RHIZOMES
14th December 2009, 14:05
http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/en/node/604
Special Newsletter Issue: the Search and Surveillance Bill
The Search and Surveillance bill is currently considered by Parliament. This massive new law would substantially increase State powers to search, surveil people and places. It also allows expanded powers to set up roadblocks, like the one set up in Ruatoki on 15 October 2007. The law effectively removes the right to silence and allows for covert surveillance on private property. Members of the October 15th Solidarity crew in Wellington made submissions on the bill, and are undertaking a campaign to stop it.
Ever since public submissions were heard in October, Warren Young, Deputy Commissioner of the Law Commission and main author of the Search and Surveillance Bill, has been busy responding to criticism of the bill. Young keeps re-iterating that the bill does not extend powers, that it does not give new powers to police or other agencies. He claims that everyone who says differently can’t understand the bill. This is a remarkable claim, given that the list of those who have voiced serious concerns over the new powers includes several law firms, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Law Society and the Chief Justice. All of these have made written submissions to the select committee.
Of the 42 submissions the select committee received, only one was unreservedly supportive of the bill. A few asked for minor alterations, the Police Association wants yet even more powers, but the overwhelming majority of submitters raised serious concerns. The Law Society argues that the bill is “a dramatic expansion of powers for other Agencies” and calls it a constitutional change. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties calls it “law by stealth”. The law firm Bell Gully says the bill “erodes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure” and that the aim for all agencies to “share common search and surveillance powers is flawed”.
The Chief Justice (whose submission is on behalf of all Supreme Court, Appeal Court and High Court Judges) is concerned about the easy access police have to Examination Orders. She is also concerned about the granting of search warrants via the phone and says that a lot of provisions apply to too wide a range of offences. Claiming that the opinion of the Chief Justice – arguably the most experienced lawyer in the country – is “based upon a remarkable misunderstanding of both the current law and the provisions of the bill” (Young) is a tall order. Even if it was true, it would be a bad sign. If the Chief Justice doesn’t understand the law, what are the chances that a District Court Judge, a police officer or a WINZ case manager will? Warren Young’s arguments are tightly coupled with his view of the world. It is nothing more than a small minded bureaucrat’s view of law and order.
Download Issue 16 of the October 15th Solidarity newsletter (http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/sites/default/files/vol16.pdf) for more information.
From the Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=204950191596&ref=mf#/group.php?v=info&ref=mf&gid=204950191596) set up against it:
The Search and Surveillance Bill had its first reading in August 2009.
When this bill becomes law, the so-called right to silence will no longer exist. Using an Examination Order, the police can demand that you report to them for questioning. The criterion is that they suspect you of being involved with two or more others in the commission (or plotting) of any offence punishable by imprisonment, for example even trespass or disorderly behaviour would qualify.
The only way to refuse this order is to cite legal jargon: ‘Section 60 of the Evidence Act’ and claim ‘privilege against self-incrimination’. But even if you happen to know this, it may not help you – you can be ordered in front of a judge where you then have to offer evidence as to why you would be likely to
incriminate yourself if you talked. Catch-22.
Something else that changes with this bill, is the ‘right’ you have to not participate in proving your guilt. Current practice is that the police have to provide all the evidence – next year they can sit back and order you to produce some of that evidence. Instead of getting a search warrant, they will be able to apply for a Production Order. This order will require you to produce documents you are suspected of having (or will have) in the future and is available to any enforcement officer covered by the Act. If you refuse to supply the documentation they are after, the sentence is a maximum of a year’s imprisonment.
Surveillance devices are another invasive part of the bill. They include bugs, video cameras and tracking devices for cars.
Currently, there are no specific regulations around surveillance on private property. However, police need a warrant to enter your house and install a camera or bug. The bill introduces the concept of a surveillance device warrant, which can be obtained by any enforcement officer (not just police) under the same criteria as a search warrant – the suspicion that the search (or surveillance) will uncover evidential material necessary for the prosecution of a crime. This equates ongoing video surveillance with a one-off search.
There are also options for warrant-less searches. Once you’re arrested (or even just detained) the police and enforcement officers are able to search your home, workplace, car, friend’s home or any place with which you are associated, without a warrant – if they believe they can find evidential material related to the offence they’re holding you for. This power, combined with ‘plain view’ searches is a nightmare. Whilst you are sitting in the cells, your home can be turned upside down with no warrant.
Check out the article in the October 15th Solidarity Newsletter for more info http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/sites/default/files/vol16.pdf
----
4 August 2009, at the first reading of the bill, only the Green Party did not support • it. ACT supported the bill to the Select Committee stage but they may not support it any further than that.
In October 2009, public submissions are heard and the bill received widespread criticism from human rights activists, the Law Society, New Zealand's Chief Justice, the Privacy Commission and Human Rights Commission.
National decides to put off the bill until May 2010.
The October 15th Solidarity Campaign have been having regular updates on the Bill in their newsletters. http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/
As a New Zealander I find these developments highly disturbing.
Special Newsletter Issue: the Search and Surveillance Bill
The Search and Surveillance bill is currently considered by Parliament. This massive new law would substantially increase State powers to search, surveil people and places. It also allows expanded powers to set up roadblocks, like the one set up in Ruatoki on 15 October 2007. The law effectively removes the right to silence and allows for covert surveillance on private property. Members of the October 15th Solidarity crew in Wellington made submissions on the bill, and are undertaking a campaign to stop it.
Ever since public submissions were heard in October, Warren Young, Deputy Commissioner of the Law Commission and main author of the Search and Surveillance Bill, has been busy responding to criticism of the bill. Young keeps re-iterating that the bill does not extend powers, that it does not give new powers to police or other agencies. He claims that everyone who says differently can’t understand the bill. This is a remarkable claim, given that the list of those who have voiced serious concerns over the new powers includes several law firms, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Law Society and the Chief Justice. All of these have made written submissions to the select committee.
Of the 42 submissions the select committee received, only one was unreservedly supportive of the bill. A few asked for minor alterations, the Police Association wants yet even more powers, but the overwhelming majority of submitters raised serious concerns. The Law Society argues that the bill is “a dramatic expansion of powers for other Agencies” and calls it a constitutional change. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties calls it “law by stealth”. The law firm Bell Gully says the bill “erodes the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure” and that the aim for all agencies to “share common search and surveillance powers is flawed”.
The Chief Justice (whose submission is on behalf of all Supreme Court, Appeal Court and High Court Judges) is concerned about the easy access police have to Examination Orders. She is also concerned about the granting of search warrants via the phone and says that a lot of provisions apply to too wide a range of offences. Claiming that the opinion of the Chief Justice – arguably the most experienced lawyer in the country – is “based upon a remarkable misunderstanding of both the current law and the provisions of the bill” (Young) is a tall order. Even if it was true, it would be a bad sign. If the Chief Justice doesn’t understand the law, what are the chances that a District Court Judge, a police officer or a WINZ case manager will? Warren Young’s arguments are tightly coupled with his view of the world. It is nothing more than a small minded bureaucrat’s view of law and order.
Download Issue 16 of the October 15th Solidarity newsletter (http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/sites/default/files/vol16.pdf) for more information.
From the Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=204950191596&ref=mf#/group.php?v=info&ref=mf&gid=204950191596) set up against it:
The Search and Surveillance Bill had its first reading in August 2009.
When this bill becomes law, the so-called right to silence will no longer exist. Using an Examination Order, the police can demand that you report to them for questioning. The criterion is that they suspect you of being involved with two or more others in the commission (or plotting) of any offence punishable by imprisonment, for example even trespass or disorderly behaviour would qualify.
The only way to refuse this order is to cite legal jargon: ‘Section 60 of the Evidence Act’ and claim ‘privilege against self-incrimination’. But even if you happen to know this, it may not help you – you can be ordered in front of a judge where you then have to offer evidence as to why you would be likely to
incriminate yourself if you talked. Catch-22.
Something else that changes with this bill, is the ‘right’ you have to not participate in proving your guilt. Current practice is that the police have to provide all the evidence – next year they can sit back and order you to produce some of that evidence. Instead of getting a search warrant, they will be able to apply for a Production Order. This order will require you to produce documents you are suspected of having (or will have) in the future and is available to any enforcement officer covered by the Act. If you refuse to supply the documentation they are after, the sentence is a maximum of a year’s imprisonment.
Surveillance devices are another invasive part of the bill. They include bugs, video cameras and tracking devices for cars.
Currently, there are no specific regulations around surveillance on private property. However, police need a warrant to enter your house and install a camera or bug. The bill introduces the concept of a surveillance device warrant, which can be obtained by any enforcement officer (not just police) under the same criteria as a search warrant – the suspicion that the search (or surveillance) will uncover evidential material necessary for the prosecution of a crime. This equates ongoing video surveillance with a one-off search.
There are also options for warrant-less searches. Once you’re arrested (or even just detained) the police and enforcement officers are able to search your home, workplace, car, friend’s home or any place with which you are associated, without a warrant – if they believe they can find evidential material related to the offence they’re holding you for. This power, combined with ‘plain view’ searches is a nightmare. Whilst you are sitting in the cells, your home can be turned upside down with no warrant.
Check out the article in the October 15th Solidarity Newsletter for more info http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/sites/default/files/vol16.pdf
----
4 August 2009, at the first reading of the bill, only the Green Party did not support • it. ACT supported the bill to the Select Committee stage but they may not support it any further than that.
In October 2009, public submissions are heard and the bill received widespread criticism from human rights activists, the Law Society, New Zealand's Chief Justice, the Privacy Commission and Human Rights Commission.
National decides to put off the bill until May 2010.
The October 15th Solidarity Campaign have been having regular updates on the Bill in their newsletters. http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/
As a New Zealander I find these developments highly disturbing.