Bugging by tax officers, businessman legal—police

Press, 17 June 1983, Page 1

Bugging by tax officers, businessman legal—police

PA Auckland Police inquiries so far determined that two Inland Revenue officers and an Auckland businessman, Mr Ronald Kingsnorth, acted legally when they bugged conversations with an accountant, said Auckland’s police chief, Assistant Commissioner Bryan Gibson, yesterday.

Inquiries were nearly finished, he said.

Mr Kingsnorth, said Mr Gibson, was a party to the conversations which occurred in an accountant’s office.

"The way the law (Crimes Act) is framed, the Inland Revenue officers are also deemed to be a party to the conversation and therefore committed no offence by listening to what occurred in the office,” Mr Gibson said.

The listening device used was supplied by Mr Kingsnorth, who runs a number of Auckland massage parlours. “I can give a categorical assurance that no police equipment was employed,” Mr Gibson said.

He reiterated that Post Office vehicles were not involved in the alleged activities. Mr Gibson said that several Government departments, including the police, Railways, the Health Department, and Customs, hired vans from the Public Service Garage.

The two Inland Revenue officers under investigation for bugging have been shifted from their jobs as tax investigators. They had been taken off the “field inquiries” on which, they were formerly

employed, and moved to “internal” work, said the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Mr John Simcock yesterday.

When an Auckland newspaper gave Mr Simcock two names and sought confirmation that they were the two men involved, Mr Simcock said, "I won’t confirm or deny their names, at this stage.”

But the information on the names was confirmed by an Auckland lawyer, Mr E. P. Leary, who prompted the inquiry with his letter of complaint to the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, on behalf of a client. Mr Simcock said the matter had been handed to the police.

“I don’t want to do anything further until I have their report. They will establish the facts,” he said.

“It is right that if these things did go on, they should surface. We have to make sure we conduct ourselves within proper guidelines.” Mr Simcock said the two men involved had not been demoted or suspended. An allegation that one of the officers was also a member of the Security Intelligence Service surprised Mr Simcock. “Anything is possible, but I am not aware of any of my staff belonging to the

5.1.5.,” he said.

A 1979 amendment to the Crimes Act, 1961, deals with crimes against personal privacy.

A private communication is defined as “any oral communication made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication.”

A party, says the act, is a reference to “any originator of the communication and any person intended by the orginator to receive it.” That act says a “party” can also be a person who, with the “expressed or implied consent of any originator of the communication or any person intended by the originator to receive it, intercepts the communication.”

It says anyone who intentionally intercepts a private communication with a listening device is liable to be jailed for two years. The exceptions are when the person making the interception is a party to the communication, or if the interception is made in accordance with the Post Office Act, 1959, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act, 1969, or the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act, 1978.