Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21413] 
9. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: In how many trials completed this year have the Police submitted covert video footage obtained on private property; if any? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Police: There is a preliminary point I want to make. I note the question refers to evidence submitted and that will include evidence ruled admissible and also evidence tendered but ruled inadmissible for example because of an objection under section 30 of the Evidence Act. I am advised the New Zealand Police do not have that information readily available. There are approximately 2000 indictable criminal cases heard in the District and High Courts each year and thousands of summary prosecutions; to provide that answer would require analysis of each of the cases. That is a substantial piece of work and it is outside the scope of parliamentary question time. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with the Attorney-General who said in response to an earlier question today that before the Supreme Court ruling of 2 September on the unlawfulness of police use of covert video surveillance that there was “no appreciation of the issue of lawfulness having been raised”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes although if he was to be exact the Attorney-General could possibly also have referred to comments made in the Law Commission report but instead he was focusing mainly on the 15 years of Court of Appeal jurisprudence upholding this activity. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister saying that she received no advice from police that there had been a High Court ruling on 7 October 2009 relating to the Operation Eight case that covert video surveillance was unlawful? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes she would have received that report. She would also have received a report that the High Court allowed that evidence in under section 30 of the Evidence Act. She would also have received a report of the decision in the Court of Appeal that upheld the lawfulness. 
Keith Locke 
: If she did receive advice that there was a determination of the illegality of covert video surveillance evidence even if it was allowed in this particular case what did she do to ensure that the police would not be acting illegally in the future by engaging in covert video surveillance? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: She would have been relying at all times on the advice of the Crown Law Office which has had the carriage of this criminal litigation on behalf of the Government. She would also have known that the case was going through other levels of the court system—first the Court of Appeal and subsequently the Supreme Court. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that because the police continued to use covert video surveillance they were essentially flying in the face of court rulings and does she agree with the Chief Justice’s comment in her operation case ruling on 2 September that there had been “deliberate unlawfulness” by the police in conducting filming and that this “is destructive of an effective system of justice”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I will not answer that question because it seeks a legal interpretation. I would think it would be very unwise in this place to start commenting on judgments—be they of the Chief Justice Justice Blanchard or anyone else.