Report on preventing youth crime

A report written by justice sector science advisor Dr Ian Lambie, titled It is never too early, never too late: A
discussion paper on preventing youth offending in New Zealand, urges agencies to adopt “developmental
crime prevention” model.


Principal Youth Court judge welcomes new report on tackling youth crime

A report on addressing youth crime in New Zealand is a blueprint for change that needs to involve all agencies
and communities, says Principal Youth Court Judge John Walker.

The report found the number of offenders in the youth-justice system is decreasing, but more needed to be
done to understand youth offending.

“With its focus on rehabilitation, reintegration and restorative justice, the report highlights that New Zealand
has an innovative youth justice system that works well to address offending by people aged 14 to 17.

“However, if we really want to be serious about getting to the root causes of youth crime, it shows we need to
tackle those issues when they’re children, not when they turn up in the youth justice system at 14. Too often
in the Youth Court we’re playing “catch up”, dealing with long standing issues that could have been addressed
many years before.”

A key issue the report highlights is that the causes of youth crime are intergenerational and linked to problems
within families and communities, Judge Walker says.

“When the research shows that 80 percent of child and young offenders grow up in homes where family
violence is present, breaking this cycle of violence from one generation to another is critical.

“To address the underlying issues and the well-entrenched behaviours we see in young people and young
adults, we must target every point in the timeline. We need to be pre-emptive, responsive, and adopt longterm
strategies.

“Regular visits to check on the health of toddlers, programmes to help parents and address the mental health
of mothers, tackling challenging behaviour by children and supporting early childhood centres and schools are
just some of the options the report highlights for addressing the issues that lead to youth offending.”

Judge Walker says young people do not grow up in a vacuum.

“Communities play an integral role in providing the framework within which young lives can be
reclaimed. What this report pinpoints is that change does not happen just by what we do, but by what
we do alongside others.”

Unanswered questions over Hager case

The Police gave Nicky Hager a comprehensive apology and a substantial payout after they admitted overstepping procedures and breaking the law in their investigation of Hager when they tried to find out who the hacker ‘Rawshark’ was who supplied Hager with data from Cameron Slater and his Whale oil website.

There are unanswered questions about whether ‘Rawshark’ was a sole operator or a group, whether he/she/they were hacking from the outside or whether it was an inside job (whistleblower). The police failed to find any of this out, and Hager himself claims not to know.

The police made it clear that Hager was investigated as a witness and “was not a suspect of any offending” (which made their botching of the investigation substantially more troubling).

There is a big unanswered question over why the police went to such great lengths when they have made it clear that Hager was investigated as a witness and not as a possible offender – in contrast to their investigation of another acase where Slater tried to have The Standard hacked.

Tim Watkins goes over the case and in particular asks this in More questions from the Nicky Hager case.

Slater had reported the hack to police and quite properly, the police began investigating. However, they began investigating with such vigour they broke the law and were not honest with the courts. It’s a remarkable series of events that appears to go beyond ineptitude, to something more deliberate.

In a country where victims of burglary often complain about the slow response from police and around the time that the national burglary resolution rate (2015) was a record low 9.3 per cent, it’s curious that police would expend such resources on this computer.

But most notably there were other dodgy dealings with computers in the news around the same time, as well. Dirty Politics itself revealed that Slater and National Party staffer and others had been rooting around in the back-end of the Labour Party website. Hager had alleged that one of those who had been in the site was a staff member in the Prime Minister’s office. While Police admitted in their statement yesterday that Hager “was not a suspect of any offending”, there were questions being asked at the time about the legality of that behaviour. Yet nothing so rigorous was undertaken.

Also around the same time, the victim of Rawshark’s hack – Cameraon Slater – was himself commissioning Ben Rachinger to hack The Standard website to establish whether Labour MPs and staff were anonymously writing for the Labour-aligned blog. Rachinger turned whistle blower, leading to a story by me and Lisa Owen that saw Slater finally charged with attempting to procure a hack. He admitted guilt and received diversion.

Slater had to admit guilt to qualify for diversion, but he later suggested on Whale oil that this wasn’t sincere – if so that would make it misleading the court.

I know from my work on that story and my repeated calls to police how slow they were to act on Slater’s actions.

Quite reasonably, police have pointed out that Rawshark’s actual hack (with the potential for a seven year prison sentence) was a worse offence than Slater’s attempted and failed hack (with a maximum sentence of two and a half years).

But when you consider such extensive efforts on one side (where there was serious public interest in the behaviour of people in and around government) and such reluctance to investigate on the other (where, while embarrassing, the ‘crime’ of writing anonymous blog posts was much the lesser justification for a hack), it does raise questions.

The biggest being: Why?

The next question is who: Who made the decisions to deceive the court and the third parties? Who made the decision to conduct the raid in such a way that breached his rights to journalistic privilege? Who breached the Bill of Rights by their approaches to third parties?

Who in the police was responsible, culpable, is an important question.

The dark shadow hanging over all this is political. The police investigation was into a journalist who had made serious allegations against the sitting government of the day. Those are the times when police have to be at their scrupulous best, their most transparent and their most even-handed. Yet they were not.

If the police don’t clear this up they leave a dark political shadow hanging.

At the very least the public needs clear assurances from Police bosses and the Police Ministers around that time – Anne Tolley and Michael Woodhouse – that the politics at play did not influence the investigation. Without honest and frank interviews addressing these questions, how can the public’s trust in police not be effected.

Police officials have not fully discharged their duty yet.

I agree. Perhaps the media can get some honest and frank answers from Tolley and Woodhouse.

And the police need to front up on this. Unless they do that serious questions will remain.

US sanctions Russians for cyber attacks

The US has announced sanctions on three Russian individuals and five companies, who have been cited as ‘malicious actors working at the behest of the Russian Federation and its military and intelligence units to increase Russia’s offensive cyber capabilities’ against the US ‘and it’s allies’ – which could include New Zealand.

Reuters: U.S. sanctions Russians over military, intelligence hacking

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on three Russian individuals and five companies on Monday, saying they had worked with Moscow’s military and intelligence services on ways to conduct cyber attacks against the United States and its allies.

“The United States is engaged in an ongoing effort to counter malicious actors working at the behest of the Russian Federation and its military and intelligence units to increase Russia’s offensive cyber capabilities,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

“The entities designated today have directly contributed to improving Russia’s cyber and underwater capabilities through their work with the FSB and therefore jeopardize the safety and security of the United States and our allies,” Mnuchin said, using an acronym for Russia’s Federal Security Service.

The Treasury said Russia’s “malign and destabilizing cyber activities” included the NotPetya attack last year, which spread across Europe, Asia and the Americas. The White House in February blamed Russia for the attack, saying it caused billions of dollars in damage and was part of the Kremlin’s effort to destabilize Ukraine.

The Obama administration sanctioned Russia’s FSB in December 2016, citing the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the 2016 presidential election.

Washington imposed additional sanctions against the intelligence services in March, when President Donald Trump’s administration slapped sanctions on 19 individuals and five entities.

At the time, the administration publicly blamed Moscow for the first time for a campaign of cyberattacks that targeted the U.S. power grid, including nuclear facilities, and stretched back at least two years. Russia has denied trying to hack into other countries’ infrastructures.

There’s a good chance Russia will retaliate with sanctions of their own.

GCSB (February 2018): New Zealand joins international condemnation of NotPetya cyber-attack

The Director-General of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) Andrew Hampton has today added New Zealand’s voice to international condemnation of the NotPetya cyber-attack.

NotPetya caused wide spread damage and disruption to computer systems around the world in June 2017.

Mr Hampton says the GCSB’s international partners have today attributed the NotPetya cyber-attack to the Russian Government.

“While NotPetya masqueraded as a criminal ransomware campaign, its real purpose was to damage and disrupt systems,” Mr Hampton said.

“Its primary targets were Ukrainian financial, energy and government sectors. However, NotPetya’s indiscriminate design caused it to spread around the world affecting these sectors world-wide.

“While there were no reports of NotPetya having a direct impact in New Zealand, it caused disruption to some organisations while they updated systems to protect themselves from it.

“This reinforces that New Zealand is not immune from this type of threat. In a globally connected world our relative geographic isolation offers no protection from cyber threats.

“We support the actions of our cyber security partners in calling out this sort of reckless and malicious cyber activity.”

In the 12 months from June 2016 to June 2017 nearly a third (122) of the 396 serious incidents recorded by the GCSB’s National Cyber Security Centre involved indicators that have previously been linked to state-sponsored actors.

I think it’s unlikely New Zealand will join the US with sanctions.

Suicide surge in increasingly crowded prisons

It has been well known for some time that prison space has been under pressure due to increasing prisoner numbers, but the Government does not seem to have acted with urgency. There may be a cost.

NZH: The number of people trying – and succeeding – in taking their lives while in prison has surged during the inmate boom

KEY POINTS:

    • The prison population went from 9273 prisoners in March 2016 to 10,712 in March 2018;
    • There was one suicide from March 2016 to August 2017 then six suicides in the next six months;
    • Over that same time period, there were 20 suicide attempts in the first 18 months and then 19 in the next six months;
    • Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says more is being done for mentally unwell inmates;
    • Barrister calls for inquests into deaths to examine management and mental health support.

There has been a surge in prison suicides and attempted suicides by inmates over the months in which Corrections struggled to contain a ballooning prison population.

It has raised concerns that the unforeseen blowout in prison muster numbers after years of “tough on crime” policies is extracting a human cost beyond that elsewhere in our communities.

The new data comes as Minister of Justice Andrew Little prepares to ask Cabinet to back the removal of the Three Strikes law, leading to National reviving its “tough on crime” call and a promise to bring back the law if it’s scrapped.

Details of the suicides and attempted suicides, revealed through the Official Information Act, show one suicide occurred in 18 months from March 2016.

There were then six suicides in the next six months.

Over that same time period, there were 20 suicide attempts in the first 18 months and then 19 in the next six months.

Of those, eight were female prisoners even though women form just 7.4 per cent of the prison population.

The prison population grew from 9273 prisoners in March 2016 to 10,712 at the beginning of March this year. The rapid rise forced Corrections to expand capacity by introducing double-bunking across the network and reopening old prison units.

Victoria University criminologist Dr Liam Martin cautioned against concrete conclusions from the data because of the small time frame but “the up-tick is clear”.

He said prison had much higher rates of suicide because of mental health issues, social isolation and violence – and was known to be exacerbated by crowding.

This adds the pressure on plans (or lack of) to build more prison beds, and also suggested changes to bail and three strikes laws.

 

National’s crappy crime campaign

The National party and some of their MPs have been running a ‘soft on crime’ campaign against the Government.

Crime, justice and a crammed full and climbing prison crush are serious issues that deserve far better than this sort of populist attack politics from the Opposition.

Garrett condemns ‘manifestly unjust’, others condemn 3 strikes

In a guest post at Kiwiblog the person largely behind the three strikes legislation, David Garrett, condemns the way the legislation has been used in practice – Guest Post: David Garrett on manifestly unjust

The “unless it is manifestly unjust” out clause was insisted on by National as its price for agreeing to support the 3S law in the first place – without that, we would not have a 3S law at all. That notwithstanding, I now feel something of a dupe for recommending to the ACT caucus that we agree to it.

It was intended to be something that was very rarely used; we never envisaged it being applied in every case  of murder – all eight of them – which have now  come before the court as a second or third strike.

I spoke at every stage of  3S  passing through parliament, and numerous times during the Committee of the Whole stage.  The issue of the “disproportionality” of 3S sentences was raised numerous times by the Labour Party; it was raised and responded to  so often I wondered if they were simpletons.

I made it clear that disproportionality was the whole point of the 3S regime; it was intended  that consequences get exponentially worse for repeat offenders.  At no stage did any of the National Party speakers on the  Bill  suggest that “…or grossly disproportionate” ought to be explicitly added to, or implicitly understood to be included in, the “manifestly unjust” proviso.

The Judges of the Court of Appeal have  not only thwarted the clear will of parliament, but have inserted words into a definition that are not there, and were never intended to be there. In my view, this is nothing less than a constitutional outrage, and if it were occurring regarding a law passed by a government of  the left, there would be loud protests in the street.

Our constitution is very clear: the laws are made on one side of Molesworth Street, in parliament, and ultimately applied on the other side of the street in the Court of Appeal. Because the Judges of the Court of Appeal don’t like the 3S regime, they have rewritten it. That is nothing short of a disgrace.

Is it that the Judges of the Court of Appeal ‘don’t like the 3S regime, or that they don’t like it when use of three strikes is manifestly unjust?

I have seen in sentence appeal judgments that judges go to great lengths to ensure sentences are similar in like crimes with like criminals.

Perhaps the 3 strikes law is too prescriptive and doesn’t take into account the many factors that determine sentences.

Greg Newbold at Newstalk ZB: Three strike rule unfair – expert

Canterbury University professor Greg Newbold says when the law was introduced it was thought this provision would be used sparingly, not in every case.

“The judges are interpreting the law very liberally. The judges effectively are saying the law itself is manifestly unjust and they are refusing to apply it.”

He says judges’ refusal to apply the three strikes law proves it should never have been introduced in the first place.

“It was a ridiculous rule to start off with it. It made no sense, it’s full of flaws, it’s completely inconsistent with the principles of justice.”

Meanwhile National promises to bring back three strikes and reverse any bail or sentencing changes

National says it will reinstate the three-strikes rule if it gets into power and reverse any changes the Government makes to bail or sentencing laws.

National’s justice spokesman Mark Mitchell said today that if his party was in Government in 2020 it would reverse the repeal of the three-strikes regime.

It would also reverse any changes to sentencing and bail laws “which will see more serious, violent offenders on the street”.

And in social media National MPs and supporters are trying to blame Little and the Government in advance for any crime committed by someone on bail or released from prison on parole.

It looks like crime and punishment will continue to be a populist political football.

ODT: Law changes a risk and challenge

The rapid rise in prison numbers follows 30 years of public policy-making and the public calling for tougher sentences, which Mr Little believes has criminalised behaviour.

One of the major challenges is to change public attitudes, saying what has been happening for 30 years in criminal justice reform is not working. Violent offending is increasing.

Fortunately, Mr Little is proving to be one of the more successful ministers in the Labour-led Government and he will not be bowed by the criticism already coming his way from many angles.

However, the minister needs to allay public concerns when it comes to easing bail laws and sentencing options. Law and order always features highly on any poll of public concerns, despite being part of a society based on fairness and equality.

No-one wants sexual offenders and murderers running around their suburbs and that is the issue Mr Little will have to address. It will only take one serious crime by someone on home detention or on bail for his opponents to start howling at the moon.

Denials the Government is going soft on crime will sound empty at that time.

Little is going to manage any changes carefully. There will always be horrific crimes committed that could have been prevented if criminals and alleged criminals remained locked up. And there will always be people prepared to use crime and punishment as a political weapon.

Three strikes to be struck out in two weeks

The three strikes law will be repealed in two weeks, according to Newshub.

This was signalled last November: Justice Minister Andrew Little to repeal three strikes law

“Three strikes – that thing’s gone. You do get this picture of things that are quite cosmetic or things that were big things that can be unpicked pretty much straight away.”

“After eight years of being in effect it hasn’t made a blind bit of difference to serious offending rates which continue to climb,” he says. We have one of the fastest growing prison populations in the Western world. Simply put, it’s not working. We have to find a better way to reduce offending and keep communities safer.”

Today: Govt to repeal three strikes law in two weeks

The three strikes law will be repealed in two weeks, and Justice Minister will also push for sentences shorter than two years to be served as home detention.

The Government is preparing to soften bail, sentencing and parole laws, and Newshub can reveal it’s already discussing how to reassure the public in the event of a high-profile crime.

The Government documents also highlight the extent of the prison overcrowding crisis, saying if big improvements aren’t made in a year, there will be “a failure of the prison system.”

At the next Cabinet meeting in twelve days the Justice Minister will seek approval to repeal three strikes, and push for shorter sentences to be served on home detention.

Andrew Little:

“Repeal of the three strikes, because I think there’s an acceptance now that actually it just doesn’t work.

“If you have a sentence of two years or less you’re at the lower end of the offending, you might have offended before but you’re at the lower end. We can still do something with you. So it’s better that you’re out in the community.

Tova O’Brien:

He’s also planning to revive the last Labour Government’s sentencing council which National scrapped. It provides guidance to judges to prevent tougher sentences.

And people bailed on electronic monitoring will be able to count their bail time as part of their sentence.

Little:

“We’ve had thirty years of this, the only way to deal with crime, get tough on crime, get really hard, lock them up for longer.

Actually it’s not working.

He is also talking about a transition type prison in which prisoners with good records nearing the end of their sentences can live in a flat-like facility where they shop and cook for themselves.

“All it could take though is one person on bail murdering someone to unravel your reforms”. Little:

“Yeah and look, that’s always a possibility. It’s a possibility right now. We know there are people on bail who are offending right now.”

The Government is aware that their changes will need to be seen to be an improvement. They plan on preparing PR strategies for when things go wrong, as they inevitably will with some prisoners or people on bail.

 

 

 

Weinstein in court on sex crime charges

Harvey Weinstein revelations and accusations triggered the #MeToo movement against sexual assault and harassment, especially involving people in positions of power. Many women have claimed improper behaviour over decades, and Weinstein was the subject of many.

For the first time, Weinstein has been charged and has appeared in court in New York. This may be the tip of a legal iceberg for him.

Reuters: Movie mogul Weinstein handcuffed in court to face sex crime charges

Film mogul Harvey Weinstein appeared in handcuffs in a New York court on Friday to face charges of rape and other sex crimes against two of the scores of women who have accused him of misconduct, ending his reign as a Hollywood kingpin.

Weinstein, the 66-year-old co-founder of the Miramax film studio and the Weinstein Co, intends to plead not guilty to the two counts of rape and one count of a criminal sexual act, his attorney, Benjamin Brafman, told reporters outside the Manhattan courthouse.

Prosecutors did not identify the two women, but said the crimes took place in 2004 and 2013. If convicted on the most serious charges, Weinstein could face between five and 25 years in prison.

Weinstein, who has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than 70 women, with some of the cases dating back decades, has denied having nonconsensual sex with anyone.

The accusations, first reported last year by the New York Times and the New Yorker, gave rise to the #MeToo movement in which hundreds of women have publicly accused powerful men in business, government and entertainment of misconduct.

Weinstein earlier turned himself in at a lower Manhattan police station around 7:25 a.m. EDT (1125 GMT). He carried thick books under his right arm, including what appeared to be biographies of Broadway musical legends Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, and Elia Kazan, the director of such classic Hollywood films as “On the Waterfront.”

About 90 minutes later, Weinstein was led by officers into court in handcuffs, grimacing with his head bowed, his books nowhere in sight, to await arraignment.

“This defendant used his position, money and power to lure young women into situations where he was able to violate them sexually,” prosecutor Joan Illuzzi said at Weinstein’s arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court.

Judge Kevin McGrath ordered Weinstein released on $1 million cash bail. The defendant surrendered his U.S. passport and agreed to wear a monitoring device that tracks his location, confining him to the states of New York and Connecticut.

An irony on the legal privileges of the wealthy:

Google and other problems with NZ suppression law

Court suppression orders are difficult to deal with in the Internet age.

In the past media like newspapers had court reporters who were aware of what cases were suppressed and complied with suppression orders where appropriate.

But social media has introduced major problems – it is easy for just about anyone to say things (publish) online, but it is impossible for most of us to know what is suppressed, so we don’t know what can’t be legally published.

And another big problem is that major online content providers/publishers are based out of New Zealand, like Google, Facebook and Twitter. And Google says they are not bound by New Zealand law.

NZH: Google ‘thumbs its nose’ at New Zealand courts – lawyer

In high-profile cases covered by the Herald in recent months, Google NZ along with New Zealand’s major media outlets have been served with orders which suppress details and require the removal of content that infringes on privacy or fair trial rights.

However, Google says it’s “not in the business of censoring news” and won’t comply because its search engine is bound by the laws enforced at its home, the Googleplex, in California’s Silicon Valley.

The result means some information suppressed by New Zealand’s courts can be revealed in a Google search.

The problems and Google’s place in New Zealand’s courtrooms was an issue last year during the High Court retrial of double-killer Zarn Tarapata.

An interim take-down order for all content related to Tarapata’s first trial was made to protect his fair trial rights and suppress evidence which was ruled inadmissible.

The Herald and other media organisations opposed the order but were ultimately forced to comply and removed stories about Tarapata’s first trial to avoid being held in contempt of court.

However, despite having an Auckland office, Google NZ said it couldn’t remove details of the stories from its searchable records.

In an affidavit to the court, Google NZ software engineer Joseph Bailey, wrote: “Google New Zealand Limited has no ability to comply with the interim orders.”

He explained that the Google search engine, Google LLC, was a separate legal entity incorporated in the US, meaning New Zealand’s courts and laws held no power over it.

The company also said it would require a “perpetual review” to find the “trillions of webpages currently existing on the web, but also those which are subsequently created” that breached the court orders.

…a Google spokesman said: “We don’t allow these kinds of autocomplete predictions or related searches that violate laws or our own policies and we have removed examples we’ve been made aware.”

He said while Google NZ was bound by New Zealand laws, Google LLC was not.

“Google LLC prefers for news publishers to make their own decisions about whether their content should be available online,” he said.

Even for small publishers it can be a daunting task trying to monitor all content, especially when not knowing what is suppressed by court orders.

Prominent human rights and privacy lawyer Michael Bott said Google was “thumbing its nose” and “expressing a high-degree of arrogance” at court orders, threatening fair trial rights and due process.

Bott accepted however it was a “fine line” between attempting to control Google – like China – and protecting the foundations of a liberal democracy.

“In a liberal democracy we have the rule of law. If Google doesn’t follow take-down orders on the basis that it’s an international company based in California, well that maybe true, but it also ignores the reality of the internet,” he said.

But there’s another significant problem – take down orders, even if you can get one, can take quite a bit of time, and even if successful can be like shutting the stable door well after the story has bolted around the Internet.

I think that most people accept that suppression in some cases is important, especially when protecting the identity of victims of crime, especially children.

But I think that protecting the right to a fair trial via suppression can be virtually unworkable in the Internet age. Courts need to find a different way of dealing with this.

While I understand the argument for protecting rights to a fair trial i think that it needs to be reviewed, taking into account the practicalities of the use of the Internet.

There was recent example of failed suppression in Dunedin recently when a young woman was murdered. The name of the accused was published and circulated in social media before a suppression order was issued by the Court.

I have personal experience with abuse suppression in the courts. It was used to gag me while running an online campaign of harassment and defamation against me online, and if I confronted this online I was threatened with prosecution for breaching suppression, while the group attacking me claimed immunity because they claimed their publications were not in new Zealand, so therefore immune from New Zealand law.

So they used New Zealand law to gag me, while publishing offshore to avoid new Zealand law.

I am still gagged on this. I hope that that will be ending soon, but given the blatant hypocrisy of those involved they may try to keep their legal and personal abuses secret.

The Google (and Facebook et al) problem with suppression is not adequately addressed by New Zealand law and court practices, and neither is the use and abuse of suppression on a smaller and wider scale.

 

University of Otago confiscates Critic magazine

There is a bit of a ruckus at Otago, with the University ordering the seizure of 2000 copies of the Critic magazine that features menstruation.

Critic: The menstruation issue

The cover graphic was a bit gross (in my opinion) and the content doesn’t interest me (I’m not the target market obviously) but it seems generally like a genuine attempt to raise issues and discuss something that is pertinent to many young people’s lives.

But the University has been accused of censorship and also theft, with some justification.

Newshub: 2000 copies of ‘menstruation’ issue of Otago University’s Critic magazine stolen

The Proctor of University of Otago has taken responsibility for removing around 2000 copies of a controversial issue of a student magazine in Dunedin.

The magazines had been cleared from almost all stands on the University of Otago campus on Monday night, Critic magazine editor Joel MacManus told Newshub.

He believed the magazines had been stolen – potentially by a religious group because of the weekly publication’s controversial cover, which had quite a provocative image on it for its “menstruation” issue.

A university spokeswoman said Proctor Dave Scott received requests of this week’s magazine to be removed from the Hospital and Dunedin Public Library foyers.

As such, the campus watch team removed the rest of the magazines from stands around the university on Monday night.

“The assumption was made that copies of the magazine also needed to be removed from other public areas, and hence the Proctor made this decision,” the spokeswoman said.

“This was an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that this action needed to be taken as the university is also a public place, where non-students regularly pass through.

“The Proctor understood that the reason copies of this week’s issue had been removed from public places was that the cover was objectionable to many people, including children who potentially might be exposed to it.”

Mr Scott said he intended to talk to Critic staff members on Wednesday about why this action was taken.

Seems heavy handed and consulting after seizure seems a retarded way of dealing with it.

Mr MacManus has been left disappointed and angry at the magazines’ removal.

“We consider this to be censorship, something that goes against everything a university should stand for,” he said.

“We stand by the content of the magazine, and believe it touched on a number of very important issues about period poverty and trans issues, as well as breaking taboos about a bodily function that half the population experience.”

No one was contacted about the decision to remove the magazines, he says.

It looks like a form of censorship. Critic is owned by the students Association, not by the University.

The university spokeswoman said the university had no official view on the content of this week’s magazine.

However it was aware that some staff members and members of the public had expressed the opinion that the cover was degrading to women.

Critic illustrator and cover artist Saskia Rushton-Green said that was not her intention.

“I certainly never intended this piece to be degrading to women or anyone who bleeds from their vagina – in fact, I hope some people find it empowering,” she told Newshub.

Lawyer Graeme Edgeler:

And law professor Andrew Geddis provides an online link to the cover:

As well as apparently illegal – theft –  it does seem scandalous interference in an independent publication by the University.

And what the University has done it give far more attention to this issue of Critic than it would have otherwise received.

Ironic on the same day I posted Risk of provoking ‘Streisand effect’ could backfire.