Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes, they did.
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.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Russell Brown,
Which the police were at liberty to do at any point. Instead, they doubled down and were granted a non-association order by the same judge who granted bail after he’d been imprisoned for 10 days. That seems a bloody odd way to act if they really believed he had a defence.
Possibly having a defence does not mean that defence will be accepted.
At that stage, there are charges still outstanding, and it may be possible that a defence of whatever might not succeed. In the ordinary course, a non-association order with a co-accused isn't that unlikely.
Edit: The police are also claiming it dragged on for months because it took them that long to compile a report establishing that he was autistic. My arse it did. That information was received by the court in March. It was the basis for his bail.
Bail hearings are highly informal. A report of the level sufficient to see that bail would be appropriate is a much simpler one to get than one establishing a lack of criminal responsibility.
That someone is autistic may be enough to get bail. A report establishing that that autism was of a nature to mean that a charge involving a certain level of criminal intent could not be proved is a different matter. It is also the practice that when looking at a final conclusion, not just one psych assessment will be enough, but two.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
But he pleaded guilty, as Russell notes above.
He also withdrew his guilty plea:
Defence lawyer Jonathan Eaton today told Rangiora District Court today his client was withdrawing that plea.
He argued Smith-Voorkamp's Asbergers Sydrome compels him to take light fixtures.
Criminal intent was unlikely and the level of the offence didn't warrant the gravity of the situation, he said.
Without criminal intent in such a situation, there is no crime, and diversion is inappropriate.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Russell Brown,
Is there a lawyer who can comment on this twisted reasoning?
The reasoning seems fair. Although that’s not how it works in practice. Plenty of innocent people accept diversion because going through the court process is too expensive or risky.
People who are innocent should not be diverted. They should be acquitted.
People who should never have been charged (e.g. because a charge is not in the public interest) should not be diverted. They should have the charges withdrawn.
Diversion should be for people who are guilty, and who should have been charged, but for whom it is a first time in the criminal justice system and are unlikely to be there again, this serving as a salutary warning about breaking the law.
-
Legal Beagle: Legislate in haste..., in reply to Graham Dunster,
We seem to be drawn inexorably to a second world status.
We're being an advanced communist state?
-
The United States of America got close to soveriegn default.
Did it? It could still spend money, and was taking in far more money than needed to service its debts. Why would it have defaulted even if the debt ceiling wasn't raised?
-
Legal Beagle: Legislate in haste..., in reply to Phil Lyth,
A select committee would also have been an opportunity for policy to be debated - is a five-yearly census of every household still the best way to gather information in the 21st century?
That may be a good discussion to have, but I don't believe this bill is the place for it.
Such a change would have wider considerations, including, for example, with the Maori option. I support the Maori option occurring only when the boundaries are re-drawn, but taking this out to 10-yearly may be a step too far for some.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Rumour that Judith Collins has ordered police to drop charges against Arie S-V (and hopefully Michael too). Anyone heard any more?
I really hope not.
-
Legal Beagle: Legislate in haste..., in reply to Rich of Observationz,
In fact, why don't we have a proper process of drafting some robust legislation that can kick in when disaster strikes, rather than legislating in panic at the time?
Some would say that it's the three-year term of Parliament :-)
-
I should add my thanks to Trevor Mallard.
When I realised the bill was to be debated under urgency, I posted my concern on his Facebook wall. He said he’d look into it and later stated during the debate in the House that he had received confirmation from the Minister that the Māori option would still occur in 2013, which was confirmed as the Minister’s view at the end of his third reading speech:
I’d still like it to be a little clearer, however.