Thats fine, but don't cry foul when the police then exercise a search warrant to ensure they have the necessary evidence to back up a potential prosecution.Just to put some perspective on this. You have the right, in New Zealand, to say "I am maintaining my right to silence" when question by the Police. This applies to you, me, your mate, your mother and everyone. This is the reason we have appropriate judicial law in NZ, rather than the ad-loc random legal process in Russia, Malaysia, Thailand, USA and many other countries. Want to live in a country where the answer to a Police question comes from the end of a baton ?
Just because you may disagree with the particular circumstances doesn't dilute the process you have the option to exercise.
The posts for death, evisceration, and avoidance of a legal process we all all entitled to, is today in NZ, somewhat sickening. Simply because of an opinion people have, publicly.
Discussion is one thing, rampant mob behaviour because of the belief and obsession one is right, is quite sad.
The whinging from HDPA and Soper is not justified if they refused to speak to the police, the police are entitled to search under warrant on the basis of reasonable grounds for specified items, if a crime has been committed. Its pretty clear that that is the case.
Whether the police choose to prosecute or not is a matter of discretion on their part, but they always do that with the consideration of the strength of their case in the first instance and then other considerations. It is quite pathetic to refuse to speak to the police and then claim that a search shouldn't have occurred as they would have provided the information required.... they had already refused...!!
The fact is, in spite of the media dribble about this - there was no loophole, and there was no actual problem. Despite that this circus broke the law, and as Aunty Ursula points out, there is no defence of public interest for criminal activity.
Bookmarks