Police Association chief Greg O'Connor. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Protesters are expected outside the Auckland District Court this morning as the 16 arrested in last month's police anti-terrorist raids appear together for the first time.
Crown prosecutors have referred 12 cases to the Crown Law Office, intending to laying charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
It is
understood Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, is expected to decide within two weeks whether terrorism charges will be laid, but a Crown Law spokeswoman could not confirm that timeframe yesterday.
Crown prosecutor David Johnstone said decisions about whether the Crown would oppose bail applications would be made case by case.
Police were criticised yesterday by supporters of those arrested, many of whom consider the raids to be evidence of "a fishing expedition for evidence of a terrorist plot".
Kim McBreen, representing supporters of the four arrested in Wellington, said people were losing money while being held in custody and could face "huge" legal fees if forced to defend "untested anti-terror laws".
She said the defendants lacked the backing that the police have.
Police Association chief Greg O'Connor said yesterday that police silence had left the stage free for "predictable criticisms".
"When you see discredited relics of the early-1980s protest movement and irrelevant ex-cops suddenly being taken seriously as the font of all truth and knowledge, you might be forgiven for thinking the world has lost its marbles."
* Two men facing charges following the raids will keep fighting to keep their names from the public despite a second court knock-back yesterday.
In the High Court at Auckland, Justice Judith Potter dismissed an appeal by the men, aged 38 and 58, against an Auckland District Court decision on October 19 lifting name suppression.
Justice Potter also dismissed an attempt by their lawyers to have the High Court grant them leave to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeal.
But interim name suppression was continued after the lawyers indicated they would seek special leave from the Court of Appeal to have that court hear a further appeal against the ending of name secrecy.
