Supreme Court ruling means urgent law change needed

Supreme Court ruling means urgent law change needed

The Supreme Court’s ruling that Police have no legal authority to use video surveillance to gather evidence, which led to the withdrawal of several charges laid in relation to Operation Eight, means an urgent law change is needed to allow Police to continue to act against drug dealers and organised crime, Police Association President Greg O’Connor said.

Counsel for the four accused against whom charges are still pending had sought to maintain suppression of the Supreme Court’s judgment, but the Court of Appeal today allowed its release.

“The sooner all the facts around this case are out in the public, the better,” Mr O’Connor said.

“Contrary to much of the assumption and spin we have heard since the charges were withdrawn, the Supreme Court’s ruling is not a judgment on the criminality or otherwise of the alleged actions. Nor is it a criticism of Police for taking action to investigate and arrest the individuals involved.

“Rather, the Supreme Court has ruled on what it has identified as a gap in New Zealand’s law covering the use of any video surveillance by Police. It has essentially ruled that because there is no affirmative provision in law making such surveillance legal, it must by default be considered illegal. As such, it has ruled any evidence gathered from such surveillance is inadmissible except in narrow circumstances where other considerations ‘on balance’ mean it should be allowed despite being improperly obtained.

“That is different to how the law has been interpreted by the Courts up until now, where it has essentially been assumed that because video surveillance is not prohibited, it is generally permitted.

“Because the Operation Eight cases relied so heavily on video surveillance evidence, it would not have been possible to proceed against 13 of the defendants without that evidence and so the Crown was left with no choice but to withdraw those charges. However, charges in the four most serious cases can proceed because the Supreme Court has ruled the video footage will be allowed in those cases under the ‘balancing’ provisions of the Evidence Act.

“Those who were quick to leap to the conclusion that Police had no evidence justifying the arrests should now feel embarrassed. The charges were withdrawn not due to any inadequacy in the evidence, but rather due to an inadequacy in the law that had not previously been definitively ruled on.

“The Supreme Court’s new interpretation has major implications for policing of all kinds of serious crime, especially organised crime and drug dealing. The Supreme Court has invited Parliament to pass a law authorising video surveillance, and this must be done urgently. Until then, Police’s ability to take successful action against methamphetamine dealing gangs and other serious criminals is now in serious jeopardy,” Mr O’Connor said.