment:

    “The police conducted an extensive search of Mr Hager’s house, including Ms Wells’ bedroom, her underwear drawer, her private letters, her private photograph album and her cell phone.
    …
    Ms Wells’ laptop computer was searched. It has to be asked whether there was a sufficient evidential basis to allow for a search of Ms Wells’ computer, as opposed to those belonging to and used by her father. That example highlights the difficulties of dealing with such questions on the basis of untested affidavit evidence. Detective Sergeant Beal, in one of his affidavits, said that Ms Wells had told the police her laptop was not used by her father and that they could search it. He went on to say that the police started to search it, but ultimately stopped when it seemed some privileged material might be there after all. In her affidavit, and completely in contrast, Ms Wells said that at no point did she give the police permission to use her laptop in any way.
    …
    I am not persuaded that the approach the police took to enabling Mr Hager to claim privilege was the preferred one. It was only during the second telephone conversation that the police asked Mr Hager if he was claiming privilege. That is not the type of facilitation that I consider the Search and Surveillance Act anticipates. Rather, when they discovered Mr Hager was not at his home, I would have anticipated that the police would have initiated contact with Mr Hager, told him that the Search, if successful, of necessity would disclose evidence protected by s 68, and have positively given him the opportunity to claim privilege.”

    Didn’t police also search the underwear drawer of Heather Du Plessis-Allan?

    I don’t know what police thought they were doing but they should’ve expected that this sort of shit was going to end badly, especially after the Dotcom fiasco. Police can be slow learners.

    • Lara 26.1
      18 December 2015 at 7:43 am

      Yes. I believe they did search HDP’s undies drawer.

      The message they have sent is clear. Expose and / or embarrass them or the government and they’ll raid your home and disrupt your life.

      I think I also read that they took Ms Wells’ laptop with them, and she had a masters thesis written on it which was due. What a massive disruption to her life!

      They keep doing it. And they keep getting away with it. Despite this ruling that their search was illegal from the high court, they’ve still gotten away with it. Their point is made.

      After all, apart from the court telling them off, what other repercussions will their be for police breaking this particular law?

      Nothing as far as I can see. Nothing.

  28. ianmac 28
    18 December 2015 at 8:40 am

    A great text to Morning Report this morning said, “John Key said he knew who Rawshark was. Why didn’t they search his house?”

  29. Tory 29
    18 December 2015 at 8:48 am

    So although many here suggest political interference (with no actual proof) from the National Party to the Police, we can close the circle by suggesting political interference by Labour as Justice Clifford was a Cullen appointment. That conspiracy theory will sit well with many commentators here. Of course that can be dispelled by someone posting the actual link that shows the instructions from the PM”s office to the Police commissioner…..

    • vto 29.1
      18 December 2015 at 8:56 am

      you need a tissue – you’re dribbling

    • Whispering Kate 29.2
      18 December 2015 at 2:02 pm

      Interesting to hear that Justice Clifford was a Cullen appointment. In a reply of mine earlier in this post 8.6.1 I made the suggestion that Clifford’s appointment would be in jeopardy now – it almost certainly will be after what you have just stated. I feel if the Police do appeal it will be overturned like Kim Dot Com’s was. The whole state of our government and how it operates gets dirtier by the day.

  30. savenz 30
    18 December 2015 at 9:05 am

    Fantastic outcome! One step backwards for a politically motivated police force in NZ and a step forward for journalistic justice!

  31. Chooky 31
    18 December 2015 at 9:58 am

    Winston Peters speaks out on Morning Report…sounding like a statesman…certainly has far more gravitas than John Key and Andrew Little and James Shaw

    ‘Peters says Hager case latest example of police politicisation’

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201783350/peters-says-hager-case-latest-example-of-police-politicisation

    “The High Court ruling that the Police used an unlawful warrant to raid the house of Dirty Politics journalist and author, Nicky Hager, has fuelled claims the police are prone to political pressure. The police were not prepared to speak on Morning Report today. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters joins us.”

  32. BelleDeJourNZ 32
    19 December 2015 at 12:20 am

    “So here’s my argument. To ‘hack’ data, you have to illegally access the victims property (their computer). You then have to remove (electronically) copies of their private data.”

    What if the hack was ‘legal’? Our govt as part of the 5 eyes can obtain any and all such data can’t it? Not breaking the law afaik.
    What if Rawshark was working in the field where he/she had legal access and decided to pass it on to Hager. ? Sure they may be breaking the terms of their employment contract (like Snowden) but how do we know they had illegal access.?

    Maybe my mind works in funny ways :), but I loved that story “The Falcon and the Snowman”, and also the story of Mordecai Vanunu. I like to hope Rawshark was similarly motivated.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 32.1
      19 December 2015 at 7:34 am

      The hack wasn’t legal – everyone involved agrees on that part. Rawshark spoke of a desire to “take down the network” – ie: Slater’s ratfucking machine.

Links to post