Collins Judith: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21462] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I will speak to some of the practical aspects of policing covered by the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. Covert video camera surveillance is used in a wide range of criminal investigations to record activity at or comings and goings from a particular location. Principally it is used to gather intelligence in support of criminal investigations including support for applications for interception of private communications; to gather evidence for crime including recording unlawful activity; identifying persons to link to other evidence for instance intercepted voices; to corroborate testimony of witnesses for example undercover agents and others including informers; and to guide decision making. 
It is also used to facilitate the safety of police officers and others for example undercover operatives informers and other people present in premises such as children in a meth cook area and to protect police officers and witnesses who have been the subject of serious threats. 
It is also used to facilitate the safety of police officers and assistants lawfully entering addresses and localities pursuant to their lawful duties such as the armed offenders squad or termination teams investigators or technicians entering cannabis plots. In the event of an armed siege it might be used to view a suspect address to monitor the activity of a suspect in situations such as the Napier siege following the murder of Senior Constable Len Snee and to provide the operation commander with the best intelligence they can get. An application in writing has to be made on oath to a District Court judge JP community magistrate or registrar for a search warrant and there must be reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable by imprisonment is involved. That is what is being received in all of these cases—search warrants have been granted and they have been asked for. 
On occasion the police install covert video cameras after obtaining permission of the owners of the land. For example cameras have been installed on private property with the permission of the owners to record unlawful activity on the land such as people trespassing on their land in order to cultivate cannabis. In other cases owners have given the police permission to install covert cameras on their land to record activity on adjacent public land or on a nearby suspect address. In the latter case this is now unlawful following the Supreme Court decision. 
In these cases where surveillance from adjacent land is needed it is far safer for the owners or occupiers for video surveillance to be conducted rather than to have surveillance by officers present on the land. There is far less chance of detection or suspicion falling on them. Criminals can be very hard on those whom they perceive to be assisting police. 
The use of covert video camera surveillance involving entry on to private property as part of the exercise of a search warrant has now been declared to be unlawful by the courts. The police are therefore not able to lawfully undertake any further covert surveillance involving trespass as there is nothing in statute to authorise it and where this surveillance is critical to obtaining crucial evidence of offending the police are now hamstrung in their attempts to prosecute such offending. 
Covert video camera surveillance of private land from public land or from private land with the consent of the owner is likely to be an unreasonable search in breach of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act following this decision. This will put in significant doubt the admissibility of evidence obtained from these types of surveillance as it will have been improperly obtained in terms of section 30 of the Evidence Act and the courts will allow it to be admitted only if there are strong counter-arguments in the interests of justice for it not to be excluded. This will be particularly important when surveillance evidence is crucial to the Crown case. 
As a result of the Supreme Court decision 47 operations including 229 accused currently before the court are potentially at risk. Over the last year there have been on average operations involving 47 camera installations per month. Because of the nature of some of the installations some will not fall foul of the law but others will. It can be expected that a number of operations may not be initiated because of the Supreme Court judgment. Following the Supreme Court judgment the police do not believe they can continue to use surveillance equipment in the way they have for at least the last 15 years. 
Over recent years traditional surveillance involving a person watching people or suspect addresses from an adjacent place has been replaced by the use of modern technology. Even criminals have taken to the use of covert cameras to safeguard themselves from the police. The police have adapted modern technology including the use of covert video cameras to facilitate investigation of serious crime for many reasons. In some situations it is not physically possible to conceal a person including in urban and residential areas where police activity would stand out or where the locals are hostile to the police or sympathetic to the criminal subjects. Some operations go for lengthy periods and require changes of staff supply of food and other logistical issues. Installation of a covert camera can limit these issues. In remote or country areas unusual activity or strangers stand out and might alert the criminal organisation. Experience shows that many methamphetamine labs are located in the backblocks away from prying eyes. 
Use of video surveillance reduces the risk to the police and members of the public. The risk to the safety of police staff is very high in some organised crime operations. By using cameras we are able to safely and responsibly mitigate that risk. That is also true for members of the public who give the police access to their homes to conduct surveillance on criminal suspects and addresses. Surveillance work is extremely dangerous. I think of the murder of Sergeant Don Wilkinson murdered when placing a surveillance tool. 
This bill is necessary and the Chief Justice in particular has invited Parliament to regularise the situation. This bill is necessary and it is urgent.