In a monumental Court decision, Judge Helen Winkelmann of the Auckland High Court last week [** CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] authorised by the Court in the "Tuhoe Terrorist" raids in 2007. The Judge ruled there was "No [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] for issue of [CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT]". Winkelmann J also ruled the Police [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]to be on the various roads and track for the purpose of covert surveillance.
Counter-intuitively the Judge ruled [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] under s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The legal admissibility of the evidence collected in the [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] to be the subject of another hearing.In an [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] -page judgment, Justice Winkelmann [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] to reach a conclusion [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] threatened New Zealand's clean-green image, and life itself. Her ruling points the finger instead at the [CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT] of the Police raids and seizures which occurred with the [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] of some New Zealand Judges.
In a sour note to Justice Winkelmann's historic ruling, Her Honour ordered her findings suppressed from the media, seemingly to save embarrassment to the Police, as well as fellow High Court Justice Judith Potter - who was the judge [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]. In stark contrast to this current shroud of secrecy, the Police raids and massive arrests consumed "mainstream media" coverage for weeks in New Zealand when they occurred two years ago, as well as prompted breaking news bulletins around the world. In 2007, Judge Winkelmann herself read out, in open Court and in front of national TV news cameras, the very worst evidence from the Police affidavits - before ordering the affidavits themselves concealed by judicial order from the public.
What started out as a prosecution under the Terrorist Suppression Act 2002 by Solicitor General David Collins in 2007 has now been diluted into an Arms Act 1983 prosecution. In November 2007 S-G Collins backed down from the Terrorist charges after a month of mass protests brought attention to the lack of credible evidence being publicly released and resulted in increased suspicion concerning the NZ Court's blanket order suppressing the Police affidavits.
The 18 accused are represented by 14 barristers and countless solicitors, as well as Amicus Curiae Paul Dacre - an Auckland barrister who is the former Pitcairn Island Public Defender. An 'Amicus Curiae' is a neutral 'friend of the court' appointed by the Judge to give an independent analysis of the facts and relevant legal position. After several weeks of deposition hearings last year, 5 of the 18 defendants were additionally charged with participating in a gang under the Crimes Act. The cost of all this to the Crown has already surpassed $8 million and could exceed $20 million. Most of the defendants are on legal aid.
Preeminent defence barrister Rodney Harrison QC has been recognised by consent as lead counsel for the accused, with Maori rights lawyer Annette Sykes afforded distinct status by the Court in relation to the tikanga of Tuhoe and implied licence.
The written factual background laid out by the Judge in the substantive prosecution [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] but quite simply can be summed up as "[ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**], resulting in an intensive 13 month covert operation, 9 court-ordered land warrants, countless other search warrants and road blocks."
Gone is the seditious language used when the story first gripped the nation that men in "paramilitary uniforms" were being trained in guerilla warfare by foreign terrorists and planned to use "napalm bombs" in coordinated attacks against State institutions. In retrospect, it now seems odd that [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**] on a Police affidavit that could not determine whether the number was closer to [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**]. Perhaps they were too-well camouflaged for Police. But then this is why it is the responsibility of the Judge to ask such pertinent questions before [**CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].
In Para. [55] of her judgment, Winkelmann J [ **CENSORED BY THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT**].
In oral submissions, Crown prosecutor Ross Burns argued that it was in the public interest for the Judge to allow the case to proceed unimpeded by legal technicalities. He is being assisted in the prosecution by Meredith Connell employee Emma Finlayson-Davis. In contrast, Mr Harrison QC for the defence provided the Court a dissertation on the relevant law, providing intricate details which gave rise to those laws in Parliament. Harrison concluded his submissions by stating his own limitations relative to the specificities of each individual defendant, advising the Court may need to hear arguments from each defendant's counsel. "The (evidence) exclusion issues can then be addressed by all counsel in a focused and hopefully helpful manner."
The parties were again in the Auckland High Court on Tuesday for further arguments.
BACK TO FRONT PAGE - with kind permission from Vince Seimer, editor, Kiwisfirst.com
No comments:
Post a Comment