Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
interpreting existing laws and applying laws is what judges do.
They don't make them as far as I know, isn't that someone else's jobIt's the line between judge-made law (better-known as case law) and statute law. Case law is very definitely law, though the machinations of a District Court judge don't count for much. Try telling a lawyer that appellate court judges can't make law, and listen to the howls of laughter. It might not be on the statue books, but it's still very much law. The difference is that higher courts can overrule case law, while statute law can only be overruled by way of Parliament passing a replacement piece of legislation.
-
Methinks the Judge is making law all by himself. A suppression order is one thing, since it protects the name of the accused in all media, but an Iternet ban is another.
Making law is what judges do. When they make a ruling, they make law. They've got pretty broad discretion to make suppressive rulings, and this is an intriguing example of a very, very clued-up judge seeing if it's possible to ameliorate the "Way Back Machine effect".
It's the conversations he wants to suppress. I do find it interesting. This isn't some guy who has his secretary print out his emails.
It certainly is interesting. If it were any other judge I'd be wondering WTF they were thinking, but I'm pretty sure that Justice Harvey has actually considered what he's doing here. Even if he is just experimenting, it's an experiment grounded in an understanding of the cause/effect.
I'm curious to see how it'll be enforced. He's likely to get rather tetchy with anyone who breaches the order, but it's got potential to get horribly out of hand in terms of numbers.
-
Point taken, however, he could hardly think that there is any real restriction he could put in place that will prevent someone from "Googling someone's name and being able to access it later"... Will not the 'Digital replica' of the Herald be accessible online? Or does that get censored?
The whole point of the order is that the online versions aren't allowed to carry the name. The Herald Online will have to be reworded, as will the other papers.
I'm curious to see how the TV news will deal with it. It's easy enough to not carry the names in the text summaries, but will they also beep out the names if mentioned in the newscasts, and pixelate the faces of the accused?
-
Time to take an IT refresher course me thinks your honor.
Not for David Harvey it's not. He's probably the most IT-savvy judge we've got, bar none. I've been party to discussions with Justice Harvey on usenet, way back when. His grasp of matters technical is very solid.
-
A trust with a deed centred on the production of articles of national interest
...
perhaps an incorporated society is better. I don't know, but something that can accept charitable donations is good.I forget the exact name (obviously they're charitable, but they also can last forever, as opposed to ordinary family trusts that must have a finite life), but there's a category of trusts that exists for the purpose of furthering the interests of a class of persons in society. The class cannot be too narrow, such as specified individuals or a family, but it's definitely possible to have a trust founded for purposes such as these. It would have to have its purpose as something like "For the encouragement of journalistic endeavour", and grant the trustees some discretion in deciding how much to pay, and what would qualify. A real trust lawyer would have to be involved in this kind of drafting, because the potential for buggering it up is so enormous.
Incorporated societies have their own hassles. To form one, 15 persons must agree on the articles of incorporation. Officers must be appointed, regular meetings held, etc. The big hurdle for "us" is the number of people who must unite and remain united in order to keep a society going. A trust is much more easily run "hands off" by the establishing person or persons, because you only need three (always have an odd number) trustees and they can all be professionals.
-
You can order a copy of the aforementioned paper from here for €13.87 or you could go to a good library and get it for free.
I can't share my view on their work as I am not going to spend a thousand dollars paing for it.
So. Grunt cant convert Euros to NZ Dollars?
If he's telling the truth in his profile on here, he lives in Taipei. And according to the Universal Currency Converter EUR13.87 is TWD643.95. So he actually wasn't exaggerating all that much.
-
Are you talking about my desire for a constitution? That would really be about protecting me (and you) from any potentially unjust legislation coming down the pike in the future.
Guaranteeing more firmly such trivial things as freedom of association, freedom of (and from) religion, due process, and so on.
Just to pick, here, it's not a constitution that would ensure such protections. A constitution that didn't overturn parliamentary sovereignty would put us in no better a situation than we have now. What's required, and it doesn't need a constitution to achieve it, is for the NZ Bill of Rights Act to be made supreme legislation. Remove s4, which is what allows other legislation to override the provisions of NZBORA, and it's done, maybe with a replacement section to the effect that the entire Act is entrenched legislation and cannot be modified (including the entrenchment section) without a 75% majority of Parliament.
-
On the whole "authority" question, there was an interesting "letters to the editor" comment in Granny today, to the effect that the ACC actually cannot legally ban a march because to do so is to interfere with the right to freedom of movement on "the Queen's Highway". The LttE cited to an incident around the Police seeking to prevent University of Auckland's capping parades back in the 50s because they were unhappy with the way they'd been turning out (shades of the Undy 500, innit), and going to the Council. The Council refused permission, but those bloody students went and did it anyway, arrests ensued, and the charges were overturned on the basis of what sounds remarkably like "freedom of movement/assembly" grounds.
I really can't be arsed hunting through the law journals (and my legal search foo isn't that flash) to try and find actual cites, but it's either true or a very, very plausible and considered load of bullshit.
-
Well, Daivd, I've heard Denis Welch say David Farrar "works for the National Party". Which isn't actually true, but never mind.
It's no longer true, but it certainly used to be. And I believe the change in situation is fairly recent. Last election? So while it's not accurate now, it has been accurate.
Which would contrast with the various implications I've seen (not from you) that RB is somehow affiliated with Labour other than by simple alignment of political views. -
Tony, I'd save my electrons. Grant's convinced that there's no possible way for studies to correct for multi-variant samples. Which means, I guess, that nothing vaguely interesting can be examined statistically.
He's right that you can't prove causation using observation, but that doesn't mean that the studies can't show very, very high levels of correlation, sufficient to constitute near-certainty. Certainly enough to convince anyone who's not possessed of a statistician's "correlation doesn't prove causation" mindset.