SUCH TRIAL ‘S.I.S. did not reveal information’

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33957, 25 September 1975, Page 2

SUCH TRIAL ‘S.I.S. did not reveal information’

<Xeu> Zrclani Press association)

WELLINGTON, September 24. Suggestions that the Security Intelligence Service did not reveal in the trial of Dr W. B. Sutch information it had obtained through the use of listening devices were made at a hearing of the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament today.

They come from editor of the “New Zealand Law Journal,” Mr Jeremy Pope, who also referred to assertions that the S.I.S. used such devices to listen to com-? versations of certain j Canterbury University students at a flat in Christchurch. Mr Pope was making submissions to the committee on the Listening Devices Bill, which establishes’ a Listening Commissioner and deputy commissioners to approve the use of bugging devices if the 1 police or S.I.S. want to use them. Mr Pope said that it was reasonable to assume that if the S.I.S. was efficient it had used listening devices to gain 1 information as to where Dr 1 Sutch would meet Russians. If this were the case, it followed that such informa-' tion could have been used in the Sutch trial. As it was not used, it could be construed that this was because the information supported Dr Sutch’s explanation, given to the Attorney-General (Dr Finlay), as to why he had met the Russians; or else that the devices used had not been fully effective. Mr Pope accepted, however, a suggestion from Sir John Marshall (Nat., Karori)j that material obtained might: have consisted of inconse-; quential information. , ' i | Availability But it was widely believed.; Mr Pope said, that evidence' 'gained from telephone-;

tapping by the S.I.S. had not been used by the S.I.S. because it had backed up Dr Sutch’s explanation. Mr Pope suggested that information obtained through the use of telephone “bugs" [or other types of listening [device should be made available to defence lawyers in cases where the prosecution ddi not wish to use it. He did not fully accept propositions advanced by some members of the committee that it should be sufficient for the prosecution to tell the defence that it had other information available, even if the method used to obtain it was not revealed. All evidence obtained should be made available to courts in their search for the truth, he said. Dealing with the Christ--1 church case, Mr Pope said the S.I.S. had been listening to the conversations of students from a flat across the road, during a “vetting” of the activities of full-time students at Canterbury University. There might well have been a good reason for this — but he did not know. On the presentation of evidence gained from the use of (bugging devices, the prosecution was getting into a “Heads I win, tails you lose” situation, because it could take the view that if information obtained was useful lit would be used, and if it was not, it would be discarded. Sir Roy Jack (Nat., Rangi-| i tikei) said there was a body : of opinion which leant to the view that the Crown was j bending over backwards to [be fair to accused people. Empowerment Mr Pope said the request to use a listening device was analagous to a request for a search warrant. “As requests to use the devices are [restricted to indictable offences, it would be inappropriate for the request to be made to a magistrate. I submit that many of the problems dealt with in the bill—for example tenure of appointment, secrecy, and record-keeping — would be overcome if one judge of the Supreme Court were empowered to authorise the use of listening devices.”

Under cross-examination; Mr Pope said this would also' be helpful in ensuring a con-' sistency of decisions taken. It was true that because of overwork, and a need for court restructuring, the judges were unlikely to receive the suggestion with enthusiasm. Mr Pope said that under| the bill, the police were quite; 'properly restricted in the use; of devices to cases where: it was necessary to gain evidence of a serious criminal offence. The S.I.S. was not; so limited. “It is submitted that the; same criteria should be applied to the 5.1.5.,” Mr Pope said. “Activities prejudicial to the security of New Zealand are not always criminal offences, as the definition of the word ‘security’ in the New Zealand Security Intelli-I gence Service Act, 1969, is! impossibly broad.”