Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Police: "Ambrose not guilty"

19 Responses

  • Idiot Savant,

    And yet they smear him as a criminal in order to save face after their over-reaction.

    How typical.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1625 posts Report Reply

  • Will de Cleene,

    Or try to suck up to the Nats ahead of cuts and restructuring within the police.

    Raumati • Since Jul 2011 • 102 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Will de Cleene,

    wondered as much myself. not a healthy trend.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16281 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    Innocent Ambrose being Not Guilty wasn't the issue - the law - the Courts and the Police possess a degree of malleability - how malleable depends on influence.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1174 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    It would not have worked in anybodies favour for this to have gone to trial, the police knew they had no real case and as jonkey was the instigator of this fiasco then a not guilty verdict would have looked bad for him and the police don't want to upset the "Smiling Assassin" while he is wielding the hatchet of spending cuts.
    It served its purpose as a smokescreen in the run up to the election, to hide the inadequacies of the incumbent government and the policies of the opposition.
    I feel that this is not the end of the matter however as Ambrose now has a story to tell and there are plenty of people who are willing to listen to a victim of a rogue state.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4613 posts Report Reply

  • Keith Ng,

    I/S: Sure, there wasn't enough to convict, and he was therefore rightly not charged - but why does that taint the Police's view that it was "more likely deliberate"?

    Are you saying that you don't believe the Police's view was formed in good faith, or are you saying that regardless, they shouldn't say anything because charges weren't laid?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 530 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Keith Ng,

    I/S: Sure, there wasn’t enough to convict, and he was therefore rightly not charged – but why does that taint the Police’s view that it was “more likely deliberate”?

    Keith, according to the police statement, Ambrose wasn't spared prosecution for lack of evidence -- the police statement declares his conduct unlawful and issues a warning not only to Ambrose but to any and all other journalists tempted to use recordings of conversations that are "considered" private. He was spared because, um, he wrote a letter in which he said the same as he has from the beginning -- the recording was inadvertent.

    And then Burgess uttered the statement noted by Graeme, which indicates that despite having declared Ambrose guilty, the police had not even convinced themselves. Had it gone to court, I'm sure a defence lawyer would have been happy to introduce the assistant commissioner's summary of investigations as evidence.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18521 posts Report Reply

  • Biobbs, in reply to Russell Brown,

    The River Mouth, Denmark • Since Jan 2011 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Keith Ng,

    … or are you saying that regardless, they shouldn’t say anything because charges weren’t laid?

    I assumed the latter. Seems a sensible line in the sand.

    There is some authority for the proposition that any public statements about guilt by any part of the state (e.g. police) prior to conviction are a violation of the presumption of innocence.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 2988 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    any public statements about guilt by any part of the state (e.g. police) prior to conviction are a violation of the presumption of innocence.

    well put

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16281 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Police giving mixed messages (3 mins, listening options).

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16281 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    It stinks to high heaven that Key got safely out of the country, accompanied by only two (probably extremely tame) members of the press before the deal was announced. I don't like the appearance of political interference and police complicity that this has going.

    The pit from whence crawl… • Since Mar 2007 • 3889 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Graeme - I'm guessing that S.216B of the Crimes Act requires intent, and recklessness isn't enough. Also, "more likely" is not "beyond reasonable doubt?".

    If that's the case, then Bradley Ambrose didn't intentionally record a conversation, and hence no crime was committed.

    I'm thinking that if the complainant was anyone other than a Government minister, the police would have rapidly established that there was no evidence of intent and declined to proceed further within a few days.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 4362 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Graeme – I’m guessing that S.216B of the Crimes Act requires intent, and recklessness isn’t enough.

    That seems to be what the relevant commentators have said from the outset.

    Also, “more likely” is not “beyond reasonable doubt?”.

    It very much is not.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18521 posts Report Reply

  • Alistair McBride, in reply to Biobbs,

    The general understanding of turn the other cheek is about forgiveness. It actually is instruction to a slave who having been struck (backhanded) on the cheek (the left) by his master turns his other (the right) inviting the master to treat him as an equal – the blow that follows cannot be delivered as a backhander but only as a punch. Palestinian society in Jesus' day had an interesting set of fines for brawling and which hand hit which part of the face.
    By proffering the other cheek the slave is claiming full personhood. It is not Jonkeys place – he has the power. Ambrose is the victim here – in more ways than one!

    Hamilton • Since Dec 2006 • 16 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    Key gets confused - his version of turning the other cheek is mooning everyone - he was actually thinking buttock as in butt cheek.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1174 posts Report Reply

  • peterpeasant,

    Police opinion is irrelevant.
    Charge or not charge is police job.
    Opinion is irrelevant.

    Police behaviour in this non case is highly suspect.

    NO! I am not a conspiracy theorist but police people appear to be talking rather a lot about this non police event.

    new zealand • Since Oct 2010 • 39 posts Report Reply

  • philg,

    Why don't we do away with legal process and just accept the police judgement that the recording incident was illegal and proceed on that basis. It would save a lot of money dearest John and Bill. xx

    New Zealand • Since Oct 2011 • 4 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to philg,

    Brilliant idea! After all, the police wouldn't be hauling you before the court if you hadn't done something wrong. And of course, if you keep your nose clean, you've got nothing to fear. Only Bad People ever get in any trouble with the police.

    Beijing • Since Jan 2007 • 1966 posts Report Reply

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.