That’s the end of that

MIGHT there now be much rejoicing in criminal circles.

Now that the teapot tape saga has come to an end.

An end with no prosecution, because it is ‘‘not in the public interest’’ to proceed.

Does that hold then, for the four people arrested on Friday night at the Daktory in Auckland where a vending machine was allegedly dispensing cannabis? Not in the public interest? ‘‘OK, we broke the law,’’ they might say, ‘‘but is it really in the public interest to prosecute us?

‘‘How are we different from freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose? ‘‘We’re not doing any harm.’’ Or does ‘‘not in the public interest’’ mean different things in different cases?

Like in the Ambrose one, where the real public interest being breached in proceeding would be . . . the prime minister’s.

Umm, you betcha. There was nothing for John Key to gain in insisting on prosecution and, as the complainant, it is his right to end matters. Even after five months.

And there’s a distinction about being ‘‘in the public interest’’ and ‘‘being of interest to the public’’.

For the police, the issue is about whether prosecuting Ambrose was worth it to teach him a lesson and to deter others from recording potentially damaging conversations; while for the public . . . well, they are just interested in what Mr Key and John Banks said.

Is that ‘‘in the public interest’’? Well, yes actually, as it might tell us a little more about the real thinking of influential politicians. But mostly it’s just interesting, because we’ll have forgotten it come the next election.

And Ambrose helped everyone involved with a sincere letter of regret.

So the cameraman gets a warning, but the next person to do the same probably won’t. That will be interesting.

And what now happens to the tape? The police warn against further release but, if the man who made the original recording can get off . . . Mr Key is taking a risk, as would a broadcaster. And the winner in all of this is? Why, Winston Peters of course.