Agree about caution. Can one of our legally savvy friends perhaps link to info about what "actionable" looks like?
He is a broadcaster, that's his work; and it would be a grossly unfair punishment to declare that he cannot work. Broadcasters will make their own calculations on how and when they ought present him to an audience.
Let me put my hand up and say now that never would be a great time. The channel will be changed if I see Veitch on my TV.
He's a role model, and, as we so often bang on about with role models, he's got responsibilities associated with that. For my part he would need to have not only done the right thing but gone further and used his public position to make anti-DV ads. Something along the lines of "I did it once and look what a c*** it made me" would have done nicely thanks.
Behaving the way he has sends a message. Putting him back into broadcasting will affirm that message. That's just arse.
Well sending him down for the same sentence as your average unwhite man would get, would demonstrate to those who blindly follow the sensible sentencing trust's rants, just how destructive throwing people in jail really is.
Hear, hear. Speaking of the SST (I love how it acronimises just like the Sunday Star Times - destiny in a name, or two), have they asked for his head on a stick yet? No? How odd.
Defamatory statements have a pretty wide definition.
They "tend to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or that tends to cause the person to be shunned or avoided, or that tends to cause the person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule." From http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/html/ml146.asp
Before everyone freaks out too much I should add that there are defences to a defamation action, including truth and honest opinion.
Around 20 young men a year die just in Mt Eden prison
Are you sure?
as euphemistic as it sounds, reckless disregard causing injury is likely to be (without having read this post or any other articles thoroughly) the lesser charge in exchange for the guilty plea. Repeatedly kicking someone in the back while they're lying on the floor would be intentional rather than reckless and the original charges probably reflected that.
It wasn't. It was the harshest charge with which Veitch was charged. They dropped 7 lesser charges, but that charge stayed the same throughout.
The actual offence is injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
By pleading guilty to that offence it implies that Veitch accepts that he intentionally assaulted his girlfriend, that he intended to kick her in the back, and that that assault caused an injury. It implies that he does not accept that he intended the kick to break her back.
[and of course, the charge implies that police don't think he did either, or at least don't think they could prove it]
The basic heirarchy of assaults is as follows:
Assault (1 year)
Assault on a child or by a male on a female (2 years)
Assault with intent to injure (3 years)
Injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others (5 years)
Injuring with intent to injure (5 years)
Wounding with reckless disregard (7 years)
Wounding with intent to injure (7 years)
Injuring with intent to wound (10 years)
Wounding with intent to wound (14 years)
Attempted murder (14 years)
Sorry tony but I keep thinking of the old saying ... 'me think the man doth protest too much"
i'm so glad i'm not married to you as i would be very worried about my future.
Yeah, nonetheless I think I'll do Russell a solid and keep some of my honest opinions to myself.
From Mrs Skin's link page:
There are a number of defences available to someone who is being sued for defamation, including:
- that the statement was true ("truth" or "justification")
- that it was a statement of honest opinion on a matter of public interest ("honest opinion" or "fair comment"), or
- that the statement was "privileged" in some way
Anyway, don't freak out. I'm just trying to avoid specific allegations like those being sprayed around in the comments of (ahem) certain other blogs.
Seven failed attempts? That is some serious incompetence!
I have my doubts about the number, and about what he considers an "attempt".
It also speaks to an ego out of control.
It's always hard to know exactly what the judge took into account when sentencing, so I prefer not to pass comment on the sentence.
On the other hand I like a spectacle, so if a lynchmob is going to gather outside his house I'll be there with my pitchfork.
The actual offence is injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others
OK, that makes sense. Thanks Graeme.
I'll defer to others, but I recall that honest opinion, at least, is not a complete defence to a defamation action.
Thanks for the link to Hodge's comment, he'll know how Vetich's crimes compare but the fact that the sentencing guidlines have a maximum custodial sentence of 5 years and Vetich got a non-custodial still seems very odd to me.
Veitch's rape and associated bashings would force at least some of these mental midgets to realise exactly how it is we are creating so many sociopaths.
First, I don't know that prison rape and bashing are actually necessarily part of a prison sentence, but maybe more likely, and with more psychological ramifications, than on the outside. Further more, I don't agree that antisocial personality disorders, (sociopaths) are created in prisons.
I'm tempted to say something defamatory (albiet ruthlessly honest) to see if the prick sics his lawyers on me (or Russell - sorry dude, collateral damage).
Then I could stand up in court - with the media rabble standing by salivating - and say it again and again and again...
How in the Hell does someone admit to what Veitch admitted to and walk out without even an assault conviction? Reckless disregard causing injury?! Are we now to think of this incident as an... accident? I'm speechless. The notion that justice is blind has, IMO, been again revealed as a not-very-funny joke.
Secondly, I really wonder if all the talk of suicide attempts wasn't just a smart gambit on the part of the defence team, knowing that when the time came it cuold be used to leverage their client out of a custodial sentence.
Okay, I need everyone to be careful about what they say and not make actionable claims about Veitch
I promise to behave now - though I don't think anyone's said anything in this threat that can't be justified in some way.
The actual offence is injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Well, that'll teach me for listening to the news media (again.)
Just a couple of thoughts about Veitch
1 It's not OK
That should be a given but it isn't. He has admitted violence on his partner that resulted in injury. It is simply not acceptable in our society and the sentence reflects that (although some may argue that last).
2 He was in a bad relationship.
This is not meant in any way to excuse his actions - but - relationships fail and most times there are two sides to the failure and almost always it is extremely difficult for outsiders to understand exactly what happened. There seems to be some feeling that it was all his fault and frankly I don't think anyone knows, probably not even the two involved really know anymore. That said, failure of a relationship is not an excuse for violence, physical or mental - it's not OK.
3 Lawyers are paid to protect their clients
What the Veitch legal team do is done to protect their client. It may or may not be what you or I call moral or "right". Personally I find it best to mute them when they speak.
4 I'm not sure I have a 4 but I just get the feeling that there is a culture around that says if you can do a cool marketing job then it's all OK. It doesn't really matter what has been done if you can "spin" or market it well the it will be OK.
But it isn't OK.
Oh I did have another point. Again this is not meant in any way to excuse Veitch but the fact that his victim broke a vertebrae doesn't really tell you much about the nature of the attack. It is alarmingly easy to break bones and for some people even easier than others. I have no idea how violent the attack was but I would be cautious about inferring from the broken bone much other than an impact occurred. that such an impact should not have occurred at all should be obvious.
If any of the above sounds like I like Veitch or am excusing him in any way my apologies. I have nothing but disgust for his actions and nothing but disgust for the way he has behaved since those actions, first by not admitting it when it happened then after he was accused and now after he has been sentenced.
Speaking of the SST (I love how it acronimises just like the Sunday Star Times - destiny in a name, or two), have they asked for his head on a stick yet?
Last year they (the trust) were keen for him to go to prison if convicted.
I am trying to think what you say about Veitch that was defamatory, but worse than what he just pled guilty. It is a pretty short list.
" methinks he doth protest too much."
Very apt, and I suppose the handlers are trying to avoid this, unsuccessfully it sems -
"Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation, I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial!"
3410 - this is an assault conviction. It's just a more serious one that has the injuring in it instead of the word assault.
[see my post at the top o' the page]
And now I see that you have ...
There are not enough references to Cheese on this thread.
This Guy got 180 hours community service and ordered to pay reparation for wilfully damaging a bag of feta cheese.
Enough is enough I tell you.
On a happier note, thanks to all concerned for the PA Social last night - great to meet some of you at last....
I'd like to second that, because I've had a crap day and I'd like to end it on a happy note!
Great to meet some of you. Thanks to Alastair and Keith for leading to the excellent Malaysian place for dinner. Good, cheap Malaysian food - it was just like being in Wellington!