This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Politics / Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the New Zealand law task force (assessed as Low-importance). Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I contest this phrase. If you look at the dates (see [1] and [2] you'll see that that it a response either to the dropping of the charges or to the un-suppression of the ruling, not the ruling itself. Stuartyeates ( talk) 06:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply

The bill's explanatory note and the SC report make it clear that it is a response to the decision itself.-- IdiotSavant ( talk) 12:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply

This will eventually need an "aftermath and repeal" section detailing - any cases that are decided as a result of this law - repeal and replacement by Search and Surveillance Bill in 6 months - any political fallout -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 23:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply