The Criminal Law, the Intelligence and Security Act and the Protective Security Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Zealand was a pioneer in the codification of its criminal law. The Criminal Code Act was passed in 1893, after a lengthy gestation period. The work owed its origins to law reform activities in India, a tendency spread from India to other British jurisdictions, notably Canada and parts of Australia, but never England. The requirement that common law offences were no longer valid and criminal offences had to be clearly defined in statutes passed by Parliament became accepted orthodoxy here and never questioned. But it is possible, as this article argues, that New Zealand has forgotten the legal implications of its own history of codification. This article argues that s 78AA of the Crimes Act 1961, inserted by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, is in breach of the codification principle. The vice of the provision is that the content of the Protective Security Requirements is dependent upon the actions of the executive and what it posts on the Internet, not upon law passed by Parliament. It is submitted that the present situation is poor legislative practice and leaves the state of the law in doubt. For security issues to be handled in this fashion is less than satisfactory in a free and open society. The article goes on to analyse the background of New Zealand's criminal law codification and outlines the extensive range of the modern law dealing with the intelligence agencies and how it has expanded in recent years. This history of the agencies is briefly canvassed, including controversial features that have arisen in the past. It concludes that remedial action is necessary and mentions work that is going on within the executive to bring about change. It concludes that issues of legality, human rights and the agencies deserve careful attention and require analysis of the risks to an open society from these developments.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Legal scholarship on New Zealand criminal law codification and security legislation.
It analyzes New Zealand criminal-law codification and security legislation, not research itself.
New Zealand criminal law and security statute analysis; legal doctrine, not metaresearch.
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".