March is the last reporting I can find on the NZ 'Hit and Run' Inquiry

It is June and this article is latest I can find on the "Hit and Run" Inquiry.

Andrea Vance is one of a small handful of journalists in this country who is brave enough to research issues related to surveillance and security matters.

Key 'Hit & Run' players lose faith in Government inquiry into SAS raids

Andrea Vance

Stuff,
13 March, 2018

ANALYSIS: "The ultimate objective is to get to the truth."

Sir Terence Arnold made this commitment as he opened the only hearing of his Operation Burnham inquiry so far held in public.

After hearing arguments on whether proceedings should be held in secret, Arnold and his co-chair Sir Geoffrey Palmer retreated behind closed doors. And that is where they have stayed.

The inquiry was due to finish in April. Instead, key witnesses have walked away, and some of its core participants are disillusioned, with one understood to be on the verge of taking legal action.

READ MORE:
* Much 'Hit & Run' inquiry evidence will be heard behind closed doors
* Defence Force unit to fight Hit and Run claims  
* The Defence Force goes to war on Hit and Run graffiti
* Hit and run inquiry: our ultimate objective is to get to the truth

Allegations about three SAS raids in 2010 in Tirgiran Valley, Afghanistan had been swirling since at least 2014.

Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson's Hit & Run book alleged six civilians died and 15 were injured, and the events were later covered up by the military.

New Zealand's Defence Force has a disquieting reputation for arrogance and side-stepping scrutiny. It responded to the journalists' findings with yet more evasion. 

There was relief when the Government last April announced an inquiry. Other countries have carried out public inquiries into the overseas activities of their armed forces, but this was to be New Zealand's first.

But, from almost the moment it was launched, the inquiry seemed weighted in favour of the Defence Force.

Attorney-General David Parker told a press conference that US military footage suggested armed individuals were present in the village at the time of the raids. Announcing the inquiry, the country's top legal officer went out of his way to contradict the book.

He later explained his remarks: "I thought amongst the allegations that swirling around it was unfair to the Defence Forces for that not to be in the public now."

With the inquiry under way, Defence Force chiefs were permitted to divert $2 million of their taxpayer-funded budget to set up a special unit to respond to the process. That's the entire budget given to the chairs to run their investigation, although they have now asked for more funding and time.

The unit has 11 staff, and top QC Paul Radich is representing the Defence Force (at $546 an hour).

Hager is representing himself, and human rights lawyer Deborah Manning has been forced to ask the inquiry to help with villagers' costs.

Almost immediately, the Defence Force began pushing hard to keep evidence - and key personnel - secret.

The chairs were in an invidious position - trying to balance public interest with national security interests.

But they bent over backwards to accommodate the Defence Force needs. 

The military chiefs were given a generous deadline (10 months) to hand over documents relevant to the military operations. They missed that February deadline, saying they've found more paperwork.

A specially appointed team, with security clearance, ensures classified details are not revealed. The chairs have no choice but to abide by government protocols on sensitive material, especially that shared with overseas agencies. Everything that can be declassified will be made available to the other participants, the chairs say.

SAS soldiers and their commanders will keep their anonymity. Interested parties will only see summaries of their evidence.

None of the other core participants will be allowed to watch the testimony of Defence Force witnesses, question them, or test their recall. 

By contrast, Hager says his own request to have his sources treated with sensitivity was treated with irritation. 

Hager and Stephenson have previously said they sourced information from more than three dozen people, including members of the New Zealand military and Afghan security forces.

The inquiry chairs suggested confidential sources should come forward via a telephone hotline. These conditions were untenable to those who wished to protect their anonymity (and careers).

Eventually, Hager was ordered to hand over their details. His says his witnesses have now all walked away from the inquiry, disillusioned with the "heavy handed" way they were treated. Stephenson and the inquiry are still in discussion about sources.

Arnold and Palmer say they will hear evidence in private from the authors.

It's also unclear how - and where - the villagers of Khak Khuday Dad and Naik will be heard. They will likely need an interpreter to navigate complex details.

Manning is representing the injured villagers and relatives of the deceased and mounted a powerful defence for proceedings to be held in the open, in front of the inquiry chairs in November.

She argued the process was focused on the reputation of the Defence Force and not the 'right to life' obligations New Zealand had towards the victims.

Those international obligations mean states must investigate unresolved killings, especially where their agents may have been involved. But her arguments were dismissed as not relevant to the terms of reference for the inquiry.

On behalf of the villagers, Manning had launched legal proceedings in 2017. Those were put on hold to allow the inquiry to play out.

Manning has called a press conference at her Auckland law offices on Thursday. It's understood legal action is once again on the table.

That would demonstrate a massive loss of faith in the inquiry.

To subdue criticism about the secretive nature of proceedings, the chairs agreed to hold three public hearings or "modules."

They amount to little more than a sort of 'open day.'They're set down to cover very general subjects (such as the history of the conflict). And once again the balance falls in favour of the military perspective. Former Defence Minister Wayne Mapp and Air Chief Marshall Sir Angus Houston, a former New Zealand and Australian defence force chief, will give presentations at the first hearing, over the course of a morning in April. Other core participants are unhappy they must share two hours for their submissions. 

The second hearing will traverse Rules of Engagement, with two expert witnesses, one from the Defence Force and the other from another Crown agency.

Integral to the Hit & Run narrative is the allegation that the military covered up the deaths of six civilians, including a toddler.

The accounts of that night-time attack offered by the Defence Force and the villagers differ wildly. The truth is likely to be found somewhere in the middle.

It will be hard for the chairs to get to the heart of that truth if they hear only from one side.

Inquiry Into Operation Burn... by on Scribd

THE HIT AND RUN INQUIRY IN NEW ZEALAND HELD IN SECRET WITHOUT MEDIA COVERAGE

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, I have not reported on the 'Hit and Run' Inquiry into a similar incident in Afghanistan because there has been no media coverage. The whole court case is being held IN SECRET. This was the government that ran on 'transparency' (sic)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1903/S00072/new-legal-action-taken-against-hit-and-run-inquiry.htm

The last entry in the web site “Hit and Run” was in October, 2018