Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
but they could claim to be following process.
Yes. I don't think that's been in dispute. There is a power to hold a judge alone trial, even where the defendant wants a jury. This is recent.
-
What baffles me is why on earth the judge would continue the suppression of the reasoning for the ‘judge only’ trial ruling, if it were for such a straightforward reason.
I understand that there is to be an appeal. This probably isn't surprising.
I also note that the suppression of this judgment is at the request of the defence, not the prosecution.
-
Hard News: Behaving badly at the bottom…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
The bigger issue, for me, is that this is even possible. I get that there are concerns around “methods” and “sources” and the general guff that goes with classified information, but it’s not insurmountable. Summaries of classified material are provided to defence lawyers in national security cases overseas to avoid the time and expense of vetting, and I don’t see why similar couldn’t be done for a jury with this trial.
I haven't read the judgment, but I very much doubt that this forms the basis for the decision (on the basis that that wouldn't be a lawful basis for the decision). Criminal trials in New Zealand (whether judge and jury or judge alone) cannot hear secret evidence, and the prosecution cannot rely on evidence they won't give to the defence.
I cannot see the reason for a judge alone trial being anything other than "the trial is likely to take three months, and the chance that with a jury that it would be more complicated, and take longer, and possibly have to be abandoned would be substantially higher than normal".
Even with National’s offensive short-cutting of the court system these charges would still qualify for defendants to elect a jury trial.
Yes, and they also qualify under Labour's changes (supported by National and others) to be heard by judge alone on application of the prosecution :-)
-
in denying the accused the right to be tried by a jury of their peers, the judge has ensured that a fairly substantial part of the public will not regard any verdict as valid. He has locked in a permanent, and justified, grievance against the system.
She.
-
So let me just say, in response to Graeme, “nuh-uh” and possibly also “whatevs”.
I do think it would have worked better with faux-outrage.
[Edited to remove insane over-reaction]
Have you ever thought of writing an [edit...] where you didn't write the thing in the first place, but wanted to make people think you had? That would be cool.
[Edit: removed stupendous poem I just wrote, to save it for a more opportune time and place]
-
I haven't read all the comments, or the social history of the Word of the Year, but surely it is gendered?
I suppose it's not surprising that as the various "others" ("that's so gay") have become more popularly acceptable (though still a way to go), that we'd try to find some other "other" on which to base our insults. And in the way that insults based on female genitalia insult women, and those on male genitalia insult masculinity (or it's lack "softcock") etc. surely the WOTY insults those with both?
In a year in which Caster Semenya made headlines, and intersex issues were brought to the fore if only temporarily, I suppose it's not surprising that the intersex would be the butt of the newest insults. Not sure I expected such an insult to arise from here etc. but why not here, I suppose!
[was thinking of writing this as a satirical piece, but have decided I'm so unlikely to bother, that I'll just write it here]
-
It is a very specific comment about a guy whose blog reads as if it could have been written by Clayton Weatherston’s somewhat smarter brother.
I've noticed the physical similarity between Danyl and Clayton as well. The names - with l's, a's , n's and y's - are practically identical as well. And both dating/married out of their league :-)
You may be on to something here...
-
Just what then is New Zealand's leading Internet-based think tank?
-
Eyjafjallajökull
How quickly we forget.
+1
-
Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys, in reply to Matthew Poole,
at KiwiCon over the weekend, we got advised by an Aussie speaker that they don’t have double jeopardy. Now that is scary.
Not having double jeopardy is a good thing. It's why we used to have a rule against double jeopardy. Notice that I say "used to". We http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/if-britain-jumped-off-a-bridge/got rid of the absolute rule against double jeopardy a few years back.