Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

And yet they smear him as a criminal in order to save face after their over-reaction.

How typical.

Or try to suck up to the Nats ahead of cuts and restructuring within the police.

wondered as much myself. not a healthy trend.

Innocent Ambrose being Not Guilty wasn't the issue - the law - the Courts and the Police possess a degree of malleability - how malleable depends on influence.

It would not have worked in anybodies favour for this to have gone to trial, the police knew they had no real case and as jonkey was the instigator of this fiasco then a not guilty verdict would have looked bad for him and the police don't want to upset the "Smiling Assassin" while he is wielding the hatchet of spending cuts.
It served its purpose as a smokescreen in the run up to the election, to hide the inadequacies of the incumbent government and the policies of the opposition.
I feel that this is not the end of the matter however as Ambrose now has a story to tell and there are plenty of people who are willing to listen to a victim of a rogue state.

I/S: Sure, there wasn't enough to convict, and he was therefore rightly not charged - but why does that taint the Police's view that it was "more likely deliberate"?

Are you saying that you don't believe the Police's view was formed in good faith, or are you saying that regardless, they shouldn't say anything because charges weren't laid?

I/S: Sure, there wasn’t enough to convict, and he was therefore rightly not charged – but why does that taint the Police’s view that it was “more likely deliberate”?

Keith, according to the police statement, Ambrose wasn't spared prosecution for lack of evidence -- the police statement declares his conduct unlawful and issues a warning not only to Ambrose but to any and all other journalists tempted to use recordings of conversations that are "considered" private. He was spared because, um, he wrote a letter in which he said the same as he has from the beginning -- the recording was inadvertent.

And then Burgess uttered the statement noted by Graeme, which indicates that despite having declared Ambrose guilty, the police had not even convinced themselves. Had it gone to court, I'm sure a defence lawyer would have been happy to introduce the assistant commissioner's summary of investigations as evidence.

Nek minnit:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6641462/Key-turns-other-cheek-over-tape

How magnanimous of him.

… or are you saying that regardless, they shouldn’t say anything because charges weren’t laid?

I assumed the latter. Seems a sensible line in the sand.

There is some authority for the proposition that any public statements about guilt by any part of the state (e.g. police) prior to conviction are a violation of the presumption of innocence.

any public statements about guilt by any part of the state (e.g. police) prior to conviction are a violation of the presumption of innocence.

well put

Police giving mixed messages (3 mins, listening options).

It stinks to high heaven that Key got safely out of the country, accompanied by only two (probably extremely tame) members of the press before the deal was announced. I don't like the appearance of political interference and police complicity that this has going.

Graeme - I'm guessing that S.216B of the Crimes Act requires intent, and recklessness isn't enough. Also, "more likely" is not "beyond reasonable doubt?".

If that's the case, then Bradley Ambrose didn't intentionally record a conversation, and hence no crime was committed.

I'm thinking that if the complainant was anyone other than a Government minister, the police would have rapidly established that there was no evidence of intent and declined to proceed further within a few days.

Graeme – I’m guessing that S.216B of the Crimes Act requires intent, and recklessness isn’t enough.

That seems to be what the relevant commentators have said from the outset.

Also, “more likely” is not “beyond reasonable doubt?”.

It very much is not.

The general understanding of turn the other cheek is about forgiveness. It actually is instruction to a slave who having been struck (backhanded) on the cheek (the left) by his master turns his other (the right) inviting the master to treat him as an equal – the blow that follows cannot be delivered as a backhander but only as a punch. Palestinian society in Jesus' day had an interesting set of fines for brawling and which hand hit which part of the face.
By proffering the other cheek the slave is claiming full personhood. It is not Jonkeys place – he has the power. Ambrose is the victim here – in more ways than one!

Key gets confused - his version of turning the other cheek is mooning everyone - he was actually thinking buttock as in butt cheek.

Police opinion is irrelevant.
Charge or not charge is police job.
Opinion is irrelevant.

Police behaviour in this non case is highly suspect.

NO! I am not a conspiracy theorist but police people appear to be talking rather a lot about this non police event.

Why don't we do away with legal process and just accept the police judgement that the recording incident was illegal and proceed on that basis. It would save a lot of money dearest John and Bill. xx

Brilliant idea! After all, the police wouldn't be hauling you before the court if you hadn't done something wrong. And of course, if you keep your nose clean, you've got nothing to fear. Only Bad People ever get in any trouble with the police.