This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at

Still lying, Still spying - Anti-terror police back at the picket line.


‘The anti-terror police are still spying on legitimate political protest, and they are still lying to the public about what they are doing despite Howard Broad’s assurances that they do not target political groups’ said Sally Darity, spokesperson for the Justice NOW! Collective.

‘In central Wellington, a member of the Special Investigation Group (SIG), Detective Richard Grover, was caught photographing a small animal rights protest against a restaurant serving foie gras (force-fed goose/duck liver) on 5th August 2009. When questioned by local cameraman Daryl Hunt about what he was doing, Grover initially denied any knowledge of the situation before admitting to taking photographs and hiding his camera in a grocery bag. Later that day when he was contacted at the Wellington Central Police Station and the realisation that his cover had been blown set in, he changed tact once again, this time denying even being at the protest.’

‘At the same time, the private sector spies were out to exploit the picket. Provision Security’s Wellington boss John Campbell was also hiding behind cars across the road and photographing the group of protestors.’ When approached by Mr Hunt, Campbell reacted by assaulting him.

‘Provision is a subsidiary of Thompson and Clark Private Investigators, best known for their role in spying on a whole host of campaign groups including the Save Happy Valley Coalition, the Wellington Animal Rights Network and Peace Action Wellington. Provision Security holds the security contract for the Wellington City Council’s venues, and it is extremely disturbing that a person given to assaulting people is in charge of public security’ said Sally Darity.

‘The assault took place in full view of Detective Richard Grover, but he did nothing. This behaviour reinforces the view that private security guards are out of control and the police are only too happy to turn a blind eye to anything that they do even in situations that compromise public safety and assaults on members of the public.’

‘When a four person picket garners the attention of the anti-terror police, four uniformed officers, and private spies, there can be no other conclusion that Howard Broad was lying outright when he said that the police do not spy on legitimate political protests. Detective Richard Grover was also involved in raiding houses on October 15th in Wellington in 2007. On the eve of yet another week of court hearings in relation to “Operation 8” in the High Court in Auckland, it is clear that political dissent of any sort remains under attack from the violent forces of both the State and private interests’ commented Sally Darity.

Media release: Still lying. Still spying
From: Justice NOW! Collective


The claim that a private

The claim that a private investigator commited assault is very serious. Lay charges to back up your claims.


Agreed. Claims of criminal

Agreed. Claims of criminal behaviour should be followed up by criminal charges being laid, otherwise it just diminishes the credibility of whoever is making the claims.

Read the article

Read the article. The police were present when the incident happened and did nothing to intervene. Why would they do anything when the same person lays a complaint with them? Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Have you attempted to lay a

Have you attempted to lay a formal complaint at the Police Station yet? Assault is a criminal offence, which a protestor has claimed to be a victim of. Follow it up or you lose credibility.

how does laying a complaint

how does laying a complaint enhance credibility... if Detective Grover was there he can charge the security guard. no complaint required. The real question is what were these anti terror police doing here taking pictures???

Hmmm,'  there is a difference

Hmmm,'  there is a difference between 'a policeman' and 'the police' you know.

Laying a private complaint

Laying a private complaint against someone costs several thousand dollars, using this to ignore the ongoing surveillance is stupid.

No suprises that the surveillance is ongoing, nice work for spotting them. As usual sounds like they were pretty pissed off to have their pictures taken.


If he assaults you, by all means bring charges. But in reading pieces about actions on both this and other Indy sites I am not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling that folks know how this "game" is played. Been on enough "rough" picket lines in my day to know that the first step is to learn the rules. As in all rough games, got to know exactly what is "offsides" and what a "charge" or a "block", if there is a collision, who gets charged with the foul (or as in this case, who is considered criminally at fault).

It's not that simple as to think you can go by your intent. It's not always your choice whether the encounter ends up non-violent or violent and if you want the person of the other side to be considered in the wrong then you have to know those rules real well. Choose your actions based on knowing the consequences because bitching later "he attacked me"  comes out as silly whining if you set up a situation where in spite of your intention to be non-violent he was entitled to choose otherwise and if so, you, not he gets considered the aggressor.

Now I don't know the rules of your jurisdiction and so am talking about mine. Here if you blockade in front of me in a public place I would be obliged to wait for the authorities to clear the way or go around. But if you surrounded me, even with the intent to be doing so non-violently, that's not your decision as I wouldn't be required to patiently wait for the authorities to rescue me from imprisonment but could choose to break through with flying elbows bloodying some noses and bruising ribs and I would not be considered to have attacked you. Yes of course it could come to a court to decide if I used excessive force (more than required to escape) but that's risky as counter charges apply.

I've seen reports of at least one action where deadly force would have been considered justified by local laws and mores. There's nowhere in any of our states where you can do a non-violent masked forced intrusion of an occupied house -- by "reasonable person" doctrine the householder is allowed to presume a physical attack on persons was intended and defend accordingly. In other words, the intent of the "invaders" that this be non-violent counts for nought -- their particular choice of action surrendered the right to decide. This scares me, not in the sense that I have any interest in telling people what actions to choose or not choose but just that they not be doing so in ignorance of the rules of what can be a very rough game.

So reasure me if possible. Tell me that these demos have at least a few folks familiar with the rules of your jurisdiction for rough demos. Like a labor strike picket line where both the workers on the line and the scabs with their escorts coming through will be having at each other as soon as one or the other makes a misstep so the "foul" will be called on the other side. Or even if they know it will be called on themselves but they do this knowlingly.

And yes of course these cases can still need for a court to decide. I remember one from the sixties where we were blockading the entrances of a building with people inside and the case (over who was assaulting whom when they tried to break out) hinged on whether we had "imprisoned" them. In other words, was the lowest unbarred window close enough to the ground to constitute an escape route -- it wasn't a dangerous drop but it was a drop and it wasn't a door but a window so up to the court proceedings to decide this "fact".


what wankers taking photos of

what wankers taking photos of ppl using their right to protest. I applaud your campaign their !

personally ,i would hate to give these a holes the pleasure of getting my pic and would cover my identity 

What bullshit. The alledged

What bullshit. The alledged assault is , at the least, an exaggeration, or they'd pursue charges. Just what you'd expect from wellington anarchist. Who's the liars?

"Liars" wrong term?

When you say somebody is lying you mean that they are saying someting that THEY believe is untrue.

That's what my pervious comments were about, expressing doubts about whether enough of us know the "rules of engagement" for actions in our jurisdictions. This judgement is based on how I am seeing actions/reactions reported.

You are saying "lying" because not an "assult" IN FACT (and so can't bring charges). In reality they probably really do think they were assaulted because they don't know the "rules of the game". To use the sports analogy, don't know what the refs will call a "charge" or  "block" foul.