Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie
575 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Well, yes. If the police at the time didn’t think he was impaired in a manner likely to provide a defence, why would they divert? Diversion would be very very unlikely for a burglary charge.
So if he wasn't impaired he couldn't be granted diversion?
And if he was impaired he couldn't be granted diversion?
Graeme, I've discussed this case with criminal defence lawyers who deal with cases at this level all the time. They were astounded by the police's actions.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
When they are partners and live together?
On occasion, yes.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
They were astounded by the police’s actions.
As are we all. I was simply responding to your request for an explanation about diversion.
-
Sacha, in reply to
So if he wasn't impaired he couldn't be granted diversion?
And if he was impaired he couldn't be granted diversion?
Arie in Wonderland
-
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Honestly, just how hard is it for these people to put out a politely-worded ‘yeah, we totally fucked up this whole thing’?
Nigh on impossible, really. And while the O'Connor-McVicar axis of stupid will dismiss that as 'cop bashing', it really is well past time for usual suspects to ask themselves whether the Police really do themselves (or anyone else) any favours by going into siege mode at any criticism.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Herald again
Yeah, that’s linked above. It’s the one where the police explain that it took them six months to establish there was a defence of diminished responsibility, during which time they had to repeatedly refuse diversion because – wait for it – there was a defence of diminished responsibility.
-
Seems to me they simply got it very wrong at the time. Which given the time is something that humans can be expected to do, even if we hope our police are better than that.
And then could not dredge up the strength of character to admit they made a mistake. Perhaps because they knew people would be (rightly) censured for that mistake. Perhaps simply because they could find the strength of character.
Hopefully, someone will see fit to finally apologise fully and compensate. Personally I'd be happy to see my government do that with my taxes.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
It’s the one where the police explain that it took them six months to establish there was a defence of diminished responsibility, during which time they had to repeatedly refuse diversion because – wait for it – there was a defence of diminished responsibility.
Because there might be a defence, not because there was a defence.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Yeah, that’s linked above. It’s the one where the police explain that it took them six months to establish there was a defence of diminished responsibility, during which time they had to repeatedly refuse diversion because – wait for it – there was a defence of diminished responsibility.
Kafka, call your office...
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Because there might be a defence, not because there was a defence.
And, while having reason to believe there was a defence, they secured and maintained a non-association order between Arie and a partner who acted as his caregiver.
I guess the point is, do you believe the police acted in good faith at all times and were guided by the letter of the law -- to, as you have noted, an unusual degree -- or that it's more likely the account they have offered today is a post-facto rationalisation for their actions?
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Yeah, that’s linked above.
Ah, suspected it may have been upthread and I want to know while we're at it, Arie had a black eye. How did they explain that away? A black eye tends to be a punch to the nose or an elbow in the face as one walks past, but not really a bang on the side of ones face. It is also completely understandable that Arie wants to distance himself from this stupid sorry state of affair but someone else could make a formal complaint for him if memory serves me right and that could be worth a look at if he is interested a bit later. I am sure this happens a lot more than this one incident has exposed. And the fact that there is huge mental illness in our prison system suggests it is broader at the outset of other cases. imo
-
Police spokesperson tells Radio NZ Checkpoint that delay in psych report was the court's fault but claims no knowledge about timing details (4 mins, various listening options - thanks so much Mr Hulse).
-
Sacha, in reply to
A black eye tends to be a punch to the nose or an elbow in the face as one walks past, but not really a bang on the side of ones face.
I can imagine having your face pushed into a kerb or suchlike might do the trick too. Easy enough for that to happen during a scuffle for whatever reason.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Hopefully, someone will see fit to finally apologise fully and compensate.
I'd like to see them order proper training about autism spectrum for all their frontline and senior staff.
-
Sacha, in reply to
a partner who acted as his caregiver
I'd welcome clarity about how much of this was disclosed to the prosecution, and when. Whether it would be understood or not is another matter (see previous comment).
-
More from RadioNZ Checkpoint - Arie's lawyer disputes Police version of events (4 mins, listening options).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’d welcome clarity about how much of this was disclosed to the prosecution, and when. Whether it would be understood or not is another matter (see previous comment).
When Simon Buckingham took up the case, there was a meeting he described as “sensitively” handled, and apparently Arie’s treatment improved for the rest of the time he was imprisoned.
My guess is that senior officers ignored that because there’s a wider story of “rough justice” they didn’t want aired.
Here’s Erasmus saying last month that:
Erasmus says strict criteria must be met in order for diversion to be an option and one of the “fundamental requirements” was that the offender needed to admit guilt.
Arie had, of course, entered a guilty plea four months previously, and had diversion rejected.
Erasmus then issued a statement saying something subtly different:
"One of the fundamental requirements of the diversion process is that the offender needs to be able to make an informed admission of guilt"
Ah. So we couldn’t possibly grant diversion because the guy is a retard and couldn’t acknowledge responsibility on his own.
And now we have the current story: we wanted to do the right thing but rules are rules, and if he had the possibility of a defence, we couldn’t grant diversion.
FWIW, my defence lawyer friend has just described the police position as “absurd, somewhat smokescreenish, and certainly far from common practice.”
Edit: In the RNZ interview linked by Sacha, Arie's lawyer says he got a letter early on in the piece from the prosecutions office that said "because it arose from an incident that occurred in the aftermath of the earthquake, we are unwilling to divert."
So there's yet another story. It's probably closer to the truth than any of the pack of lies Erasmus et al have told since.
-
Meanwhile, politely and graciously, Arie and Michael thank people for their support.
-
Sacha, in reply to
When Simon Buckingham took up the case
That was his original lawyer. Do you mean him or the current one, Jonathan Eaton?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
That was his original lawyer. Do you mean him or the current one, Jonathan Eaton?
No, this was really early on.
-
I would like to know who the psychiatrist was who wrote the report. Forensic psychiatrists with detailed knowledge of autism are very rare in NZ. Perhaps that was a reason for delay - they had to import one?
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
I would like to know who the psychiatrist was who wrote the report.
The Official Information Act is your friend. Wriggle as they may, the Police cannot avoid responding to a request.
-
here's the police press release http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/29154.html
arseholes
-
Not to overlook others, but all of you and especially Russell and Hilary, deserve to be heartily congratulated for your unrelenting and passionate efforts here on this case . It's empowering when this technology helps to make the world a better place, and that's only possible when people are prepared to go that extra figurative mile, stand up tall and make the right noise, Good on you. Regardless of deficiencies in the outcome and despite whatever negative fallout may come, this is a worthy victory.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.