After the inquiry into the death is completed, it seems that s71 doesn’t apply any more because s71(c) no longer holds.
Section 71(1) applies before a coroner's finding is released.
Section 71(2) applies after a coroner's finding is released.
It would seem pretty odd if permission was needed in perpetuity. So odd that I’m not surprised at the observation that no one has asked permission of the Chief coroner in 30 years, and he’s never taken anyone to task for that.
His comment was about no-one ever asking in the circumstances where I asked (ie after a high profile death presumed to be a suicide).
And yes, permission is needed in perpetuity if you want to disclose information beyond that allowed in section 71(2).
Check! That looks what what both the Act and the guide says.
The problem with the guidance is that it doesn’t even look like you need permission.
I meant to say, I think:
The problem is that that guidance makes it look like you can’t even ask for permission until after the decision is made (ie it looks like the pre-decision ban is total).
Pretty clear that you need permission to go further (although I can’t tell if even that is possible). Afterwards you can say it was a suicide without the coroner’s permission. That’s what I’m reading. You appear to need permission to say more than the very basic facts, though.
After a Coroner has declared a death a suicide, you can publicly state it was a suicide.
You can get permission to state more, such as the means used.
But the Act trumps the guidance, doesn’t it? Newspapers have surely hit this hundreds of times, got their lawyers to look at the law, and then realized that it’s clear enough in the Act itself that the highly counter-intuitive idea that coroners have a perpetual right to deny freedom of reporting of any suicide is counter-intuitive because it’s false.
I am confident you need permission to report the particulars of a self-inflicted death before the Coroner has made a decision.
The problem with the guidance is that it doesn’t even look like you can get permission.
The problem with the law is that you do need permission.
But reading the Act itself, I would think that chapter is contradicting the Act somewhat.
Yep. That was what I was trying to get at. You read the guidance, and it doesn't even look like you can get permission until after the finding has been made.
And if you hit another car that’s moving, the impact speed may be doubled meaning the outcome will be twice as bad.
Not four times as bad? Or some other even higher number? I'd have thought driving/crashing at 100km/h was much more dangerous than driving/crashing at 50km/h.
If this was not against the law, they’d be out of jail sooner. The amount of time spent in jail for cannabis is a real thing, real people’s lives rotting in jail over something millions of NZers have done regularly.
No. I'm saying that, for example someone gets two years imprisonment for burglary and one month for possession of class A, for a total sentence of two years and release after one year (because that's how concurrent sentences work). If class A drugs hadn't been found on them, the total sentence would be two years, with release after one year.
because those statistics are published?
I have just OIAed the stats, but my confidence comes from knowing how criminal sentencing works. e.g. Police suspect someone is a burglar, and get a search warrant to search for stolen goods. In the course of the search they find some drugs (getting money for this may have been the reason for the burglary). They charge both. The person gets two years for burglary and one month for the possession charge, to be served simultaneously.
Will happen with a bunch of offences. Drunken assault in a pub or street. Police arrest and conduct a search incident to arrest, find drug utensils etc. When you get to sentencing it all comes out in the wash. You can't sentence someone to community work if they're going to prison for something else, and it would be wrong to fine them (just setting them up to fail when they're released), so they get short sentence for the minor offending.
I'm not saying that this is every case. But I do think it will be a lot of them. And hopefully we'll know in 20 working days or so.
Mallard just pulled his “no one is ever jailed for pot possession” out of his ass – and carried on even after he was shown evidence of how wrong he is.
You need to contrast between those sent to prison for drug possession alone, and those sent to prison for burglary and drug possession or receiving stolen goods and drug possession. None of the statistics quoted make this distinction. I am confident that many (I suspect most, and perhaps not far short of all) people given a prison sentence for simple possession are serving that prison sentence simultaneously with a prison sentence for some other, more serious, offence.
There will be some who have served a prison term because, for example, of failure to comply with a community sentence given for drug possession, but people sentenced to prison for drug possession and nothing more will be very few.
But that $500k fine only applies to a body corporate, not an individual.
Well, for individuals, the maximum fine is the same then. $10,000. But vastly different for bodies corporate.