What's on the tape ?

I agree with that law bob, as long as the assessment is pretty rigorous and a fair assessment and not done by the private prison (because we all know what their outcome would be) , I am actually in favour of psychologically assessing whether someone is likely to go out and re-offend (remember this is only for very serious offenders as well).

There are bigger issues than this in the election, and this definitely is not one to focus on.

Its a huge abuse of our justice system - you do the time for your crime.... then are freed, its that simple

if people are deemed so dangerous they shouldn't be allowed back into the community - then address that in sentencing... not deny them their legal right to freedom on some pretext post sentencing/serving time

if people show they are a threat to society we could you know... try this rehabilitation lark (more than currently - and fund it proper too)

this is a big issue - when adding it to the search and surveillance bullocks and other freedom curtailing action thats gone down here under this govt (and the previous one)

Some people are beyond rehabilitation and we've seen all too often the tragic results of inadequate sentencing. However there is the issue of arbitrariness and certainty of punishment to assuage in this. I agree with you on that point. In desiring to come down on the side of victims' rights we should avoid the perils of the police state.

Preventive Detention usually takes care of our most dangerous crims.

I'm not suggesting some people aren't beyond help - but to take their right to freedom away after serving their time is simply put wrong and the potential for abuse is frightening (huge understatement)

address the issue within the current legal framework not make mickey mouse rules to suit the baying mob please

The Nats are estimating only 5 per decade would be subject to it with usual checks and balances?

DP

the usual checks and balances occur in the court room and parole hearings... if our sentencing or psychological assessments et al are wanting focus on that, don't just punish cause thats what ya focus groups aand mickey mouse lobbyists want

we're not fiji.... yet

estimates change in other words - once the mandate is given its an open door to potential abuse

I think the privatisation of our prisons under national is far more concerning.

Because privatisation means cost cutting to make profits, prisons become bottom lines, and rehabilitation is out the window. The goal of private prisons is to keep people in, they can become very effective at lobbying government. One only has to look America's prisons/legal system post-privatisation to see why this is a very very very very very very very very bad idea.

I agree private prisons are wrong - but my take isn't based in the economic argument (as good as it is - ie evidence points to the fact they are not better but way worse) but that the state should not be contracting out its core obligations in a manner like this

NRT puts it better than I can:



http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/10/against-private-prisons.html

http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-keeps-meeting-with-Anadarko-boss-quiet/tabid/1160/articleID/233099/Default.aspx

Key has another dodgy cuppa - this time with boss of oil drilling outfit keen to be let loose in NZ waters. Boss man was on TV last night saying global warming is good becasue it stops people freezing to death! Can this dipshit be trusted to drill for oil safely in NZ water???

Well he has an impeccable record in the Gulf I hear

Petrobas our other fave oil company is having a good time of it of late too

our foot.... their gun

Kevin Milne on the radio today sums up the tea tape situation pretty well.

http://soundcloud.com/whaleoil/newstalkzb-paul-holmes-and

(apologies in advance for posting to whale oil-sourced link - it was the only one quickly online)

thats biased drivel that basically parrots keys lines

needs less hack and more objective and legally substantiated reporting, not opinion disguised as fact

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-political-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502734&objectid=10767277

This column is strategic advice for centre-left voters only.
Right wing readers should obey John Key's edict on private political conversations. So please turn the page.

That column is pretty hilarious I must admit.

I love how despite Nation not actually saying anything about endorsing Act in Epsom people have somehow managed to either conveniently forget or find some nonsensical difference between Epsom and Wigram. In the previous three elections Labour did basically no promotion and fielded complete nobody candidates in Wigram in order to give Jim Anderton a cake-walk into Parliament as their version of what Act is to National. Now suddenly it's some scandalous perversion of democracy.

That's it to a tea, warner

the only real difference is labour didn't put on a circus act to try and convince their supporters what to do in Andertons electorate... they simply didn't engage in that electorate - one Anderton had served so well (debatable on where you stand) for so very very long

instead we get tea gate and the pathetic actions we're currently witnessing

the gaming of the system is the same, basically yes... the means and method so very different - one lot managed to keep any deals out of the public eye and the other lot created a media circus that backfired (debateable on where you stand)

somewhere an extlusive brethern leader is screaming jesus christ

Key must be spewing at himself. It's hardly as if the Epsomites needed the nudge nudge wink wink bullshit laid on thick and heavy. The 'subtle' hints already well advertised in the media were enough for that media saturated and savvy electorate, who btw, were and are in no way gonna buy into two ex Nat hacks parachuting into hijack ACT. Unless they're solidly Nat supporters, which they aren't.

And now the real beneficiary Winston stands to gain for all the free publicity, which is oxygen to his electoral chances. Which sheets it all back home to JK whose FPP ambitions relate entirely to such MMP shenanigans as we now have because of present MMP conditions. Such irony.

yep its ironic all right... watch the hole get deeper this week

one interesting outcome- its sure has shown who the journalists are amongst the hacks - so many hacks in media

maybe it was a conspiracy to convinve people to drop MMP...

As bob d says, big difference between Epsom and Wigram. Wigram was a solid Anderton seat - he's held it since 1984 (well, the former Sydenham electorate that was redrawn as Wigram in 1996) and by all reports did a fine job as a local MP. Labour simply never bother to engage much at all, much like both parties have done in many safe seats both red and blue over the years - it's simply not worth wasting much effort and money to try and defeat MP's like Anderton.

Another example would be Mt Albert, a seat that's been safe Labour since it was established in 1946, and was held by Helen Clark since 1981 until she resigned. National has never bother putting in any effort whatsoever into the seat, with the exception of the godawful Melissa Lee in the 09 byelection, a move we all know was doomed to failure from the start.

What's happening in Epsom is an attempted jackup pure and simple, a dog and pony show for the cameras (when it suits them of course) when we all know there's no way Epsom voters need to be told what to do if they want ACT in the house, and thankfully it looks like they are revolting and will send Goldsmith in to bat instead.

Related, I liked this bit of satire: http://www.imperatorfish.com/2011/11/trying-hard-to-lose.html

See, you can post like a normal person!

But yes, for all Key's huff and puff about the dangers of Winston, he has only himself and his Epsom strategy to blame if he once again rises from the ashes in all his pinstripe glory.

Oversized suits all over the show!

Hipsters for Goldsmith FTW

Goldsmiths that look like Skrillex?

I said hipsters... not fucking idiots

http://www.facebook.com/hipstersforgoldsmith?sk=wall

http://twitter.com/#!/hpstrs4gldsmth

So you're saying that being upfront about this twisting of democracy is less right than doing it in an underhanded manner like they did in Wigram?

The fact that one lot didn't attract as much media attention means nothing with regards to the practice - it's just the media's view being imparted on it. In fact, the most recent polls seem to indicate that overall people don't care - a tacit agreement perhaps that they don't care much for media beat-ups like this?

If Epsom is such a jack-up... Then how come it wasn't last time?

WHAT UNDERHANDED MANNER? THEY JUST DID FUCK ALL!

The details of Anderton's track record in Wigram are minor details in terms of the democracy issue which is now being claimed for Epsom. Labour chose not to contest Wigram for the reason it was beneficial for them to have Anderton in Parliament.

The cost/effort to try to feat Anderton is a point of difference for sure - no doubt about that - but, again, if the motivation for it was to ensure an extra tail-gunner on your side then the ethics of it are no different. So it depends on what you think their reasoning was: to save money, to have an extra guy with them or somewhere on the grey-scale of a bit of both.

Rob I believe you're making more of the 'abuse' of the system re epsom than most on the left

I personally think political parties conspiring to rig seats to their mutual advantage to be unethical (not illegal) and an insult to the voting and non voting public - regardless of who does it

Act and National over Epsom in this instance just adds to the insult all voters (nation wide) should feel - I'd be just as angry if the Greens and Labour were doing the same or two other left leaning parties...

http://hipstersforgoldsmith.bandcamp.com/track/goldsmiths-theme

Oh, I'm actually sort of ambivalent about it. I shouldn't be but the media beat-up over Epsom is what is laughable and how so many people have gotten on-board as if they would have given two hoots about it were it not for newspapers hamming it up daily for a week.

MMP has grown to be ripe for this sort of deliberate planning (or lack-of) but the good of the system still outweighs stuff like this imo.

I personally look forward to the day all our FPP era politicians fuck off - as I see them as the problem, not MMP per se (like yourself) - though open to some 'abuse' it is way less so than FPP (different types of) where we were used to minority governments winning the day and running the country without the sobering effect (debatable) the small parties can have on them

Epsom shouldn't be a big deal - but the clowns have made it so, was fine when the media were pushing the right agenda but the moment that changed its all "not fair" "leave us alone" and now the stupid idiots are trying to make this a media vs the public battle - now thats working well isn't it, doh

Is the court decision on whether this is classified as a private conversation due tomorrow or something?

Yeah.

it is under way now

Oh no, Ambrose's lawyer is going for the retard defence: they didn't ask for the mics to be turned off.

not that retarded Rob - please do not record this conversation is very different from get ya recording stuff off the table

very hard to prove or defend intent which is the crux of the matter

His whole case hinges on the inability to prove intent. The fact is his tape-recorder was on and left on the table - it's just he knows intent is all-but impossible to prove in things like this so the lawyer can basically wave it in everyone's faces and laugh at them. It doesn't mean he didn't do it deliberately.

I agree - its a nice grey area to be exploited or defended depending on your perspective

the fact no one took any notice of the bag is *face palm* material - given the circumstances a huge fail by Banks, Key and their respective minders - the wolf was eating their legs off yet they refused to call for help

somewhere a little boy is crying

Justice Helen Winkelmann has reserved her decision until 2.15pm tomorrow.

I am pretty sure the guy will be in the right, due to public right to know, lack of intent, the burden of proof is on the state to prove he intentionally recorded the conversation.

Since the recorder was turned on I think the assumption of intent is a fair call - as I said above though, proving intent is like proving someone hasn't spoken to God...

One way they could rule out some elements of his story is to get access to the entire file. Surely if he didn't know it was recording the file would include the same amount of time before (from long before they were hurried along) and after the interview (when does he say he discovered it - I thought he said he noticed the recording later - in which case it'd have run out of batteries or recording space - OR would still be recording)? If the original file was started shortly before and stopped shortly afterwards it'd be harder to show it was just an accident?

They played the entire recording in court Rob, as part of their claim.

That can't be the reason to make his side of the story right though in this case here which is simply whether the conversation was private. All this is about is what constitutes a private conversation.

He can't exactly argue that the public had (not has - as it relates to when it was being recorded) a right to know what was on it and that it was an accident. Arguing the first part would indicate that he thought he was in his rights to record - ergo: bit hard to say "oh, but it was also an accident".

I meant for the fact he submitted it to the media.

Yea I am tired I am going to bed, you should obliterate me in any argument at this time (or any other )

How long was it? anyone know?

Sherlock - they meet for approx 8 minutes... the tape is prob about that length

privacy has no bearing on this case - its about intent

good legal overview here for those still confuused: http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=511

This case they're hearing now is about one thing: whether the conversation be considered private.

The cameraman is seeking a court declaration on this alone - not intent, not dissemination, not any public 'good' to know the content of the conversation.

The other details are for further cases, either the police one or any defamation case Ambrose might pursue.

opps sorry my bad, you are correct - as you were

private for now

Chief High Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann delivered her decision today saying she declined to make the declaration as it would amount to a "mini-trial" in advance of a police investigation into the matter.

so in theory the tapes can be published as this case has not proved the interception was illegal and the contents of the tape would be up to the publication to decide if its in the public interest or not - yes?

*I miss the biggie inhouse legal team*

how did you get that?

The police decide whether there is a case to answer and the courts then decide if the case is justified. This jumping the gun was found to be without merit so it hasnt proved anything at all.

The media still risk prosecution if they publish it.

And there is very little likelihood of defamation action as just like the camera man can argue it was 'accidental' JK can claim a reasonably held opinion.

The "mini-trial" call ahead of a police investigation seems a practical one. We can't have people asking the court to decide on every aspect of cases which haven't even been brought yet. It's up to the participants to decide whether they want to make their own call.. As they haven't let the tape out I think their legal advice, despite what they have said publicly, is that they still need to be a bit careful.

For all we know another of the many camera-persons at the tea-party has footage of some of Ambrose's movements, or someone saw him with his headphones on etc during the interview. There were a lot of people there who we've not heard from who could potentially tip the "accidental recording" claims one way or the other pretty quickly. His activity afterwards will also likely show details we don't know yet about - his phone calls/emails etc.

only if it can be proved the taping was intentional is how I read it - ie this lack of a call either way says the taping itself hasn't been decided to be legal or not - so can be tested in a court of law if published - of course will any editor/media org run the transcript, doubtful or they'd have done so by now

as for defamation - I always saw that as a smokescreen/adding pressure call - only an idiot goes ahead with a threatened defamation case generally as its very hard to prove in court and the costs are stupid for little potential return

The media very likely face prosecution if published at this point, because they'd probably be found in contempt of court.

they'd not be in contempt of court I believe (not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be - jono!)

but its not clear cut until or unless there is a court case to be heard over the taping in the first place - which is potentially unlikely, ie the police have yet to place charges or finish their investigation and chances are come Sunday it'll all be forgot or dropped by all parties concerned

There can't be contempt without an order from the court.



She is just being pragmatic, realising that a decision either way would, as she said, be a mini-trial with regards to a police investigation - who haven't even got to the point of deciding whether they will lay any charges.

So why have this whole farce at all then?

One would assume that the court has suppressed publication. Would be pretty standard practise, otherwise any of us could now wander down to the court and pick up a copy of the transcript of the recording since it was played in the courtroom. Think about it you eggs.

I would hope police have obtained a legal opinion from Crown Law on the public/private nature of the conversation before rushing around with search warrants and pouring valuable resources into an investigation - if there is no illegality, there is no crime to investigate. this is not a simple theft case.