Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Graeme, can you comment on what appear to be hugely excessive delays in the Courts. Power is promoting these changes to speed things up.
A bunch of different reasons:
There number of people charged has increased, and sentences have increased (for some offending quite markedly);
The number of people charged with offences where the trials are lengthy (e.g. meth dealing) has increased;
The nature and quality of evidence is different – there is now a lot more expert evidence: mostly DNA, or computer forensics, but also things like crash investigators and psychiatrists – there can be delay in getting analyses done due to overwork of forensic technicians and scientists;
Things like massive phone/text taps and interception warrants in e.g. drug cases have massive amounts of eveidence which first the prosecution must prepare, and second the defence must digest;
Legal aid rates haven’t kept pace with inflation, leading to more firms pulling out, and legal aid lawyers taking on more clients than the otherwise would in order to make a ‘reasonable’ salary (after expenses etc.) so you have timetabling concerns, people focussing on one case when if they’d focussed earlier on a different one it might have been able to be resolved etc.
And lots of things I haven’t even thought of.
-
Is there any evidence that a jury is more “just” than a judge.
Some people would suggest that the Waihopai case is a good example. Others not so much. Others might include some of the battered women cases where there was an acquittal on a defence like provocation where it perhaps shouldn't have applied. Juries can get away with that. I think smacking is a good example here as well. There are cases eminently suited for a judge sitting alone. Most of these are heard by a judge sitting alone. There are some cases where 12 lay people are just better.
It's also not just a about justice, but about the perception of justice as well. That there was a jury in the manslaughter(?) charge against the police officer against whom a private prosecution was brought for the death of Stephen Wallace probably allayed the anger of the family more than a judge-directed acquittal ever could.
-
Graham, a few typos/questions:…
Thanks. I’d forced a deadline onto to myself (must publish before Derek at the Herald, so I ended up finishing it at around 3am. I just knew there’d be something like that… if anyone else can find more please let me know.
-
Does it still count as breaking news if it became public a week ago?
-
In other news ... Keir Leslie does not look at all like you think he does.
And, apparently, neither do I. I get that quite a bit...
-
Someone should feel free to lay a complaint … Crimes Act 1961, s 311:
311 Attempt to commit or procure commission of offence
(1) Every one who attempts to commit any offence in respect of which no punishment for the attempt is expressly prescribed by this Act or by some other enactment is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years if the maximum punishment for that offence is imprisonment for life, and in any other case is liable to not more than half the maximum punishment to which he would have been liable if he had committed that offence.
(2) Every one who incites, counsels, or attempts to procure any person to commit any offence, when that offence is not in fact committed, is liable to the same punishment as if he had attempted to commit that offence, unless in respect of any such case a punishment is otherwise expressly provided by this Act or by some other enactment.
And if the offence is actually committed, a person who incited or counselled someone to commit it is guilty of the offence itself as a party to the offence (and liable for the full sentence).
[slight edit for clarity: half the sentence for inciting when the offence is not committed, the full sentence if it is]
-
Or you want the giant end number of fabulousness to be chopped in half, which would make the film… somewhat shorter?
The one with the doors. Whatever that one is, it's far too long.
-
my favourite movie of all time, Singin’ in the Rain on the big screen
If only that one song was half its length...
-
I caught part of Enoch Powell’s interview with Parkie on a monitor in Marbeck’s this avo, and he said something chilling yet enormously moving
Thank you for mentioning this. It made me look up his Wikipedia Page ( that Enoch Powell?), and I learnt yet another lesson in not judging people by the single thing I know about them.
Conservative … but strongly opposed to the death penalty, and co-sponsor of homosexual law reform, etc. Who knew? Clearly not me.
-
I don’t know or care whether Clark and Davis have dissolved their marriage and entered into a civil union; but they have that choice.
A couple doesn't have to dissolve their marriage to enter into a civil union with each other. They can just enter into a civil union with each other.