tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post103469310243377630..comments2011-09-21T22:08:12.111+12:00Dean Knighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03069298298745322597noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-3062486930981481012011-09-21T22:08:12.111+12:002011-09-21T22:08:12.111+12:00Very well argued. Welcome back to top form Dean!Robin Johnson's Economics Web Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12924305800986441792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-84680404849636100132011-09-21T07:02:50.630+12:002011-09-21T07:02:50.630+12:00Excellent article and analysis, Dean. It spells out just how pernicious the use of urgency is - if Parliament isn&#39;t equipped to address classic rights issues in the context of a state actor that has knowingly and consistently overstepped its mandate, then what use is it as a check on the executive branch.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04580433621145529188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-50422103072674126412011-09-20T21:14:48.532+12:002011-09-20T21:14:48.532+12:00Judicial Activism? If the shoe fits, Mr John Smillie..why don&#39;t we just get rid of that conduit to Judicial Activism - the NZBORA - in the first place! After all, it is certainly the judiciary who has all the power in this country..or not!<br /><br />Nice job Dean, I like your Rule-of-Law analysis, and particular point about the dubious, knee-jerk, resort to legislative urgency - reminiscent of Parliament&#39;s reflex legislative response to the ruling in Ngati Apa, bearing in mind the very different context.Jude-ohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12521534136395998111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-58026851297528191372011-09-20T13:48:52.459+12:002011-09-20T13:48:52.459+12:00Dean, once again you have missed the point.<br /><br />This case, like so many others, is an example of the high judiciary&#39;s willingness to interfere with established practice and common law to suit their own desired results.<br /><br />Their process of reasoning is as follows (by Tipping&#39;s admission at a UC lecture last week) - &quot;We determine what result we want - then we go about justifying it&quot;<br /><br />This is what has happened here - the judges (for whatever reason) decided that evidence obtained within the reasonable limits of police power was BAD (&#39;The evil servants of her Majesty at it again&#39;)- they used flawed reasoning to justify this result and simultaneously enlarged their powers.<br /><br />This is breach of mandate – it is judicial activism – if any survey was conducted I’m willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of people would not support this finding.<br /><br />How the hell are the police meant to do their job in the 21st century if they get slapped on the wrist by Piano-Legs Elias every time they dare to breath!<br /><br />The further these authoritarian judges elevate things the more I, for one, want to leave this country and never return.Titihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03892323200308265632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11340801.post-11518250538527819462011-09-20T13:25:48.817+12:002011-09-20T13:25:48.817+12:00Hi Dean,<br /><br />Was hoping you&#39;d have blogged about this. <br /><br />A good read and I agree with your points.<br /><br />(Thanks for saving me reading all 108 pages of the SC&#39;s decision)<br /><br />Cheers<br />JesseMessyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10778476710191179865noreply@blogger.com