Hamed v R

Hamed & Ors v. R [2011] NZSC 101[1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of New Zealand which ruled on the admissibility of video surveillance. The ruling held that evidence collected using criminal trespass on private land to conduct covert surveillance under a warrant is only admissible for serious crimes. The charges involved were related to the 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids, as a result of the ruling, charges against all but four of the defendants were dropped.[2][3]

The ruling was initially suppressed from 24 March 2011 to September 2011. Very shortly after the lifting of the suppression, the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011[4] was introduced and passed under urgency.[5]

References

  1. ↑ https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/hamed-v-r/ Hamed and others v The Queen [2011] NZSC 101
  2. ↑ Ian Steward (29 September 2011). "Molotov cocktail talk in Urewera court files". Stuff/Fairfax. Retrieved 5 October 2011. A raft of pre-trial judgments have been released following the discharge of 13 of the original Urewera 17, who were arrested following police surveillance of military-style training camps in the Urewera Ranges in 2007.
  3. ↑ Fairfax NZ News (16 September 2011). "Police Made Numerous Trips to Urewera 'camps'". The Dominion Post. Retrieved 5 October 2011. They continued the secret filming long after it became obvious that the violent seizure of land that was feared was not in immediate prospect, a Supreme Court judgement that is now able to be published says.
  4. ↑ "Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill". Parliament of New Zealand. Retrieved 2011-10-03.
  5. ↑ Mai Chen (22 September 2011). "Urewera case five reasons to worry". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 5 October 2011.


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, August 28, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.