Dratsab:codyc1515: "We are surprised that the House received no report from the Attorney-General under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act on the bill?s inconsistency with the Bill of Rights. We accept that this is consistent with officials? advice, but we find it difficult to follow their reasoning. The Supreme Court found that existing video camera surveillance as an adjunct to a search warrant is illegal and in breach of section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act given the absence of express statutory authority to do so. The effect of the bill as it came to select committee overruled that, and did so retrospectively."
Interesting quote (as it's wrong), where's it from?
Clearly you have no idea what you are on about, I cited the official government source (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2011/0333/latest/DLM4068800.html) directly in a post I made above. It states exactly what I put:
"We are surprised that the House received no report from the Attorney-General under section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act on the bill’s inconsistency with the Bill of Rights. We accept that this is consistent with officials’ advice, but we find it difficult to follow their reasoning.The Supreme Court found that existing video camera surveillance as an adjunct to a search warrant is illegal and in breach of section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act given the absence of express statutory authority to do so. The effect of the bill as it came to select committee overruled that, and did so retrospectively. Given that the Supreme Court found the actions now to be temporarily permitted are in breach of section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act, it seems axiomatic that retrospectively reinstating those infringements on the rights of New Zealanders (which will almost certainly result in New Zealanders being convicted on the basis of that illegally obtained evidence) must be a breach of section 21."
Trusted
.
Spark NZ
