Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Dotcom spying: Crown…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
I can only hope such an argument would win.
It didn't at Nuremberg!
[does this mean I should close off comments?] -
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: We need an Inquiry!, in reply to Sacha,
Mr Edgeler fisks that one in a new post.
Does is still count as Fisking if you agree?
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: all the fault…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I thought so at the time Key was claiming this source of confusion
Nice work. Now I've even less of an excuse for not looking into it more deeply.
-
Hard News: Irony Deficient, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Maori TV’s dubbed & subtitled Mister Ed had more laughs than the original.
I think you're being a little mean on the original. Now, and when I grew up it seemed old, of course, but actually, it's pretty darn good.
e.g. http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/39006/mister-ed-the-complete-first-season/
-
p.s. If Russel Norman wishes us to believe that his police complaint is about upholding the rule of law, and isn't a political stunt, he should stop publicly talking about it, and telling Police whom they should be interviewing. Given it has been admitted - and I believe accepted by Dr Norman - that the Prime Minister knew nothing about the use of GCSB resources at the time, it is difficult to see what purpose could be achieved by interviewing the Prime Minister. He doesn't know the name of the agents who intercepted Dotcom's calls, and if he does, it's only because someone more closely connected has told him.
If the Police do think something fruitful will be gained from interviewing the Prime Minister, I'm sure they'll make an appointment, but Russel (or me for that matter!) telling them how to run their investigation helps no-one.
-
Legal Beagle: Dotcom spying: Crown…, in reply to Matthew Smith,
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 their defence lawyer!
-
Legal Beagle: Kim Dotcom: Questions and Answers, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Question for Graeme: what’s the status of that order in light of what we now know? Does it cease to be valid? Can the court overturn it? Or is it only ever an advisory notice to the court and the judge can ignore it or observe as they choose?
After realising that there was unlawful surveillance, the Crown revoked some of it. The rest remains in place until a judge looks at it. I understand an independent lawyer will be assigned to look at the information to argue with the Crown over what if any further information should be released, despite the certificate.
-
Legal Beagle: Dotcom spying: Crown…, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
Legal Beagle: Dotcom spying: Crown…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
(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.
-
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.