the evidence was there. The victim was under the age of consent….end of story….surely?
That the jury actually had to have a discussion after seeing the evidence says it's not the end of the story. It says everything about the problem that this thread is discussing.
To deem that a trial is unnecessary because the evidence is apparently a slam-dunk is the path to many bad things that have nothing to do with sexual assaults, but we don't need to go that far to address some of the current problems with how sexual assault trials are conducted.
If there was video evidence of an assault of a sexual nature on a child….under the age of legal consent…why in god’s name was there a trial? Surely, in a civilised society, such evidence would be sufficient to spare the victim from inquisition?
All the rapist has to do is plead "not guilty" and it goes to trial. That simple. And hopefully something that will never change, because down that path lie many bad things.
The "inquisition", however, needs to change. All of the things said about the inadequacy of the judicial system once a rape charge is in progress are true.
the pollies frantically try to conceal this fact by pretending they are in charge
Key doesn't even pretend terribly hard, let's be honest.
because he was just really rich.
Moderately rich, Russell. He's not even a billionaire, never mind a multi-billionaire, and IIRC his peak worth was only measured in the low hundreds-of-millions. That's real money, certainly, but he's not entering the list of NZ's wealthiest 50 any time soon.
there was a conspiracy to lure him to NZ
He was already here when the deals were apparently done. The talk of "residency" means permanent residency, not just being a resident.
You’d have to wonder why the minister responsible for the SIS wasn’t briefed on Dotcom at the time.
Whilst I actually do consider it conceivable that he wasn’t briefed, it’s only because I think Key treats oversight of the intelligence services as akin to having DPS officers shadowing him: I’m so cool because I get to hang out with these guys, just like my buddy Barack.
It’s not serious, it’s not important, and it’s sure as hell not something that should take time away from golfing with foreign heads of state and local party donors.
Every gas appliance I have ever bought has it clearly stated that qualified gasfitters must instal and maintain the appliance. Every salesperson has made it clear that a gas-fitter is essential.
However, they also tend to state, from memory, that failure to follow these warnings may result in serious injury or death. The wording of the Act, "reasonably likely to...", means that a total cop-out is available to anyone who isn't in a gas-related trade: "I didn't think it was likely to happen. And you can't prove otherwise!"
Did he know he needed a qualified plumber/gas fitter? Maybe, maybe not, but the courts thought that he ought to have known and have convicted him.
In this specific case, it was entirely reasonable for the court to have reached the conclusion that he ought to have known, because the guy’s a drain-layer. Working with plumbers/gas-fitters is a routine part of his job.
ETA: The law is phrased in such a way that it’s not a person “reasonably ought to have known” was likely to cause serious harm/property damage but, rather "reasonably likely to cause said harm/damage”. It’s a significant distinction, because it means most mortals could plead ignorance and get away with it!
Sixteen civilians were hit by helicopter gunship fire as they sought shelter.
Sixteen? The article Kevin linked says six. Bit of a difference.
I find it very hard to believe gun sights malfunctioned. Any info on this?
It seems less likely than recklessness as an explanation.
Or a combination of the two. "I think that's close enough, but don't have the usual accuracy. Oh well, that'll have to do," instead of "Can't shoot accurately. I'm pulling out."