When the Supreme Court stopped all that by telling them that they had no legal right to do it, and is even reported to have questioned the 'implications' for the judge/s involved in issuing the warrants, what happened? A compliant government rolled over and said it would pass, under urgency, <i/>retrospective<i> legislation to make all that law-breaking 'legal.'
That is arrant corruption. The lesson for the police is that they can do what they please, and if
they break the law the lawmakers will make it all right--with backdated law.
When the lawmakers are corrupt the nation is fouled beyond remedy.
This is one of the <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5651975/Surveillance-law-scrutiny-needed-Labour"> news stories on that abysmal breach of the rule of law,</a> which says that not even Fiji under military dictatorship would stoop so low. Another recorded some of the <a href=http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5658023/Legal-wrath-at-fixit-lawchange>rage of the legal profession</a> at the assault and battery that the government wants to inflict on the rule of law. Three discussions, <a href="http://www.laws179.co.nz/2011/09/covert-video-surveillance-and-covert.html">here,</a> <a href="http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/09/20/gordon-campbell-on-the-police-surveillance-bailout/">here,</a> and <a href="http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/once-upon-a-time-in-te-urewera">here,</a> heavily underscore the point that this is arrant corruption on the part of the police and the government.
Fouled beyond remedy? Not quite... For when King Charles went down that track in the early seventeenth century we fixed the problem by taking him on, arresting him, trying him for treason, and lopping off his head. <i>The people</i> de-fouled the corrupt ruler--permanently.