KEY POINTS:
Opinion is divided along predictable lines about the legality and the wisdom of news media publishing some details of the evidence that prompted police to launch Operation Eight. Police and Crown Law - indeed, many in the legal profession, including those who have spoken out against the police raids - say that publication could prejudice the trials of those facing charges under the Firearms Act. But, even supposing that it will be possible to empanel a jury unaware of the background to the firearms charges, this argument is at best disingenuous. Its validity would be unimpeachable only if the Solicitor-General, Dr David Collins QC, intended to make public, after the firearms matters have been disposed of, details of the evidence gathered.
But he has no such intention. On the contrary, he has said of the "very disturbing" activities alleged, that "regrettably, not all of the evidence I have been able to consider will be made public." He has declined to authorise prosecution under the Suppression of Terrorism Act, but we are not to be trusted with the information that prompted police to launch the most pre-emptive strike they have ever undertaken against civilians in this country.
To describe that as "regrettable" is a very mild choice of words indeed. To anyone familiar with the history of totalitarian regimes, the idea is at least as disturbing as the evidence that has been leaked. Many New Zealanders will be profoundly uneasy about a situation in which the state can move against citizens under terrorism laws, darkly allege non-specified deeds and then, when asked to show its cards, fold its hand and walk away from the table.
Many of those who protested against - or simply felt uneasy about - what happened in Ruatoki and elsewhere greeted the Solicitor-General's announcement that charges under the "incoherent" act would not proceed as some sort of victory. It is nothing of the sort. It was a relief to those facing the possibility of charges, but it means that the substance of the police case does not have to face scrutiny. And scrutiny is what it needs.
When the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed, the rubble was still being cleared from Ground Zero. Far from inducing a feeling that our security is in good hands, much of the subsequent conduct of the "war on terror" has given rise to a deep sense of scepticism, particularly in the US, about the motives and morality of those taking the fight to the enemy.
At this remove from the geopolitical centre stage, New Zealand has been insulated, which is perhaps why the suggestion that people here may have been planning terrorist acts was greeted with far more disbelief than dismay. But, as the poorly drafted law is referred to the Law Commission in the same week as a hurried amendment is pushed through Parliament, we need to stand back and take a long look.
The Solicitor-General said that, to lay charges, he needed evidence that each of the accused was "trying to advance an ideological, political or religious cause [by inducing] terror in a civilian population" and that each suspect knew that he or she was participating in "carrying out terrorist acts". Such evidence, we would all hope, would be the absolute minimum required if energetic activists were to be tried as terrorists, and the fact that the case did not proceed invites the conclusion that 22 months' surveillance has not yielded it.
Precisely what the police, the enforcement arm of the state, did have they now see no reason to disclose but they can hardly be surprised if the media take a different view. On some occasions, there are strong arguments in support of the public's interest and we are owed a full explanation. That can only be achieved by a public inquiry into the police action, after the firearms charges have been tried. If the Government wants to stop the information leaks, it can do so simply by acknowledging that it is not proper to leave us all in the dark. This matter is too important to be laid to rest.
