Batman: Can we reduce that lag time?

To say 15 seconds?

Batman:

 

vexxxboy:

 

more to come but it seems the police were tailing him and shot him a minute after he started stabbing people.

 

 

Can we reduce that lag time?

To say 15 seconds?

 

The police group executing the surveillance can't just walk 10 seconds behind someone - otherwise, it won't be covert at all. 

I would like to shake the hand of the young chap who decided not to run but to try to get the knife off him with a metal pole. 

Then the police arrived and told him to go back as they were going to shoot the knife wielder!

Just hope the injured come right. 

It says a lot that this person picked out the weakest and most vulnerable, in a peaceful country, an ideology of brutality and cowardice.
Pretty much the same as the Christchurch shooter, semi-automatic weapons vs unarmed, seeking most vulnerable, when most vulnerable.

While its a very rare occurrence, I expect I'll be subconsciously noting where heavy objects good for throwing are in supermarket.

The aim terror for terrors sake.
Ideologies that rely on mentality unstable for their support.

Bung: Noting that the eventual terrorist originally "arrived in New Zealand from Sri Lanka on a student visa in 2011 to study a diploma of electronics and telecommunications."

Press release about this man's situation in New Zealand:

 

The lifting of final suppression orders relating to the Auckland terrorist shows Immigration New Zealand had been attempting for years to deport him and also sought to detain him while deportation was considered in order to keep him out of the community.

 

“The individual arrived in New Zealand in October 2011. He was 22 years old and travelling on a student visa,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said.

 

“Shortly after arriving he made a claim for refugee status. Immigration New Zealand declined this claim in 2012, but he appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and was successful. He was granted refugee status in December 2013.

 

“In 2016 the terrorist came to the attention of the police and the NZSIS.

 

“In the course of these investigations, Immigration New Zealand were made aware of information that led them to believe the individual’s refugee status was fraudulently obtained. The process was started to cancel his refugee status, and with it, his right to stay in New Zealand.

 

“In February of 2019, Immigration New Zealand cancelled his refugee status. He was served with deportation liability notices. In April, he appealed against his deportation to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.  He was still in prison at this time, and facing criminal charges. For a number of reasons, the deportation appeal could not proceed until after the conclusion of the criminal trial in May 2021.

 

“In the meantime, agencies were concerned about the risk this individual posed to the community. They also knew he may be released from prison, and that his appeal through the Tribunal, which was stopping his deportation, may take some time

 

“Immigration New Zealand explored whether the Immigration Act might allow them to detain the individual while his deportation appeal was heard. 

 

“It was incredibly disappointing and frustrating when legal advice came back to say this wasn’t an option. 

 

“A person can only be detained under the Immigration Act for the purpose of deportation. Immigration New Zealand was required to consider whether deportation was likely to proceed. That meant making an assessment of what the tribunal would likely find. Crown laws advice to immigration New Zealand was that the individual was likely to be considered a “protected person” because of the status of the country from which he had travelled, and likely treatment on return. Protected people cannot be deported from New Zealand. After receiving this advice Immigration New Zealand determined they could not detain the individual while he waited for his appeal. 

 

“Soon after, he was released from prison, and police began their monitoring and surveillance of him 

 

“On the 26th of August, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal hearing was rescheduled. At the time of the terrorist attack, the offenders attempt to overturn the deportation decision was still ongoing. 

 

“This has been a frustrating process. 

 

“Since 2018 Ministers have been seeking advice on our ability to deport this individual. 

 

“In July this year I met with officials in person and expressed my concern that the law could allow someone to remain here who obtained their immigration status fraudulently and posed a threat to our national security. I asked for work to be undertaken to look at whether we should amend our law, in the context of our international obligations.  

 

“Ultimately these timelines show that Immigration New Zealand from the beginning have sought to deport this individual, and were right to do so.” Jacinda Ardern said.

 

 

 

Detailed timeline regarding terrorist’s immigration status

 

14 July 2011

 

The individual made an application for a Student visa to study a Diploma in Electronics & Telecommunications (Level 7 qualification).

 

15 August 2011

 

A National Security Check was undertaken as per instructions in place at the time and no concerns were identified. NZSIS (NSC) rely on a range of information holdings including international information sources. There was no information available to NZSIS in 2011 (or 2014) that the individual had come to the attention of authorities in New Zealand. The individual first became a subject of investigation for NZSIS in 2016 because of his support for ISIL.

 

1 September 2011

 

A student visa was granted as the individual met all relevant immigration requirements.

 

21 October 2011                       

 

The individual arrived in New Zealand.

 

7 November 2011

 

The individual claimed refugee status (on basis of being persecuted by the Karuna group[1]).

 

23 November 2011

 

INZ notified that he had withdrawn from his Diploma studies (therefore no longer met the criteria of his student visa).

 

12 December 2011

 

Granted first work visa on basis of being a refugee claimant. He was granted subsequent visas while his claim and Immigration and Protection Tribunal appeal were being determined.

 

19 April 2012

 

INZ declined the refugee status claim as it was found to be lacking in credibility.

 

27 April 2012

 

The individual lodged an appeal with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal against the decision to refuse recognition as refugee.

 

20 December 2013

 

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal recognises him as a refugee.

 

22 January 2014

 

The individual made a permanent resident visa application under a special residence category that allows for the granting of residence to recognised refugees.

 

7 February 2014

 

A clear NZ Police Certificate was received as part of permanent resident visa assessment.

 

11 February 2014

 

Another National Security Check was undertaken as per instructions in place at the time and no concerns were identified.

 

2 April 2014

 

A Permanent resident visa was granted under a special residence category that allows for the granting of residence to recognised refugees. 

 

27 April 2017

 

INZ receives information of his desire to join a terrorist organisation (Police are interacting with the individual).

 

17 May 2017

 

Purchased tickets to travel to Malaysia (was arrested at airport on 19 May before he could depart).

 

4 August 2017

 

The Refugee Status Unit in INZ began a review of the individual’s refugee status based on information received that he may be a threat to security

 

24 April 2018

 

He requests that his permanent resident visa is cancelled and his refugee status ceases. His reasons for doing so are unclear.

 

16 May 2018

 

Prime Minister makes inquiries about individual's refugee status and deportation options

 

25 May 2018

 

A Refugee and Protection Officer went to visit him, however the individual refused to engage on the officer’s request for cessation of his refugee status.

 

1 June 2018

 

The individual was served with notice of cancellation of refugee status on the basis of fraud [2]

 

1 February 2019

 

His refugee status cancelled on the basis of fraud.

 

15 April 2019

 

The individual was served with two Deportation Liability Notices. One was served under s161 in relation to his criminal offending and the other was served under s162 for the cancellation of his refugee status, which he did appeal.

 

30 April 2019

 

The individual lodged an appeal with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal against his Deportation Liability Notice based on the cancellation of his refugee status under s162. He could not be legally deported until his appeal was determined.

 

7 May 2021

 

Initial legal advice indicated INZ could pursue the arrest and detention of terrorist on the basis that he was liable for deportation and awaiting the service of a deportation order. INZ could then apply to a District Court Judge for his continued detention pursuant to a warrant of commitment (pending deportation). Consideration was also being given to certification that he constituted a threat or risk to security.

 

May – July 2021

 

The individual appears for trial and then sentencing in the High Court in Auckland.

 

8 July 2021

 

Following consideration of the circumstances as they stood at the time, including updated research information about his home country, the outcome of the recent High Court criminal trial, the media reporting on the criminal trial and sentencing, and legal advice provided by Immigration New Zealand legal and Crown Law, it was determined that the individual would qualify as a protected person under the Immigration Act.  Accordingly, it was unlikely he could be deported[3].

 

8 July 2021

 

Subsequently, Crown Law provided advice that INZ could not exercise its powers of arrest and detention[4] pending the making of a deportation order, as the individual could not be detained for the purpose of deportation when that was not a realistic prospect.

 

IPT hearing adjourned - no date set

 

IPT hearing was rescheduled for 13 September 2021, however given issues with legal representation and the COVID alert level situation, on 26 August, the hearing was further adjourned with a new date to be set.

 

Handle9:

Batman: Can we reduce that lag time?

To say 15 seconds?

Are you being serious?

for someone they've known since 2017, yes 60 seconds is 60 seconds too long.

Presumably refugee status cancelled after he apparently travelled to Sri Lanka post-claiming refugee status, and was apparently radicalised there according to his family? 

A couple of things are coming up worth asking questions about; namely, how can you appeal a cancelled refugee status leading to a deportation notice for over two years?

Batman:

Handle9:
Are you being serious?

for someone they've known since 2017, yes 60 seconds is 60 seconds too long.

GV27:

 

Presumably refugee status cancelled after he apparently travelled to Sri Lanka post-claiming refugee status, and was apparently radicalised there according to his family? 

 

It sounds like there was a reason this didn't make much sense in Sroubrekian terms, stories have now been amended and it is unclear where he was injured/subsequently radicalised.

I thought we had clauses that people had to be of decent character or something of that lines? it seems extraordinary we don't have something we could have kicked him out for...

I also was reading, that there were options to hold him under the mental health act, I am unsure how accurate that is.

GV27:

 

Presumably refugee status cancelled after he apparently travelled to Sri Lanka post-claiming refugee status, and was apparently radicalised there according to his family? 

 

A couple of things are coming up worth asking questions about; namely, how can you appeal a cancelled refugee status leading to a deportation notice for over two years?

 

From yesterdays (5/9) Press conference:

Media: Can you be clearer as to why that appeal into his deportation had to be delayed
while he was in prison?

Hon Grant Robertson: Sure. So that’s because there were a variety of criminal
charges that were still live, and while those criminal charges are still live they can have a
bearing upon whether or not a person would be deported. So the order of events here has to
be to deal with those charges. While the terrorist was in prison, they were largely in prison on
remand rather than in prison as a result of convictions, and so throughout this period of time
there were live legal processes that had a bearing on whether or not someone would be
deported. Therefore, the order had to be that way round.

So the delay was due to the fact the criminal charges could have an impact on the outcome of the immigration appeal, and had to be completed first

So a bit of rock and hard place:

- Let him off the criminal charges and back out into the community and hope he doesn't do anything until the appeal is over and you can deport him

or

Use the criminal case to try and keep him in prison until the cases have be fully appealed and he is convicted, and the deportation appeal can be completed

Unfortunately the courts gave him a supervised sentence so he had to be released back into the community ( hence the surveillance). The hope was he could be re-arrested for something, or the deportation appeal could be wound up and he gets put on a plane

Clint

networkn:

 

I thought we had clauses that people had to be of decent character or something of that lines? it seems extraordinary we don't have something we could have kicked him out for...

 

That is what they were trying to do - however he was using the appeals process to stall for time

networkn:

 

I also was reading, that there were options to hold him under the mental health act, I am unsure how accurate that is.

 

It appears they tried but couldn't justify it

Clint

networkn:

I thought we had clauses that people had to be of decent character or something of that lines? it seems extraordinary we don't have something we could have kicked him out for...