Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: Dotcom spying: Crown criminal liability?

Graeme Edgeler

Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:17:40 +1300

I can only hope such an argument would win.

It didn't at Nuremberg!
[does this mean I should close off comments?]

Lucy Telfar Barnard

Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:38:43 +1300

That some technician might be the person to carry criminal liability for a decision made be people at a much higher pay grade, would seem a little unfair, but if you’re going to be intercepting the private communications of people, you do kind of a run a risk.
It’s more…

DexterX

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:04:51 +1300

I'm with you on this – it is disturbing.

mark taslov

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:03:26 +1300

I’m in awe of those goldentonsils, today weighing in on the Tyson issue stating

Mike Tyson was granted a visa to New Zealand on a “line call” that his rape conviction was 20 years ago…. A “fairly liberal” view was taken if the crime was a long time ago and…

andin

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:15:32 +1300

But yet again Johnnygoldentonsils cant help himself. Engaging in a pissing contest while thinking he is possessed of an omnipotence (apparently none of us mere plebs could ever have) into the motivations of other beings. It is just a "political stunt".
Accountability be damned

Russell Brown

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:35:49 +1300

Here's the police statement:

Police to investigate complaint by Dr Russel Norman re GCSB
October 2, 2012, 11:01 am

Dr Russel Norman has laid a complaint under section 216(B) of the Crimes Act alleging illegality of work undertaken by the Government Communications Bureau.

The Police Commissioner Peter Marshall has…

Hilary Stace

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:30:40 +1300

Herald reports that police will have an investigation.

Kyle Matthews

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:21:00 +1300

For our Crown Organisation the liability apparently rests with the CEO. It’s the reason I don’t mind his salary being so high.

Not personally liable. CEOs of Crown Organisations get sued all the time – every time a prisoner contests a decision of Corrections it's "Bloggs v CEO of Department…

Matthew Smith

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:32:36 +1300

Hmmmmm. And I wonder whether one can be acting in good faith if one actually commits a crime. The precedent on that point must be interesting.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:03:25 +1300

Graeme, wouldn’t the spooks be protected from criminal prosecution by s86 of the State Sector Act, so long as they genuinely believed what they were doing was legal?

I hadn't considered that, but I'm pretty sure it's limited to civil liability.

That said, I'd happily argue it if I was…

Matthew Smith

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:03:51 +1300

Graeme, wouldn't the spooks be protected from criminal prosecution by s86 of the State Sector Act, so long as they genuinely believed what they were doing was legal?
No ...employee shall be personally liable for ... any liability for any act... done in good faith in pursuance or intended pursuance…

May

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:17:39 +1300

Graeme, it looks as though the Police may have raised doubts about the legality of GCSB's surveillance of Kim Dotcom to the GCSB at a 'backslapping' event in February.

The GCSB's legal department reviewed the case and concluded that their actions were legitimate.

It turns out that the GCSB's legal…

Matthew Poole

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:44:12 +1300

Because the Americans are subject to no form of oversight or restraint as to how they use or release this information.

Which still doesn't make it a Privacy Act breach. It'll be called sharing information between law enforcement agencies, which is entirely proper. The Act is very, very unclear about…

martinb

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:15:43 +1300

It's the bloggers who rip off the mainstream media to pad out their blogs that I can't stand...!!

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:36:29 +1300

Because the Americans are subject to no form of oversight or restraint as to how they use or release this information.

I'd expect that any such release would happen only after the video had been viewed and discussed by responsible management.

Apart from anything else, streaming data in realtime serves…

Matthew Poole

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:15:38 +1300

Was this activity – sending a video of the raid to the US in realtime legal?

Privacy Act? Reasonable use of public funds? Police code of conduct re. releasing information?

Why would it have been a breach of the Privacy Act? It's not a public release, it's internal documentation of…

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:46:08 +1300

Was this activity – sending a video of the raid to the US in realtime legal?

Privacy Act? Reasonable use of public funds? Police code of conduct re. releasing information?

Bart Janssen

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:23:09 +1300

Does the Board or Chief Executive of a Crown Organisation have to be in on the offending?

For our Crown Organisation the liability apparently rests with the CEO. It's the reason I don't mind his salary being so high. I'm pretty sure our directors don't share responsibilty. But the CRI…

andin

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:10:24 +1300

such unfairness can be avoided.

Sheez! Ross Meurant
When I speak about a police culture, I speak about the environment I have described. It is introverted, self protecting and lacking objectivity. It is a culture which looks after itself and has a certain view of how life should proceed. It…

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:23:11 +1300

In a democracy, shouldn't the people who voted for the governing party be responsible? ;-) #votecrime

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:17:27 +1300

Do any state sector laws position the agency’s head as being liable?

The laws about suing the Attorney-General seem designed that way, but criminal liability falls on those who commit crimes, whatever their pay grade.

TracyMac

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:13:46 +1300

I don't know about the linked blog as a whole, but it quotes the an article by Meurant about his change of heart about some areas of his life, including police culture and actions. http://www.police-corruption.com/nz-warned-regarding-anti-terror-legislation/

In short, people can reflect, and change their views.

Kyle Matthews

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:00:32 +1300

This morning’s New Zealand Herald has an article on this in which I am quoted about the likelihood of charges.

This statement attributed to Meurant really is dripping with irony, given his role with the Red Squad.

However, that would not happen, he said. A long-standing police culture of avoiding…

Sacha

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:56:08 +1300

Do any state sector laws position the agency's head as being liable? I'd expect the boss to be sued, not the janitor.

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:36:56 +1300

(the body would presumably claim it needs its budget to keep providing whatever it does, and indeed to prevent the transgression recurring)

I'm not sure that follows. Crown Organisations don't usually get top-up funds when they are successfully sued, I don't see that fines would be fundamentally different.

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:25:13 +1300

I saw your twitter discussion over the weekend, and what occurred to me was how on earth any meaningful sanction could be applied if a crown body was found criminally liable?

The normal sanction for a company found criminally liable is a fine. But all fine income belongs to the…

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:46:38 +1300

This morning's New Zealand Herald has an article on this in which I am quoted about the likelihood of charges. I agree they are unlikely, but do consider there should be a full investigation.

Public Address

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:46:38 +1300

Discussion from blog post.