Not often I agree with John Pagani

It is not very often that I agree with John Pagani, but today I must with his blog post about the Urewera arrests.

So just adding that up:
– The High Court said the evidence could be admitted.
– The Court of Appeal said it could be admitted.
– The Supreme Court overruled, in some but not all cases, by three to two.
(Why doesn’t it surprise me to see the Supreme Court once again judicially legislating? But that argument can wait for another day.)

As Greg O’Connor of the Police Asociation?says:

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.

And this is supposed to be evidence of police incompetence??I don’t think so.