Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ironically, much of the evidence presented in closed court is probably inadmissible
That's not ironic. That's exactly why it would be heard in closed court.
-
The other four votes were, unsurprisingly, the Maori Party. Act didn't turn up.
-
Voting on parts of the SOP is happening now.
-
They're debating the TSAA as we write.
I should clarify. The Committee stage of the TSAA is on now. It is during the Committee stage that Mr Locke's supplementary order paper will be moved and voted on. He has already mentioned it.
I suppose it is possible that the debate will be dragged out longer than today, but that seems unlikely.
-
I don't want the PM to have the power to designate an individual or a group as terrorists.
Me neither. It's an absolutely retrograde step.
I/S says the Greens plan on moving some amendments to test the major parties. If anyone can give me a heads-up as to when that might be, I'd be happy to organise something on PA in support.
Better hurry Russell, that's today. They're debating the TSAA as we write.
I'd take slight issue with the characterisation of the TSAA as giving "the PM to have the power to designate an individual or a group as terrorists".
The PM has that power under the TSA 2002. The PM's designations last for 3 years, and must be confirmed if they are to continue beyond 3 years by the High Court. As proposed to be amended, the bill doesn't change the power to issue a three-year interim designation, it moves the re-designation power from the High Court to the PM.
So the law is that at the moment is that the PM can designate Greenpeace a terrorist organisation, and three years later, if the PM wants to keep it as such, it goes to court and Greenpeace, if they want, can argue against it. Three years later. There are issues with the TSAA, I'm not sure this is one to write home about. The right of Greenpeace to pursue a judicial review of the PM's decision in the interim remains (with the additional problem that the TSAA will allow the PM to use classified evidence during that judicial review).
-
Actually I think jurors is the fast part of the process. There's very little contestation in the NZ jury system, so I think jury selection even for large trials only takes an hour or so.
If the defendants are tried together, which I suspect is the police intention, then jury selection could take quite a while. Each defendant will be entitled to object to 6 jurors, and the prosecution will be able to object to 12. You could have 60 or 70 challenges.
That said, you're right that lack of jurors isn't the problem, lack of judges/court space are a problem, particularly in the High Court, with P dealing/manufacturing "clogging" the system. There are suggestions that some P (or other drug dealing) trials could be dealt with in the district courts, which I suspect cannot happen fat enough for our High Court judges (P trials have to be heard in the High Court at the moment because dealing with class A drugs carries a maximum life sentence).
I doubt our defendants need even as much as six months to gather evidence to prepare their case.
-
what are the constraints on the police investigation of a case after charges have been laid (and where are these codified)?
Can they interview the accused? Can they add to the charges?
This isn't actually something I've come across, so don't quote me on this. There's certainly no rule against continuing to investigate ('though they'll have to keep disclosing what they come up with to the other side), but I don't believe they can (except perhaps in exceptional circumstances) interview the accused. I'm not 100% sure where this comes from. I don't believe it's a statute, and is probably a case I can't remember the name of (and don't currently have the ability to look up).
The standard rule is that evidence that is "unfairly obtained" is inadmissible - I suspect that evidence obtained from a statement made under questioning by police after charges have been laid is considered unfair. Some time ago, judges made a list of "Judges' Rules" to cover police interviews, explaining how they could be conducted fairly.
The UK rules specifically prohibit post-charge interviews. Our equivalent (which used to be called Judges' Rules, but are now known as the Practice Note on Police Questioning - available here as a pdf) do not have an express prohibition on post-charge interviews, but the way they are structured certainly suggests that post-charge interviews aren't contemplated. It includes rules like:
Questions of a person in custody or in respect of whom there is sufficient evidence to lay a charge must not amount to cross-examination.
Police can definitely lay additional charges later, and can potentially interview suspects in relation to those additional charges, they would be careful not to ask questions on the original charges, and probably couldn't use any statement made relating to the original charge.
-
what might happen if they aren't bailed and continue in custody for a significant period of time and the police cases fall apart when tested in court? ... Would those remanded in custody be able to argue for compensation?
They could try, but their prospects of success would be negligible unless they could prove some sort of police misconduct. If there really is very little evidence, and the courts begin to realise this through the case process, then bail at some later point does of course become more likely.
-
Graeme is this evidence?
I thought this kind of thing doesn't get to court."John Minto's characterisation of the bugged evidence against those who won't be facing TSA charges as "something you'd hear at any gun club" may well be seen as very charitable indeed."
Well, yes, statements intercepted under an interception warrant are evidence. The utility of any particular recorded statement, and exactly what it proves obviously depends on what it contains - it might be so irrelevant that a judge won't let you waste the court's time with it. I wouldn't want to comment on the strength or otherwise of the case against bail without much more information.
Section 20 of the Bail Act does allow for the full rules of evidence to be ignored somewhat - the court is entitled to rely on forms of information that wouldn't be permitted during a trial. For example, written statements (even if they haven't be sworn) or a letter from a victim or someone who knows the accused are admissible, where in a trial you'd want either a sworn affidavit or oral evidence in its place.
-
So ... no more Letterman for a while then.
At least when Americans strike they do it properly ... none of this "three hours next Tuesday" guff. Go out, stay out, see you in five and a half months.