Police used drone to surveil Electric Ave festival-goers
Photo: Electric Avenue / Facebook
A drone was used by police to keep tabs on thousands of people at the Electric Avenue music festival in Christchurch earlier this year.
1News has revealed the drone hovered a few hundred metres away from the festival which took place at Hagley Park on February 21-22 and drew a crowd of about 30,000.
A live feed was sent to police on the ground, 1News reported.
A powerful camera lens allowed officers to zoom in on the crowd and look out for potential criminal activity.
The public was not warned in advance that the drone would be used, 1News reported.
Its use was only revealed through an Official Information Act request, sent by 1News to police.
In response to 1News' OIA request, police released footage officers recorded on the day, which showed revellers being apprehended by security and police.
One of the clips also showed security guards pinning a man to the ground and throwing him out of the event.
Further surveillance continued at night, with police using the thermal capabilities on the camera to track where people were, 1News reported.
Police said it was primarily used to track potential disorder and assaults.
However, emails and documents obtained by 1News through the OIA show they were also keeping an eye on 'fence jumpers' and potential drug activity, such as 'monitoring the sale and supply of controlled drugs'.
The deployment was carried out without a warrant because one is not needed at large gatherings. Police instead relied on public filming rules, 1News reported.
Festival organiser Callam Mitchell emailed police to flag that attendees had not been warned about the drone, the OIA showed.
'We can't agree to it for privacy reasons, but we nonetheless respect and appreciate it will be happening,' he said.
'In future years we will need to make sure it is included in our terms and conditions prior to tickets going on sale.'
However, Mitchell has since had a change of heart after seeing how the drone operated at the event, and described it as a 'great thing' in an interview with 1News.
'Don't view a drone in the sky as big brother watching,' he told 1News.
'They're not there to pick on the end user having a good time and partying with their mates, they're there to make sure everyone's safe.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Access to file on police woman's death abused
Lyn Fleming. Photo: supplied An internal police investigation has revealed 50 employees snooped into the file relating to the death of Senior Sergeant Lyn Fleming without good reason. Snr Sgt Fleming died after she and Senior Sergeant Adam Ramsay were struck by a vehicle while on foot patrol in the early hours of the morning on New Year's Day in Nelson. The 62-year-old succumbed to her injuries in the hospital that day, surrounded by her family and Snr Sgt Ramsay suffered serious injuries. Snr Sgt Fleming was the first policewoman to be killed in the line of duty in New Zealand. A 32-year-old man charged with offences linked to Snr Sgt Fleming's death pleaded not guilty to murder and attempted murder earlier this year. His interim name suppression was still in place and he was due to appear again in August. Weeks after Snr Sgt Fleming's death, police launched an internal investigation into alleged misuse of an intelligence database called the National Intelligence Application (NIA), which holds sensitive information about incidents and offending, as well as information about the public. Police employees, including civilian staff, have access to the database, but their use was tracked and audited. They were required to have a valid work reason for accessing anything within the system. Following an audit in January, a memo was sent to staff by the Deputy Commissioner of frontline operations Tania Kura, noting that a number of employees had checked the file relating to Snr Sgt Fleming's death, despite it not connecting to their duties. "Alarmingly and disrespectfully, we have found people randomly checking the files on the devastating incident in Nelson," the memo read. "Unauthorised use of NIA will not be tolerated and final decisions on any sanctions for staff will be decided by a dedicated team." An Official Information Act request released to NZME confirmed there have been a total of 76 instances of misuse of NIA in 2025. A total of 116 police employees were investigated as part of the internal audit and 76 staff were found to have a legitimate reason for accessing the file. An internal police investigation revealed 50 employees looked at the file relating to the death of Snr Sgt Fleming without good reason. By Jeremy Wilkinson
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Mushroom trial: Motive and murder - what the jury must decide
With all evidence now complete, closing arguments are underway in one of the most high-profile murder trials in Australia. But jurors in Victoria aren't being asked to find a motive. They're being asked to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Experts agree the legal threshold is one of the most misunderstood elements of criminal trials - so what does that actually mean? Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin explains. What's the job of the jury? To weigh the evidence presented and decide whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt Under Victorian law, jurors must not speculate, assume or 'fill in gaps' - they rely only on what was presented in court What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually mean? ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to 1News, Criminal barrister Rishi Nathwani KC explained it like this: 'It doesn't mean beyond any doubt at all - just beyond a reasonable one. If the jury finds there is a real possibility the accused is innocent, they must acquit.' Nathwani said while the phrase remains in use in Victoria, in other jurisdictions it's sometimes simplified as: 'Are you sure?' If jurors are not sure, based on the evidence presented in court, then the verdict must be not guilty. Why is this important in the Patterson case? The Crown has alleged Erin Patterson deliberately served a meal containing death cap mushrooms that killed three of her relatives and left a fourth man fighting for life. But prosecutors have explicitly told jurors not to focus on motive. 'You don't need to find a motive to find someone guilty of murder,' the prosecution has said. Instead, they argue that Patterson's behaviour - including her shifting explanations, deleted data and acquisition of a food dehydrator point to intent. ADVERTISEMENT Defence: Beware the danger of hindsight In closing arguments, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy SC warned the jury not to judge her through the lens of hindsight. 'This trial isn't about what might have happened. It's about what the evidence shows.' He said much of the Crown's argument is based on 'speculation' and assumptions that don't amount to proof. So what is the jury considering? Under Victorian law, jurors must decide whether Erin Patterson: Intended to kill or cause serious injury to her lunch guests And whether the prosecution has proven this beyond reasonable doubt ADVERTISEMENT That's it. Even without a clear motive, even with odd behaviour - Nathwani said if there's a reasonable explanation that fits the evidence, Patterson must be acquitted. What has the prosecution said? Over the course of the trial, the Crown argued: Patterson lied about where the mushrooms came from She deliberately misled health officials and police Her phone was factory reset to hide evidence She visited areas where wild death caps were known to grow The prosecution also suggested the sixth beef Wellington - prepared for her estranged husband - was kept separate and potentially safe, though he did not attend the lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers and Erin Patterson. Montage by Crystal Choi. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT What has the defence said? The defence has said: Patterson panicked and lied, but that doesn't mean she's guilty She had no motive to harm her family Scientific and forensic evidence is inconclusive Death cap residue in the dehydrator does not prove intent or timing They also say surviving guest Ian Wilkinson - who testified the accused used different coloured plates - was 'honestly mistaken'. They raised the possibility a third, unknown mushroom species may have been present in the leftovers, citing expert testimony from a virologist. What happens if the jury can't agree? In Victoria, murder charges require a unanimous verdict. Justice Beale will try to avoid a hung jury by directing the jury to continue deliberating and try to reach agreement. But it is possible it could result in a mistrial if all options have been "exhausted". ADVERTISEMENT As Nathwani explained: 'The judge would, if [the jury] made it aware they were struggling to reach a unanimous verdict, direct them... There's a direction he can give of law, which says, you know, you've got to listen to each other... But if they can't, then it's a retrial, and they do it all again in many months' time.' Recap: What's happened so far in the trial? Week 1–2: Opening arguments and early witnesses, including police and hospital staff. Week 3: Toxicology and forensic experts testified on the symptoms of death cap poisoning. Week 4: Phone and tech evidence, including the factory reset, was presented. Week 5: Botanical and mushroom experts, including Dr Tom May, confirmed death cap DNA in cooking equipment. Week 6: Testimony from Patterson's children and others about her behaviour. ADVERTISEMENT Week 7: Erin Patterson testified across eight days. She denied intent and maintained it was a tragic accident. Week 8: Closing arguments. Prosecution accused her of inventing key parts of her story. Defence said speculation and hindsight are not proof. What next? Judge Christopher Beale is expected to give final directions to the jury next week. Deliberations could begin by the end of June.
1News
5 days ago
- 1News
'No direction' to lower standards for police recruits
The Police Commissioner says there was "no direction or order" to drop standards in order to fulfil a coalition promise and recruit 500 more police officers. Richard Chambers said, once he knew "discretion" had been applied, he made it clear that graduating police officers must still meet standards. Both Chambers and Police Minister Mark Mitchell fronted a scrutiny hearing today – a chance for MPs to grill ministers on this year's Budget decisions. Findings from an audit into recruitment standards at the Royal New Zealand Police College found a significant number of applicants were allowed into the college, despite failing preliminary tests. The Police College sometimes gives discretion to recruits who fall short of certain standards, although they must still pass the tests before graduating, but the audit found this had become increasingly common. ADVERTISEMENT The findings prompted Police Commissioner Richard Chambers to instruct the college not to accept anyone who hasn't met all mandatory recruitment standards. Critics say the Govt is behind on its target of 500 new officers as gang numbers and illicit drugs continue to surge. (Source: 1News) Just last month, a review found more than 300 police officers were not assessed on their swimming abilities before graduating, leading to the audit. Those recent recruits had undergone assessments retrospectively, and it was announced that police would review the swimming training policy. Another issue was a failure by some to meet the literacy standard required before entering Police College. Labour police spokesperson Ginny Andersen asked Mitchell in the hearing: "Who gave the order to drop standards at the Police College in order to try deliver the 500 [new police] quicker?" Mitchell described it as an operational matter, but as minister, his view was that there were no specific orders "ever" to drop standards. He blamed the previous government and had previously said: "There is no doubt in my mind that the priorities set by the previous government around recruiting contributed to this." ADVERTISEMENT He said there may have been a change in the approach taken, but under this government, "we've been very clear what our expectations are, and that is that there will be no reduction or change in standards". Police Commissioner Richard Chambers (Source: 1News) Mitchell added that, when it came to recruiting, the Commissioner and his statements had been "unambiguous" about his expectations. Chambers added the minister was correct - "there was no direction or order" - but once he was made aware that "discretion" had been applied on different standards and expectations, he made it clear those standards needed to be met. "I've been very clear about under my commissionership, we have standards that we will meet and, if some people need to do some extra work before they join New Zealand Police, then that's up to them to do." Going forward, he said he was very clear "we do have expectations of standards". Mitchell emphasised the recruits who failed preliminary tests did so before attending police college and, under the commissioner's direction, that would no longer happen. ADVERTISEMENT "Now there is no discretion around those standards," he said. "They'll meet the standard before they go to the college, but once they're at the college, they have to meet the standard before they graduate."
