This is such a farce…
Top cop cleared over perjury accusation in Dotcom case
There is no evidence a top policeman committed perjury while giving evidence in a court case involving Kim Dotcom, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found.In August 2012 Detective Inspector Grant Wormald gave evidence in the High Court at Auckland relating to the search and arrest warrants executed by police at Dotcom’s Coatesville property.
During the cross-examination Mr Wormald was asked twice whether he was aware of surveillance of Dotcom by police or any other New Zealand government organisation before January 19, 2012. He said he was not.
Later that year media reported the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) had intercepted the communications of Dotcom and an associate before the warrants were executed.
Following reports on TV One and TV3 stating that Mr Wormald’s evidence had been shown to be untrue, a complaint was laid by Paul Davison, QC, alleging the inspector knew the evidence was false and misleading.
Mr Davison requested a criminal investigation into possible perjury.
The police found no evidence of perjury.
In releasing yesterday’s report, IPCA chairman Judge Sir David Carruthers said that, given the public interest in this matter and the conclusion reached by the police investigation, the authority conducted its own investigation to satisfy itself there had been no police impropriety during the court proceedings.
“The authority has found that the cross-examination of Detective Inspector Wormald was designed to discover whether Mr Dotcom had been the subject of visual surveillance, not whether his communications had been intercepted. Mr Wormald’s interpretation of the questions being asked of him was entirely reasonable and his answers were not in any way false or misleading.
“The suggestion that he intended to mislead the court is without foundation,” Sir David said.
…that’s right, this stooge didn’t perjure himself because surveillance is completely different from intercepting communications.
The semantics being played to wriggle out of an obvious lie is as extraordinary as NZers refusing to believe Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald that Key has been lying and spying on us.
The IPCA is only funded to do 30% of cases independently so it’s mainly an apologist for police corruption and provides the barest pretence of counter balance to their abuse of power.
Peter Aranyi describes it best…
Honestly, I have two teenagers who wriggle in exactly the same way as this. Unless you ask them precisely the right questions — movable goalposts, to be sure — you may not get anywhere near “the truth”. Even then, they’re fully capable of rewriting history, airbrushing out the inconvenient bits. So …
I don’t know Grant Wormald, he seems like a nice man. But I saw video of his extremely uncomfortablesquirming/withholding performance under cross examination when he didn’t really want to admit to the presence of members of “another government agency” at discussions about the Kim Dotcom raid. That “agency” turned out to be the GCSB and their involvement turned out to be illegal (oops!) … but it was no crime because they “didn’t mean to” break the law. No criminal intent.
…so Wormald didn’t lie, he was just referring to surveillance as intercepted communications which is completely different from surveillance.
The Deep State was embarrassed by the revelations of illegal spying and slavish desire to such up to American authorities and are doing all they can to cover their arses now.
This whitewash is just another part of that cover up.
Sir David Corrupthers is not forging a great legacy for himself.
This judge is forging a legacy simply as a “Yes” man.
Can I ask why it seems impossible to post a comment on Curwen Rolison’s latest article? I have made three attempts – all the comments just disappear. What is going on?
[ Dennis, your post ended up in a Folder it shouldn’t have. I’ve only just found it and allowed it to be published. Glitch in the system? I’ve let Admin know. – ScarletMod ]
I had exactly the same thought when I read the article on the case elsewhere. WTF!? He knew exactly what was being asked of him.
And we should trust these people to protect us?
No wonder so many distrust authority.
When New Zealand Police first established covert surveillance squads to spy on its citizens, I was a member of that first team.
We worked in secrecy, and because bugging devices were illegal at that time, we smuggled their components into the country and had them built by our own technicians.
There was no provision in law for their use — so we simply burgled the homes and premises of our targets to plant them.
In simple, we used electronic devices to intercept our Targets’ communication.
We called this … “surveillance”.
1000% Patrick, great of you to share the underside of the blue line with us. Very brave guy awesome man.
@Patrick – you are a good man.
Thanks Patrick for sharing this information. Watch your back and take care.
I take it that those down voters have no idea who you are and of your history.
Ignorance must bliss..
The truth comes out eventually, because good men refuse to stay silent…
Patrick, if we are to have a SIS/GCSB, I could think of no one better suited to run it.
Judge (British Justice – Club of Rome – Committee of 300 and all that Jazz) Sir (British award for obedience to ruling superiors) David (just a little guy this time minus a rock) Carruthers (I’m sure there are delightful honest people who carry this surname. Please step forward).
Principles and honesty have been sacrificed on the alter of neo-liberalism.
But we have been on this slippery slope for some time. Remember how the last honest justice was vilified: Mr Justice Peter Mahon.
We have no forthright honest leaders today!
Maybe they should have asked his “office”…
Seems to me, these days, NZ police are taking their cue from most deceitful and glorious leader, FJK! *I will show you the way my dedicated followers – lie your heads off and cheat at every opportunity, take what you can, because nothing can touch you!*
Well for now that is….
However, in the long term, liars and cheats never prosper. The day of reckoning for government and its dirty agencies, NZ Police included, is coming and it can’t come soon enough!
If this is the case, then why would it be the powers that give police and law enforcement agencies the ability to intercept communications etc is inferred by the ‘ search and surveillance act 2012’? Communication interception is not a search function of this legislation, it falls under the ‘surveillance’ definition. Therefore it is ‘surveillance’ , something one of NZ’s most senior police officers ( who I dare say personally would have contributed significantly to the development of the Act itself) should be well aware of when approaching the judiciary to gain approval to carry out such intrusive activity I would hope. The act clearly defines communication interceptions as ‘use of a surveillance device’. Hence , it is ‘ surveillance’.
It seems to me there is nothing independent about the authority at all Police and judges are both part of our so called”Justice” system and consider themselves allies in the war against crime. Therefore judges almost always come down on the side of the police. We need a truly independent authority to reign in the excesses of our over politicized police force.
Why are we surprised as everything Key says is a lie, so why not his hired guns?
Latest “U-turn” from FJK has presented today;
On the news when in 2009 he said “I don’t want all NZ to be tenants in their own land”
His latest U-turn has now been revised when he was asked;
PM are you comfortable for an Australian company to buy lots of state houses?
FJK answered; “the nationality should not be considered when state housing assets are sold”
So we are becoming tenants in our own land, by him offering our state houses to foreigners.
I wonder if the average price of $750 000 per unseen Auckland house without a builders report will be the price FJK requests for each state house?
Hell no he will cut a deal to sell cheap to that company as he must have shares in the company and again make a killing as he did when NZ Rail Corporation was sold to Tranzrail.
So he is just a crook and an opportunist nothing more.
he screwed NZ Dollar in 1986 and made millions then had shares in Tranzrail
Then he made a killing and failed to declare his interest so this will be more of the same no doubt the crook.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0809/S00459.htm
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2008/11/10/financial-markets/keys-house
I think the qualifying term here is the phrase ‘visual surveillance’. To me that involves either the target being physically followed or being monitored by video camera.
If the Police were doing neither and the D/Inspector was unaware of any other agency diing either he didn’t commit perjury.
Perhaps the counsel should have asked wider questions that related to any firm of surveillance and the answer might have been different.
Jimmie
Forgive my lack of knowledge………….. but If the IPCA is a body to internally investigate complaints against police, does their finding akshually mean anything in the real world?
Can a complaint of perjury be laid with the courts (where the crime was committed) and it be decided by others with no connection to the IPCA?
This whole internal monitoring and filling out glowing reports on our own performance ( ie Serco etc) is getting on my tits with the BS various govt depts are squeezing out of by ruse, lies and misinformation……….. just like Key????
One of life’s great ironies… That the Right want to reduce the power of the State and keep government out of our lives…
… except when it comes to mass surveillance and data collection.
Then those same self-styled “libertarians” will attack any critic of the Deep State and it’s enforcement/surveillance arms.
Frank, I can understand what you are saying, but every three years the people have the opportunity to vote in the government they wish. You have pointed out that the shine is going off the Key government and as they are in their third term they may well be replaced at the next election or at least will need to negotiate some new partner realationships to enable them govern.
However, the prospect of a government grouping made up of NZ First, Labour and the Greens is currently the existing governments main strength.
Don’t see why that might be the case, Grant.
Let’s look at some facts;
1. Key’s own government consists of National, ACT, United Future, and the Maori Party – that’s a four-headed hydra-monster as opposed to a three headed species, Labour-Greens-NZ First.
2. At the last election, Key went back on his self-imposed rule never to go into coalition with NZ First, and made noises about entertaining the possibility.
But the real problem here is as I mentioned above; hat the Right want to reduce the power of the State and keep government out of our lives – except when it comes to mass surveillance and data collection.
That is a position that has been proven time and again by commentary from Rightwing supporters of this government.
If a Labour-led government had instigated the swathe of enabling leglisation for the Police, GCSB, SIS, et al, the Right would be screaming blue murder.
Yet, I see no reason why this should be a partisan issue. It should be the default position on any New Zealander – Left or Right – to curb any attempt by the State to increase it’s surveillance and data collection powers.
In the 1990s, I recall a protest march in Parliament grounds, supporting the decriminalisation of soliciting (aka, prostitution) in New Zealand. It was supported by the Alliance on the Left, and the Libertarians on the Right. (I recall having a chat with one of them.)
It shouldn’t be left to a three year election to determine government policy. People must have the right – even the obligation – under a democracy to constantly engage with their elected representatives and to petition on various issues.
If we left polis to themselves during those three years, without public over-sight, engagement, and even protest – we shouldn’t be surprised if they get up to mischief. And I include all political parties in that statement.
The relative strength of the three opposition parties is my issue Frank.
NZ First is, I think, to the right of National, labour is to the left of National and under Little/Robertson is moving further left and the Greens are a long way to the left of Labour. With such different views working as one party will be subject to significant compromise in terms of cabinet composition and policy direction, because of the number of seats each of these parties will bring to any coalition.
Based on history it is likely that the opposition will have an opportunity to govern in 2017 – but who will lead the opposition Andrew Little or Winston Peters?
It is reasonable to mention the coalition arrangements National have with three other parties, although this represents only four seats.
Comments are closed.