Two members of Peace Action ōTautahi, an activist group, were taken in custody after police requested CCTV images from the University of Canterbury, showing them briefly, which violated their bail conditions.
In early March, two protesters of the Action ōTautahi activist group upheld until the construction of Nioa, an Australian weapons manufacturer that provides the Israeli defense forces and has an advanced post in Rolleston, outside Christchurs. They were accused of theft, that Paō spokesman Joseph Bray, a 22-year-old boy who was one of the two protesters, said “it was a surprising accusation” (the legal definition of theft does not require a theft to occur). The offense carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, and the choice of prosecution for Bray “looked like a tactic of intimidation.”
As part of the bail conditions, Bray and the other protester, Jackson Dugid, were subject to an order of “non -association”: they should not see each other. The non -associated order also included Bray’s apartment colleague, who was present in the protest, but not involved in the action on the roof of the building. As a result, Bray has not been able to live in his home since March 3.
On March 19, Bray was invited to talk about an event called “a critical perspective on the police” that the Peace action ōtautah was hosting in the University of Canterbury Greens group. The lecture discussed systemic issues with policing and “radical alternatives” to police power. Green Deputy Tamatha Paul was also talking about the event; His comments on the police that some people feel less safe were widely reported and criticized by other politicians.
After arriving early at the event, Bray helped set up chairs. Duguid, 18, was also there – Bray said he was not aware that Dugid was present. According to Bray, the two set up chairs together “for about three minutes”, then Duguid left. “Let’s not deny that there was a law being broken,” Bray said, but added, “We felt that the police should have considered the nature of the crime, which was briefly riding chairs.”
Paō posted some filming of the event on your Instagram account. “We are aware of the police may be watching our [Instagram] Stories, which I like or not, ”said Bray. But the group is convinced that published filming did not present Dugid, as he had left before the event began.” They did not suspect that we had violated the non -associated order, “Bray said.
So how did the police know the pair had interacted? “At the end of March, police received intelligence information through social media indicating two bail individuals who were able to associate themselves, they were probably present at a university meeting on March 19,” according to a spinoff statement by New Zealand police. The statement was not clear about how the police knew Bray and Dugid had violated their bail conditions, saying only that “police intelligence employees routinely collect information from a wide variety of social media platforms during the course of their work.”
“As part of the investigations into this, police requested university CCTV images – as we would do any entity that could have filming that could help a police investigation,” the statement continued.
Bray said he had concerns about the process used to obtain this filming, which was requested under section 11 (1) (e) of privacy information principles in the 2020 privacy law. He said he thought it was an opportunistic police attempt to see what happened at the meeting and who was there, because the event had received attention for not portraying the police of good light. “As we understood, the police asked for this information while they were on the campus for a different job,” he said. “For me, caught them was not the real reason for acquiring filming, and the fact that they discovered a violation was a byproduct of luck and a legitimation of them obtaining CCTV.”
Police received the filming on March 31 and a police door said that although they had no “immediate knowledge” than police officers who asked the filming had done at the university that day, “they may be very well conducting other routine businesses at the same time.”
Steven Price, a media law expert who gave legal advice to investigative journalist Nicky Hager and was involved in a successful legal challenge after a police attack at Hager’s house, said the privacy law gave no police power to extract information.
“It’s a legal mechanism that means that if someone delivers the information, for example, to the police, and there is a good reason to do so, as a law being broken, they can have no problem,” said Price. He said the police choose to use the privacy law as if it were an alternative to obtain a Production order of the Court, which requires an entity to deliver information. A request from the Privacy Law, on the other hand, is not a binding order. “My concern is that people can receive an official appearance letter and deliver information without realizing that they are not required to do so.”
As a result of the police obtaining the filming, Bray and Duguid were taken in custody on April 1. While saying the police were evident that they violated their bail conditions for at least one day, they were taken in custody after the courts closed, which means they had to spend a night in the cells. Duguid was arrested at 5:40 pm and Bray at 9 pm. “I was sleeping at the time, I woke up with the police in my room,” Bray said. “The fact that the police are watching all the movements of the peace activists is scary,” said Dugid In a press release.
In response to this statement, police said: “It is factually incorrect to suggest that these arrests were due to the surveillance and repression of peace activists. The police arrested them [on April 1] For not complying with the conditions ordered by the Court, as we would do to anyone who violates their bail conditions. ”
Peace action ōTautah can change as promoted events on your public Instagram as a result of this, said Bray. “Let’s look at the way things are announced to prioritize people’s safety.” But “the most important thing is to continue our work of peaceful protest.”
There is a history of surveillance of activists in New Zealand, both by police and special forces, Maire Leadbeater, author of The Enemy Watch: The Human Cost of State Surveillance in Aotearoa New Zealand to Spinoff. “This has a huge impact on confidence when groups are concerned about surveillance,” said Leadbeater, who has experienced extensive state surveillance. While in the past this involved groups being actively infiltrated and having their phones played, Leadbeater said social media has changed the nature of vigilance. “In my opinion, spying on Facebook pages or Instagram accounts can be equally harmful and unacceptable.”
The University of Canterbury did not respond to a request for comment.
