KEY POINTS:
Media and legal experts have criticised a judge's decision to prevent the public seeing a video of police officers using batons and pepper spray on a man in custody.
The four officers were this week acquitted of assaulting Rawiri Falwasser in a Whakatane police station cell, but controversy
remains about the trial judge's refusal to allow media organisations to screen the video.
Several organisations, including the Weekend Herald, applied for permission to broadcast the contents, but Judge Patrick Treston ruled that publication would prejudice the acquitted officers, Senior Constable Bruce Laing, Constable John Mills, Sergeant Erle Busby and Sergeant Keith Parsons.
The video was three hours long, and media would likely only broadcast segments of the footage, he said.
This would result in unfair reporting, because the segments would be seen out of context and without regard to other evidence at the trial.
But Paul Norris - head of the New Zealand Broadcasting School - said he did not believe the judge's reasons were convincing.
"He seems to be saying that there is no way that the media could portray a fair and reasonable account of what the video shows unless they actually run all of it."
Mr Norris, a member of the Media In-Court Committee which oversees rules on cameras in court, said that was illogical.
"It would then suggest that you can't actually present a two-minute report, or a 10-para[graph] story in a newspaper which is a digest of the day's happening or an event ...
"It just makes a nonsense of what reporting is about. Reporting is always selective and always involves editing."
Mr Norris believed the judge's decision should be challenged, and that it would be "perfectly possible" to do a balanced report while using extracts only from the video.
During the trial, the officers did not dispute the fact that force was used against Mr Falwasser; the issue was whether the force was reasonable and necessary.
Mr Norris said the public also had a right to make up its mind about that, via the video.
The footage came from a closed-circuit surveillance system in the police station and covered an eight-hour period in which Mr Falwasser was detained in the cell.
The video ran for three hours because the surveillance system paused when there was no movement in the area.
The video had no sound and for that reason, the judge agreed with the defence that it did not paint a complete picture of events.
Auckland University criminal law expert Bill Hodge said still pictures of the video, in particular, could be misleading, and the officers were still subject to legal process in terms of their employment and an Independent Police Conduct Authority investigation.
But the associate professor favoured open justice and said the burden in law was always on those arguing for censorship of courtroom exhibits.
"It should be truly exceptional that material is not allowed to be understood and seen by the public."
Mr Falwasser's family also wanted the video and other exhibits - including photos of his injuries - made public, while the Crown was neutral on the issue.
The media organisations, which also included TVNZ and TV3, said the items should be available in the interests of open justice.
TV3 head of news Mark Jennings said it was likely his organisation would launch a legal challenge against the judge's decision.
Criminologist Greg Newbold said the sections of the video showing the alleged assaults were of public interest because they led to criminal charges.
CELLBLOCK VIDEO: WHAT THE SUPPRESSED TAPE SHOWS
Rawiri Falwasser's eight hours in the Whakatane police station begins calmly enough as he is escorted into the processing area at 12.41pm on Labour Day 2006.
Video surveillance shows he is reluctant to go inside the perspex holding cell, but after a few minutes he enters and the door is closed.
Mr Falwasser was suffering a psychotic episode when arrested and did not want to be searched, fingerprinted or photographed.
During the next hour and a half, he paces around the cell as officers and his brother try to persuade him from outside, but by 2.29pm, he is still refusing to comply with orders.
Sergeant Keith Parsons arrives and opens the cell door, then turns and walks away, before returning seconds later to pepper-spray Mr Falwasser in the face.
Mr Falwasser raises his arms in defence and advances towards the cell door when he is struck by Sergeant Erle Busby three times with a baton.
Mr Parsons also strikes Mr Falwasser on the head with his baton.
This all happens in the space of a few seconds, while seven officers are outside the cell.
A few minutes later, several re-assemble with shields (which did not result in any prosecution), while Mr Falwasser continues to pace inside.
At 2.39pm, Senior Constable Bruce Laing and Constable John Mills begin spraying him through vents at the cell floor, ceiling and door.
This goes on for more than 10 minutes, with Mr Mills approaching the vents 23 times and Mr Laing approaching five times.
Officers also jab with batons through the floor vent, hitting Mr Falwasser's feet and a sweatshirt he has taken off and stuffed in the portal to prevent pepper spray coming into the cell.
This ends at 2.52pm and officers flow in and out through the processing area in front of the cell, some wearing masks on their faces.
A doctor arrives about 3pm, followed by a psychiatric nurse, and then Mr Falwasser's brother.
Blood is visible on the cell floor and Mr Falwasser later writes something in the blood on the wall.
He eventually stops pacing and agrees to leave the cell to be fingerprinted.
His brother sits in the cell with him for the last few hours until his parents arrive. Mr Falwasser spends time wiping the cell floor and walls clean of blood and spray.
