KEY POINTS:
By any reading of the Solicitor-General's decision on the Urewera "terrorism" case he has gone out of his way to justify the police operation even though he finds their evidence insufficient to support charges on the Suppression of Terrorism Act. Dr David Collins, QC, asks us to accept
his word on this. "Regrettably," he says, "not all of the evidence I have been able to consider will be made public".
Regrettably indeed. This subject is too important to be left quietly on the desk of a public official. If international anti-terrorism measures are going to compromise the everyday liberties New Zealanders expect, the first application of the law must be subjected to an open and rigorous public examination. Nothing less than a public inquiry is needed into the police actions on October 15.
This newspaper was not one of those voices critical of the police from the beginning and we do not jump to conclusions now. We accepted the word of Commissioner Howard Broad that public safety was at risk.
The Solicitor-General, who has seen all the evidence, clearly does not find the risk sufficiently imminent. The activities of those under surveillance were "very disturbing", he said, and the police had "sufficient and proper basis" for their investigation. They were correct, he suggests, in bringing those activities to an end and in applying to him for charges to be brought under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. He was instead critical of that legislation.
The act states that a terrorist act is carried out if there has been "planning or other preparations to carry out the act, whether it is actually carried out or not". It is hard to see how the legislation could be framed more precisely. Obviously Parliament would not want the police to hold back until the last possible moment but they must have evidence of an intent to commit a specific act.
The evidence may be open to question and many of the public, if they knew what the police had seen and overheard, might come to a different view than the Solicitor-General. It is important they have that chance.
Dr Collins says much of the evidence will emerge when charges under the Arms Act are heard, but not all. No inquiry would be held until the accused had had a trial of those charges. Obviously legal representation would be provided for them at an inquiry so that they could challenge the police understanding of their communications and actions. An inquiry would not be able to find criminal guilt on their part even if it agreed with the police interpretation of the evidence.
It is the conduct of the police that is of most importance now. The Solicitor-General's ruling has cast serious doubt on their judgment at the highest levels, even if he says otherwise. We need to see that the right balance is struck between civil liberties and public safety. For that we need to know all the facts available to the police when they decided to act with exceptional force.
