Authority to pursue Hager raid case
The Nicky Hager-shaped thorn in police’s side has produced yet another barb.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) stalled a report – prompted by a Green Party complaint – into a search on Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager’s Wellington home while a long-running case went through the courts.
But now IPCA general manager Warren Young has confirmed it will pick up where it left off and begin writing its findings.
The findings had been delayed as the authority had ‘‘more pressing priorities given the matter is settled,’’ Young said.
In June, police apologised to the investigative journalist over a raid on his Wellington house following the release of the controversial book.
The 2014 book featured material from a tranche of hacked emails leaked to Hager by an anonymous source. Police raided Hager’s home as part of an investigation into the source, but acknowledged they breached Hager’s rights and apologised for this as part of a settlement.
Hager was also online for confidential damages from police and a contribution to his legal costs.
Police admitted they inappropriately obtained 10 months’ worth of Hager’s banking information, and got a search warrant despite Hager not being ‘‘a suspect of any offending’’.
When seeking the warrant, Police did not mention Hager – who was in Auckland – was a journalist and could claim journalistic privilege. The search warrant was also too broad and they searched his house for an hour before Hager claimed journalistic privilege. Police now admit they should have given him more time. Police also acknowledged that Hager had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
They went on to admit they told people that Hager was suspected of fraud without any basis.
In 2015, the High Court found the search warrant for the raid was ‘‘fundamentally’’ unlawful. The raid lasted 10 hours and took place when Hager was not home. Hager’s lawyer Felix Geiringer welcomed the IPCA report.
‘‘The police have admitted liability for a large number of illegal acts ... This means there is necessarily a lot for the IPCA to address in a report. The IPCA doesn’t now need to make any findings on the legality of those acts’’.