• Full Story

Police begin 'teapot tape' searches

Print

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 2:40p.m. LATEST 4:45PM

Cameraman Brad Ambrose wanted a declaration that the teapot tape contained a public conversation

Cameraman Brad Ambrose wanted a declaration that the teapot tape contained a public conversation

By James Murray

Hours after a judge refused to rule on whether the Epsom “teapot tapes” were private, police have carried out a search of the Herald on Sunday and TVNZ's offices.

Two detectives arrived at the offices at around 3.30pm, and a lawyer for the newspaper has confirmed they executed a search warrant. The Herald complied with their requests.

The detectives refused to comment on what the warrant was for.

A search warrant has also been executed at TVNZ's Auckland offices.

The judge deciding on whether the ‘teapot tapes’ were private or public has declined the plaintiff’s application.

This means the ‘teapot tapes’ have not been declared public, however this does not mean the judge has ruled the conversation as private.

Judge Helen Winkelmann says she has made the decision to turn down the application because of the impending police investigation or trial.

In her judgment Judge Winkelmann said:

“I make it clear that I have not reached any view on whether this was a private conversation, and whether Mr Ambrose’s actions engage S216B. Indeed my decision turns upon the inadequacy of the evidentiary material before me to reach such a view, and in any event, the inappropriateness of my undertaking a mini trial as to whether certain conduct constituted a criminal offence, when exercising the Court’s civil jurisdiction, and in advance of a police investigation or trial.”

Read Judge Winkelmann's full teapot tape judgment.

According to Fairfax Media the decision clears the way for police to search TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, TV3 and the Herald on Sunday.

They quote Radio New Zealand head of news Don Rood as saying he expected a visit today - police had told him "see you on Wednesday" the last time they spoke.

Yesterday the footage was played to the high court by lawyers for Bradley Ambrose - the freelance camera operator who recorded the Banks Key cup of tea chat.

Mr Ambrose claims the café was a public place and therefore he did nothing illegal by recording it, even though the media were asked to move away by the Prime Minister’s staff.

Justice Helen Winkelmann, however, asked whether the media being moved on made it a private conversation.

Mr Ambrose’s team argued that there was no privacy because it was a public space and a public event.

This was an argument backed up by lawyer Julian Miles QC arguing the cup of tea chat was a piece of important political theatre.

“It is not open up to the players to say we want you to film this and not this other bit – that distinction is artificial,” says Mr Miles

But the Crown is arguing against any decision being made on whether the chat was public or private - as that could prejudice the ongoing police investigation.

Lawyers for Mr Ambrose say this is a special case and needs a decision before the election.

The Solicitor general argued justice should be allowed to take its course.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

24 Nov 2011 01:19p.m.

Chris wrote:

I think that the media should ignore Key completely and not give him any air time.If he gets in his next three years could be in media oblivion.They made him 'popular',so too can they make him unpopular.

24 Nov 2011 03:12a.m.

JoePublic wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the world financial, onselling-debt crisis been created by ultra-capitalist, monetarist, speculators and bankers - the very world that John Key comes from? Is he to be trusted simply because he seems like a bloke you would have a beer with? George W Bush was voted in in the US for mainly that reason. Two entrenched wars without a mandate later, he left them near bankrupcy, and deeply divided socially, politically, morally as well as, of course, inequity of their wealth, as evident with the recent civil unrest. Is John Key a 'uniter' or a 'divider'? It is evident that we, the public, are clearly divided regarding our opinion about him. John Key owes it to all NZers to reveal what are his real opinions in these tapes, simply to quell the speculation that is a distraction from informed policy. If the nature of such is truly as innocuous and 'bland' as claimed, then we can all move on. If his devoted following don't seemed to mind that he intends to sell off our nationally strategic and publicly-owned utilities, funded by 'Mum and Dad' (his soundbyte!) taxpayers over four generations, into an unknown market in recession, with a 'not-sure' return when it isn't actually necessary (as costed by Treasury), then they are not going to be really that concerned, as they seem, even if the two Johns were actually discussing the invasion of Poland once they get in! I hear that Havana is good this time of year!

23 Nov 2011 09:52p.m.

Bevan Smith wrote:

What frightens me is that Key's supporters aren't perturbed by the fact he's hiding information from the public before the election. I'm starting to see how it was with the Ba'ath Party and Saddam. They were happy for him to rule any way he saw fit, too, and question nothing.

23 Nov 2011 09:46p.m.

nigel wrote:

At least the police executed a warrant and not a journalist.

23 Nov 2011 09:00p.m.

keewi wrote:

If there is really stuff in the tape worth publishing, the media would have gone ahead bugger any prosecution. Simply, the media is playing a game of challenging John Key's bluff and they lost! Go ahead and publish! How much is a fine anyway split among the media! The ball is with the media!

23 Nov 2011 06:51p.m.

Doug wrote:

Paranoia and conspiracy, you people are frightening! You walk among us.

23 Nov 2011 06:28p.m.

food for thought wrote:

Key said on tv this morning,on tv1, that he wasn't worried about the tapes,with a smile of course,perhaps he knew what the outcome would be,however he is not worried about the release,so lets do it,before we go to the polls,and what about the asset sales too,keeping things from the public is keys priority.

23 Nov 2011 06:25p.m.

Benyamin Roger wrote:

Surely any one of us would like protection against such recording. how would any of us placed in this situation? The lobby to have the tape publicized against the the will off the and two citizens involved is transparent. You sit on the left and seek an embarrassment. Fair enough. But don't compare with China. Over there you can be jailed for life for mentioning a certain religious group in private. no conversation in China can be called private.

23 Nov 2011 06:22p.m.

Mindy65 wrote:

This is insane if a judge had enough information to issue a search warrant then surly they had enough information to make a judgement on whether the conversation was public or private. Not to mention her concern over the affect her judgement would have on the police investigation in a bit confusing correct me if I am wrong but the way I see it the police wouldn't need to investigate it if she judged it to be public. Corruption in our court rooms as well as our government wow time to jump ship me thinks maybe I could move to a county where everyone expects this kind of corruption.

23 Nov 2011 06:17p.m.

chris wrote:

Its digital, if I was the one with the recording I would have posted it online anonymously.