Island Life: Ice-cold rabble rousing
82 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
They could charge him again, if significant new evidence came to light. Which is what they'd need really - someone who knows to break their silence.
No they can't. s26 BORA forbids double jeopardy, and the government's Criminal Procedures Bill, which would have allowed retrials on the basis of "new and compelling evidence" (AKA "police laziness"), has been bogged down for four years because no-one will vote for it.
-
And the tide continues to turn. National leader John Key said he agreed with Helen Clark
<quote<"in this country we have a seperation of powers and an independent police force. It would thus be improper to comment on a criminal case"</quote> This has to be seen in context. Clark stated that she has concerns, as do many others. I think that you would be pushing it to say that she was putting pressure on the police to change anything, she was "urging" the police not to let it drop. That, in my view, is acceptable behavior for anyone, including the Prime Minister.
-
Tax Cuts are pork?
No. Pork is public money spent on projects that appeal to some politicians support base [as defined in a nicely informative Island Life article last week]. Private income is not public money.
-
Could someone enlighten me as to whether our legal system has anything akin to Double Jeopardy?
Google says there have been previous attempts to shuffle exemptions into the double jeopardy rule but I don't know what happened to them. Currently - The Press:
the Government [have] had legislation before Parliament to modify the double-jeopardy rule for more than a year.
"It is in the Criminal Procedure Bill, which has been having trouble getting a majority," she said.
"It does provide for the waiving of double jeopardy where there is what is called a tainted acquittal. Then the High Court could order a retrial.
-
I think that you would be pushing it to say that she was putting pressure on the police to change anything, she was "urging" the police not to let it drop.
They can no longer charge their prime suspect. They therefore have no option but to let it drop. That's what "acquittal" means.
If the police didn't want to be in that situation, then they should have waited to assemble a better case. EOFS.
-
Lyndon: buried at number 10 on the Order Paper; its not going anywhere.
-
And the tide continues to turn. National leader John Key said he agreed with Helen Clark
Bipartisan idiocy -- not much to crow about, Steve. Meanwhile, why haven't we heard from our leaders on a criminal case the public are really concerned about?
I refer to, of course, Tracy Barlow's shocking conviction for murdering that abusive scumbag, Charlie Stubbs! I blame those parents of hers, myself...
-
"It does provide for the waiving of double jeopardy where there is what is called a tainted acquittal. Then the High Court could order a retrial.
Just what we always needed a method by which lawyers could charge fees, again & again & again.......
Double jeopardy has been around a while I believe?Surely the coroners court is the answer. perhaps it should have gone first?
-
could we have a fuller context for Clark's comments?
-
They can no longer charge their prime suspect. They therefore have no option but to let it drop. That's what "acquittal" means.
If the police didn't want to be in that situation, then they should have waited to assemble a better case.
Totally true. So the case to convict Kahui is closed. Now how about the new case. If there is reasonable doubt it can only be for one of two reasons.
1. There is not enough evidence to convict so the suspect goes free even if guilty. He cannot be retried because of double jepordy.
2. The police did not hae enough evidence to convict because the case revealed sombody else may have done it. So a new case emerges from the old and the police investigate that. -
They can no longer charge their prime suspect. They therefore have no option but to let it drop. That's what "acquittal" means.
If the police didn't want to be in that situation, then they should have waited to assemble a better case.
Totally true. So the case to convict Kahui is closed. Now how about the new case. If there is reasonable doubt it can only be for one of two reasons.
1. There is not enough evidence to convict so the suspect goes free even if guilty. He cannot be retried because of double jepordy.
2. The police did not hae enough evidence to convict because the case revealed sombody else may have done it. So a new case emerges from the old and the police investigate that. -
GRRRRRR!
Damn that preview button. -
Craig,
I refer to, of course, Tracy Barlow's shocking conviction for murdering that abusive scumbag, Charlie Stubbs! I blame those parents of hers, myself...
I weep for you.
;-) -
Well, Craig, I wasn't expecting such a vociferous response :)
You (and Idiot/Savant) are right of course, but if politicians can't speak as people on occasion (as David suggests), then what can they do? They are members of our community after all.
BTW, did you feel the same sense of outrage when Tony Blair called for the freeing of Deirdre Rashid? -
I dont think we have a coroners court as such in this country, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.But if we do it would be close to the Australian version which has this function.
Where a serious criminal offence has been disclosed during the course of an inquest, the coroner cannot proceed with it if a person is to be charged with that criminal offence. The coroner stops the inquest and refers the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration and investigation. This changes the early colonial practice of coroners directly committing persons suspected of serious crimes directly for trial.
I dont think this would have had much impact on the Kahui case because the public wanted a result and, as has been seen before, the police delivered a suspect. They have, as well you all know, delivered convictions on even less evidence. In this case the "resonable doubt" was because there was a finger pointing somewhere else.
-
2. The police did not hae enough evidence to convict because the case revealed sombody else may have done it. So a new case emerges from the old and the police investigate that.
As I pointed out, the face of a prior prosecution is reasonable doubt on a plate in any such case. And so justice falls because of uncertainty over whodunnit - in short, because the police failed to do their job.
That point has been overlooked in all of this. Fundamentally, the case failed because the police did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But instead of pointing the finger where it belongs - at hasty police who would not wait to assemble a decent case (and sure, it might have taken a while, but there's no statute of limitations on murder), and who went to court half-arsed expecting to get by on simple public outrage (in short: trusting the jury to be a lynchmob rather than decent citizens who took the law and justice seriously), we instead point the finger at the justice system, and start arguing over how we can undermine it and make it easier for the boys in blue to continue to do their jobs badly, and string up anyone they feel like.
Our justice system depends on the police doing their jobs properly. When they don't, people walk free. That's the lesson in all of this, and one we should all remember.
-
That, in my view, is acceptable behavior for anyone, including the Prime Minister.
"Anyone" isn't the head of government -- and has the power to set the Cabinet agenda, appoint and dismiss Ministers, and has vast influence over the government's legislative and Budget agenda. The Prime Minister does. The separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature/executive and the independence of the Police from political direction are damn good things in my view. And so is the political convention that senior politicians are extremely cautious about attacking the operational decisions of Police or the judiciary via press conference or media interviews.
We obviously have a difference of opinion on whether that line has been crossed, but I hope we both agree that the distinction is a worthy one.
-
BTW, did you feel the same sense of outrage when Tony Blair called for the freeing of Deirdre Rashid?
I was waiting for Jeremy Beedle to pop up from behind the Speaker's Chair, and reveal it was all a sick practical joke.
You (and Idiot/Savant) are right of course, but if politicians can't speak as people on occasion (as David suggests), then what can they do? They are members of our community after all.
Well, why not ring up Radio Pacific -- that fine barometer of the community mood --, say your name is 'Ho-knee' and vent while using a silly ethnic accent? I'm sure it did wonders for John Carter's disposition, until Bolger, failing to appreciate the humanity of it all in his humourless way, demoted his arse.
-
Line crossed and the speeding motorcade is heading for the airport. I can't believe she didn't frame it along the lines of "speaking as a private citizen..." and concluded by briefly educating the public in the nature of the sepeartion of government and judiciary, unlike, say, Myanmar.
-
You may remember the expression 'bully for you' meaning 'good for you'. That's what bully pulpit means - a great pulpit, not one for bullies. Theodore Roosevelt coined the phrase, saying being president gave him the best pulpit of all.
Seems that the march of time and ignorance has corrupted yet another useful bit of our language.As for Helen Clark, even Lady Macbeth felt the milk of human kindness so I suppose the Red Duchess can too, occasionally, when she's not spitting venom.
...or having her election year makeover. Not quite 10 years younger though.
-
Craig and IS,
I agree with both of you on your main points. However. I cant see why a prosecution following a good and detailed investigation being hampered by the result of a failed conviction in this particular case, the reasonable doubt was based on the probability of "they got the wrong guy/girl" So if the case was strong enough the jury is likely to think "they got the right Guy/Girl this time"
This raises the possibility of the defence claiming that a fair trial is impossible so.................?
AndWe obviously have a difference of opinion on whether that line has been crossed, but I hope we both agree that the distinction is a worthy one.
Yes. But I believe politicians can be people too. Call me naive if you will.
-
Craig, don't fucking patronise me. Sometimes, conceding a point to you as I did is more trouble than it's worth.
I am seriously not worked up enough about the PM or Key making these comments to get in a fight about it. It's not as if the PM has called for heads to roll or to string the bastard up, which would have been outrageous.
-
I blame those parents of hers, myself...
Sorry Craig, but that Traceh is just a wrong un. There's nowt to blame Deirdre for. (Besides, these last few episodes have been camp classics on the Deirdre front. The way she sucks on those cigarettes and starts gasping for breath during her panic attacks is absolutely brilliant.)
-
Seems that the march of time and ignorance has corrupted yet another useful bit of our language
Bea, thanks for joining. I tend to favour descriptive to prescriptive. My understanding of the usage is this one:
-
Steve: A prosecution would be hampered because the defence could simply say "six months ago you were dead certain that this other guy did it,and ruled out my client. What has changed? Is it simply that you did not get a conviction the first time, and are now desperately tying to pin the crime on anyone else"
Absent seriously compelling evidence (and unlike you, I do not take it as a given the police can get it on whoever they wish), this will raise quite reasonable doubts in the minds of most jurors.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.