Two members of Peace Action Ōtautahi, an activist group, were taken into custody after police requested CCTV footage from the University of Canterbury showing them briefly interacting, which contravened their bail conditions.
At the start of March, two protesters from activist group Peace Action Ōtautahi chained themselves to the building of NIOA, an Australian arms manufacturer that supplies the Israeli Defence Forces and has an outpost in Rolleston, just outside of Christchurch. They were charged with burglary, which PAŌ spokesperson Joseph Bray, a 22-year-old who was one of the two protesters, said “was a surprising charge” (the legal definition of burglary doesn’t require a theft to have occurred). The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, and the choice of charge to Bray “felt like an intimidation tactic”.
As part of the bail conditions, Bray and the other protester, Jackson Duguid, were subject to an order of “non-association”: they were not meant to see each other. The non-association order also included Bray’s flatmate, who had been present at the protest but not involved in the action on the roof of the building. As a result Bray has not been able to live at his house since March 3.
On March 19, Bray was asked to speak at an event called “A critical perspective on the police” that Peace Action Ōtautahi was hosting with the University of Canterbury Greens group. The talk discussed systemic issues with policing and “radical alternatives” to police power. Green MP Tamatha Paul was also speaking at the event; her comments about police making some people feel less safe were widely reported and criticised by other politicians.
After arriving early at the event, Bray helped set up chairs. Duguid, 18, was there too – Bray said he hadn’t been aware that Duguid would be present. According to Bray, the two set up chairs together “for about three minutes”, then Duguid left. “We won’t deny there was a law being broken,” Bray said, but added, “we feel the police should have considered the nature of the crime, which was briefly setting up chairs together.”
PAŌ posted some footage of the event on its Instagram account. “We’re aware police might be watching our [Instagram] stories, whether I like it or not,” Bray said. But the group is adamant the footage posted did not feature Duguid, as he had left before the event began. “They had no suspicion to believe that we had breached the non-association order,” Bray said.
So how did the police know the pair had interacted? “In late March, Police had received intelligence information via social media that indicated two individuals on bail, who had conditions not to associate with each other, had likely both been present at a meeting at the university on 19 March,” according to a statement provided to The Spinoff by NZ Police. The statement was not not clear about how the police knew Bray and Duguid had breached their bail conditions, only saying that “police intelligence staff routinely gather information from a wide variety of social media platforms during the course of their work”.
“As part of inquiries into this, Police requested CCTV footage from the university – as we would from any entity that may have footage that could assist a Police inquiry,” the statement continued.
Bray said he had concerns about the process that was used to obtain this footage, which was requested under section 11 (1) (e) of the Privacy Information Principles in the Privacy Act 2020. He said he thought it was an opportunistic attempt by police to see what went on at the meeting and who was there, because the event had received attention for not portraying the police in a good light. “As we understand it, the police asked for this information while they were on campus for a different job,” he said. “To me, catching us out wasn’t the real reason to acquire the footage, and the fact that they found a breach was a lucky byproduct and a legitimisation of them obtaining the CCTV.”
The police received the footage on March 31, and a police spokesperson said that while they didn’t have “immediate knowledge” of what the officers who requested the footage had done at the university that day, “they may very well have been conducting other routine business at the same time”.
Steven Price, a media law expert who has given legal advice to investigative journalist Nicky Hager and was involved in a successful legal challenge following a police raid on Hager’s house, said the Privacy Act did not give police powers to extract information.
“It’s a legal mechanism that means if someone hands over information, for example to the police, and there’s a good reason to do so, such as a law being broken, they can’t get into trouble themselves,” said Price. He said the police choose to use the Privacy Act as if it’s an alternative to getting a production order from the court, which compels an entity to hand over information. A Privacy Act request, by contrast, is not a binding order. “My concern is that people may receive an official-looking letter and hand over information, without realising that they’re not required to do so.”
The University of Canterbury said that they complied with the police’s Privacy Act request, and CCTV footage would be released under these conditions. “The University of Canterbury is a place of learning, discussion, and free expression, we encourage respectful dialogue while ensuring a safe environment for all,” a spokesperson said.
As a result of police obtaining the footage, both Bray and Duguid were taken into custody on April 1. While they say the police had had evidence of them breaching their bail conditions for at least a day, they were taken into custody after the courts had closed, meaning they had to spend a night in the cells. Duguid was taken into custody at 5.40pm and Bray at 9pm. “I was asleep at the time, I woke up to the police in my room,” Bray said. “The fact that the cops are watching the every move of peace activists is frightening,” Duguid said in a press release.
In response to this statement, police said, “It is factually incorrect to suggest these arrests were due to surveillance and repression of peace activists. Police arrested them [on April 1] for not complying with court-ordered conditions, as we would for any person who breaches their bail conditions.”
Peace Action Ōtautahi may change how it promotes events on its public Instagram as a result of this, Bray said. “We will look into the way things get advertised, to prioritise people’s safety.” But “the most important thing is to continue the work we do of peaceful protest”.
There’s a history of surveillance of activists in New Zealand, both by police and the special forces, Maire Leadbeater, author of the book The Enemy Within: the Human Cost of State Surveillance in Aotearoa New Zealand, told The Spinoff. “It has a huge impact on trust when groups are worried about surveillance,” said Leadbeater, who has experienced extensive state surveillance herself. While in the past this involved groups being actively infiltrated and having their phones tapped, Leadbeater said that social media has changed the nature of surveillance. “In my opinion, spying on Facebook pages or Instagram accounts could be just as damaging and just as unacceptable.”
This article was updated on 15 April to include comment from the University of Canterbury. A previous version stating that UC had not commented on the piece was incorrect and due to a journalist’s error.
