OF THE
TIMES
Kay Weir of the Pacific Institute of Resource Management in Wellington commented that NZ has been trying to avoid being drawn into political targeting by the US, UK, Australia and Canada, the other members of the "Five-Eyes" intelligence-sharing alliance:"The Skripal story is an unwanted complication right now. NZ did not sign on to a Five-Eyes statement condemning China over its new security legislation to deter foreign interference in Hong Kong. Separately, NZ did express some concern, but didn't sign on to the Five-Eyes Joint Statement."Legal experts in London suspect the press leaks may be a scheme by British officials to deter lawyers from seeking a British court order for the Skripals to appear and testify in court. For the first time since the Novichok attack by Russian military assassins allegedly occurred in Salisbury on March 4, 2018, a High Court hearing will open next month in London to review the evidence of what happened, assembled by the Wiltshire country coroner; for details, read this.
"They would need to try to get a witness summons to secure their [Sergei and Yulia Skripal] attendance and apply for service overseas," a London lawyer said. "Typically that is done through Hague Convention, but New Zealand doesn't seem to be party to the relevant part on securing evidence abroad and has its own procedures." The Hague Evidence Convention can be read here.
According to this review of NZ legal practice in 2005, so long as NZ stays outside the Hague Convention, "overseas counsel who wish to have a person in New Zealand examined for the purpose of a foreign proceeding will need to determine whether that witness is willing to give evidence." The NZ courts lack the power to order unwilling witnesses to give evidence in foreign courts. There is no precedent for tracing witnesses like the Skripals if the British authorities refuse to reveal their identities.
NZ remains outside the Hague Evidence Convention still. So too, Canada. The three other Five-Eyes states have signed the convention. To keep the Skripals in hiding but outside the reach of the British courts, NZ and Canada remain legal options for the British secret services. So long as they are hidden there, a lawyer adds, "it is unlikely that a London court would compel the Government to produce them and if they have been given new identities, then there could be separate litigation around that point."
Comment: Pelosi apparently feels so passionately about this issue and yet is only speaking out about it now? Or could it be that, like so many other pathological political opportunists, she's dangerously fanning the flames of division, manipulating those she claims to be speaking for, while really aiming to reap whatever benefits that she can, for herself, from the current chaos?