Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And for those who thought that the verdict might allow the media to move on, think again. Right at this moment, there are seven headlines on Granny's site that relate to the Sophie Elliot killing, six about her or Weatherston and one about the prospective repeal of the provocation defence. That's seven out of 25, which is slightly over a quarter. I don't think the saturation was quite so high before the verdict was over.
Of course, I'm hoping that this is an aberration and that we'll be spared further saturation coverage.
-
However, by way of hypothetical example, without provocation, if Sophie’s mum went into the room during the attack and knocked Weatherston out with a baseball bat, that would be self-defence. However, once Weatherston was clearly incapacitated (and thus no longer a threat), if she hit him again on the head to intentionally kill him after what he had done to Sophie (an ordinary human response to such evil), that would be murder requiring (under present caselaw) a life sentence
First, in that situation it would be defence of another, not self-defence.
Second, the case law on giving less-than-life sentences for murder is almost non-existent. The change to the statute is so recent, and cases that qualify so infrequent, that there's been no real opportunity for such law to develop. In that situation the judge would very likely give a greatly reduced sentence, especially if the defence did a halfway-competent job and the defendant were found guilty of manslaughter - highly likely, in those circumstances, regardless of her actual intent when striking the second blow.In reality, though, the police would be very unlikely to bring charges unless they had her on tape saying "I hit him again because I wanted to kill the bastard." Use of lethal force to meet lethal force is legal in this country, the protestations of Insensible Sentencing notwithstanding.
-
It seems a bit craven to me that they waited until after the verdict.
Yes, possibly, but they may also have been trying to avoid raising Justice Potter's ire by publishing material that could, conceivably, have had the appearance of trying to influence the jury. Reporting Weatherston's bile-tainted utterances from the stand, no matter how distasteful their coverage may have been, was at least not potentially putting material before the jury that wasn't evidence.
-
What's the maximum sentence that can be imposed for murder? What's the maximum non-parole time? I did a quick google but couldn't find the answer.
As others have said, the statutory maximum for murder is life, and the presumption is that life will be the sentence unless there are extenuating circumstances. Wasn't there a mercy killing recently where the judge passed a sentence of less than life?
There's no maximum non-parole, but William Bell's 33 year non-parole from the sentencing judge was knocked down to 30 years on appeal. That has the effect of putting 30 years as the upper bound on pretty much any murder that occurs in NZ on even a semi-regular basis. On the more mundane level the Lundy sentence of 21(?) years is the really effective upper bound. Bell and Burton are both so far removed from the "average" murderer in NZ that their sentences are outliers.
I think that the Weatherston sentence, once it's been appealed, will become the next effective sentencing boundary for very violent murders. His, and the guys who shot Sgt Wilkinson last year.
Also, to clarify a point that I know confuses people, even my fourth-year law-student flatmate so I'm assuming it's fairly widespread, preventative detention is not an option for Weatherston and wouldn't produce a different outcome even if it were. PD is for certain crimes of violence where the maximum sentence is finite. Where the maximum sentence is life, PD is not available because life is indefinite in its own right.
Burton got PD for aggravated assault (aggravated wounding?), and life for murder. Either will see him serving a very lengthy period of time at the Government's expense, but the murder alone would've achieved the same result. -
Productivity in healthcare should be measured on health output per dollar input.
Increasing operations per dollar is one aspect, but the big gains should be made by improving nutrition, lifestyle, attitudes and picking up problems early when the solutions are cheaper.
Precisely. When you're running around flat-tack at the bottom of the cliff picking up bodies, it's time to start thinking about spending money on the fence up the top. Primary healthcare is where you get productivity gains, because keeping people from needing higher-level services frees up those services to deal with patients who can't be kept away. It's preventing type 2 diabetes through nutritional and lifestyle education, and helping little old ladies understand how to minimise the risks associated with their osteoporosis so that they don't end up occupying orthopaedic beds for weeks when they break their arm stopping themselves from falling over.
The long-term way to deal to waiting lists is to keep people from needing (as opposed to registering for) them in the first place. Attack the causes of heart disease and you reduce the need for heart valve replacements, to pick an easy example.Some things need real investment in order to increase output. Cancer treatment, for example, is something that must receive money because there's only so much that can be done to reduce the numbers of people requiring it. Skin cancer, yes, but many other cancers are still somewhat unknown quantities in terms of what can be done to reduce their incidence. Screening helps, by catching early and thus making it easier to treat, but that's still not a preventative measure.
-
I also bumped into Otago's dean of law, Prof. Mark Henagan and had a good yarn to him about the case. He expects Weatherston will get at least 20 years.
It's nice to know that a learned legal mind has similar expectations to my own. Looking at past sentencing I've been predicting about 20. The Lundy case is about the closest we've got in terms of violence portrayed, and from memory he got 21 years. With a starting point of 17 years, and absolutely no mitigating factors, just aggravating ones - no guilty plea, no remorse, mutilation as well as murder, etc - I'll be stunned if it's under 20. Might even get 21, though I would imagine that would be appealed and possibly overturned.
-
Yes, because it's the responsibility of the head of women's refuge to leap to the public defence of everyone violently killed, whether male or female.
I'd accept that if she'd restrained herself to commenting on the fact that Sophie died at the hands of an intimate partner. That is Women's Refuge's area, after all. But she instead commented on the grotesqueness of his use of the provocation defence to smear his victim, which is absolutely nothing to do with Women's Refuge.
-
The trial of Clayton Weatherston was a disgrace as it allowed a killer to continually persecute his dead ex-girlfriend and her family, a women's advocate group says.
And where was Henare's outrage during the last trial that used provocation, where the victim was being vilely smeared? Oh, that's right, that was a man.
Provocation's gotta go. It's an absurd relic that's useful for little other than the "gay panic" defence. It's worthless for battered partners, which would be the only conceivable situation where one might want a diminished responsibility defence that's not inimical to public sensibilities. It was used successfully not so long ago by a woman who killed her neighbour for refusing to act as babysitter. According to this article, of the four successful invocations of provocation from 15 uses between 2001 and 2005, two were "gay panic" and one was the case above. That's pretty concerning, if you're in the least bit interested in not keeping around parts of the law that appear to be discriminatory.
-
For a number of reasons, refugees are usually a huge gain to NZ. It surprises me that the number is kept so low.
After the well-publicised issues with some of the Somalis who arrived here, it's not really surprising that our politicians aren't so keen on refugees. The plane hijacking was just the latest incident. And given how knee-jerk kiwis can be to anything that's been beaten up by the media...
-
Compliance with tax legislation in NZ is very good. At least part of that is attributed to the simplicity of the system. Introducing complexity reduces the incentive to comply and increases the costs for playing by the rules. If all gains are to be taxed then all costs must be allowed to be deducted. Administering that becomes incredibly difficult.
GST is the most-contested aspect of the tax system, and it's so ridiculously simple that I'd never believe it if I hadn't been told by a taxation lecturer who consults to the IRD.