Dotcom: A systematic cover-up by police and spies

Print

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:14a.m.

Kim Dotcom (file)

Kim Dotcom (file)

It is sad to say, but it is becoming increasingly clear there was a cover-up by our spies and the police in the Dotcom scandal.

I want to make my opinion perfectly clear here: the police and spies are donkey-deep in bureaucratic butt-covering of the highest order.

I base this on a reading of the email trails between police and spies as seen in my story last night.

Sadly, it appears that when they weren't going around using the odd nickname/codename "Billy Big Steps", there was a systematic and therefore disgraceful cover-up.

The police and spies appear so arrogant they covered-up their illegal spying from everyone in the country from the Prime Minister down.

It is just plain wrong.

Even those out there who don't like Dotcom should be concerned that the police and spies were, in the own words of one of the police officers on the case "a bunch of clowns walking roughshod over the law".

The spy agency the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the police Organised and Financial Crime Agency (OFCANZ) appear to be in cahoots in trying to cover up an almighty blunder.

It is quite simple and it works like this: spying on New Zealand residents is illegal. It is a basic rule. It is in the GCSB's own law.

Now on December 16, 2011, the spying started.

ON THAT SAME DAY, the officer in charge of the case, Detective Inspector Grant Wormald personally received documentation showing Dotcom was a "Resident".

I have that documentation on my desk right now.

So if he didn't realise then, from then on, alarm bells should have rung for Wormald at a mention of the no-spying-on-residents rule.

Worse for Wormald, on January 11 - while the spying was still going on - police received the entire immigration file for Dotcom, which made it even clearer he was a resident.

These new dates are incredibly damning because they potentially show authorities knew the spying was illegal while it was going on - meaning police and spies could have stopped, but they didn't.

Wormald must come clean and tell New Zealanders why he never realised the spying was illegal - or admit his part in the cover-up.

The documents that Labour obtained in the Court of Appeal also show the GCSB also knew from February 20 that Dotcom was a NZ resident - thanks to reading media reports.

The GCSB confirmed this on February 22.

  • So the cover-up could have been for nine months (if Wormald turned a blind eye in December 2011).
  • The cover-up could have been for eight months (if police turned blind eye in January 2012).
  • And the cover-up was definitely for seven months (from when the GCSB learned in February).

The documents show the crisis that ensued from February when the illegal spying was widely realised.

After a flurry of worried emails, the GCSB's legal adviser Hugh Wolfensohn came up with a wrong definition of the GCSB's law - that made it appear as if the spying was OK, and everybody relaxed.

Wolfensohn said the law applied to "permanent residents", but Kim Dotcom was a "resident" - and therefore it was OK.

Now this was pure nonsense - the law didn't work this way, but it stopped the panic.

Why did Wolfensohn do this? He was a lawyer, he'd been at the GCSB for 25 years, most of that time as its chief legal adviser, and was no doubt involved in the actual drafting of the law he got wrong.

That makes no sense either - although one explanation is that it was an attempt at a cover-up.

Like Wormald, Wolfensohn must come clean to New Zealanders and explain how he got it so wrong - or admit he was part in the cover-up.

Labour has always attacked John Key with the "how could you not know" line.

Well the sickening truth now is that there may have been a cover-up by the police and spies - so Key didn't know, and neither did anybody else.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

10/04/2013 12:26:21 a.m.

gaby wrote:

Just think back to Waihopai vandalism case, and why the case was not pursued as would have been expected. Surveilling communications in the Iraq region? - beggars belief. Survelling the New Zealand region on the other hand.... well, optimal really. The crown couldn't exactly use the facts to prosecute their case however, could they? I must say that if it wasn't for that Judge Winkelmann, standing independently and not taking any crap from the big-muscled "agencies", a lot of this would successfully have been swept under the carpet. I'm not convinced Mr Key, the minister in charge, was not, and continues to portray the façade that he is not across this. He knew a lot more than he has admitted, and he needs to realise when the senior lawyer at GCSB resigns, the game is up.

1/04/2013 3:43:43 p.m.

John Reid wrote:

time for a few selected sackings? I'd be starting at the top, myself.

25/03/2013 4:40:26 p.m.

katubaldy wrote:

Hey nice try Eddie...the staunch supporters of the govt are always quick to lay the blame at Labour's feet whenever they get the chance but looks like they're even quicker to try and avoid blame when they can... Joe Key's the leader of the country and its his job to know whats going on... especially when it comes to police and intelligence depts... He's obviously tried to distance himself from the beginning from this issue cos he could smell the stench a mile away. The fact that they're saying he didn't know confirms what an incompetent PM he's been. If the report is wrong and he did know what was going on, it puts him in a worse light than before. If you're calling that 'sorted' Eddie, you might want to check the dictionary cos its more like it just got swept under the carpet ineffectively which is why the PR trail it created never went away.

23/03/2013 8:19:59 p.m.

Julie wrote:

crumbs it's all a bit unnerving ...have we made any progress since that so called "spying" case in Wellington in the seventies? Maybe not. Are we just a bunch of wallies? Good story. Well written!

22/03/2013 11:52:05 a.m.

eddie wrote:

"Labour has always attacked John Key with the "how could you not know" line.

Well the sickening truth now is that there may have been a cover-up by the police and spies - so Key didn't know, and neither did anybody else"

Sorted!...Once again Key unblemished and the left firing blanks (where is the tape Mr Shearer?). By all means fire those involved and gut the agency, by the sounds of it it needs a good clean out.



21/03/2013 5:31:35 p.m.

Kathy wrote:

@Jean I am more sick of people excusing the illegal actions of John Key and the cover up that has perpetuated from these events. If John Key has covered this up.. what else has he covered up? will he be a Muldoon? and we find that our international foreign debt is twice as large as he told us?. Or will he be a Shipley and cover up human rights abuses. The National Party Tories are all the same, in it for themselves and lying like dumb animals to cover their own backsides. What's more important here are the repeated and continued illegal actions of our top Bureaucrats. Stuff what Dotcom did, lets talk about what Key did instead of deflecting from the story which is that this government is covering its own arse.

21/03/2013 4:47:52 p.m.

Richard wrote:

Of course Key knew.. or he'd be publicly demanding scalps..

21/03/2013 12:09:32 p.m.

Jean Eltringham wrote:

Stuff up it might be, but it might also be a legitimate concern about someone who has US charges to answer and is hiding in our country. He (Dotcom) has the media dancing to his tune. Does that not concern you? I, for one, am sick of the sight of his face on TV. He's loving all the attention. Takes the focus off the main issue, his illegal downloads. He's got what he set out to achieve. Do you like being a puppet.

20/03/2013 7:50:29 p.m.

karl wrote:

not happy being a kiwi last 3 years. not a happy camper at all

20/03/2013 7:24:55 p.m.

L. Hansen wrote:

For cast probably criminal, may oft be used the "bad hat way" like is happen about the spying etc. else will the most smart criminal go free. When I f.ex. do a call overseas can I oft hear some listen to my conversations, even I know I am a peaceful person, so am I "laugh" some about this spy, as I self nothing have to hide. But is I had some to "hide"I would be "upset" like Mr. "Dotcom".

Patrick Gower

Political Editor

Patrick is the 3 News Political Editor based in Wellington. Here he offers his commentary on New Zealand politics from his front-row seat in the Press Gallery. He has been a journalist for 15 years, covering stories in Afghanistan and on the US presidential election campaign trail, and was previously a political and investigative reporter for the New Zealand Herald.

Patrick Gower's Entries

Previous123Next