Hard News: Being Worked
94 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
I think everyone has missed the boat a little bit, or been misled by the Police version of who has copies of the charges and caption summary (aka Police summary of Facts). A copy is always kept on the Court file, and unless the Judge has directed that the file not be searched (very seldom done) then it is open to a member of the media to ask the registrar (or deputy registrar) to view the caption summary. While it may have been the Veitch team who released the "glass of water" details(it was clearly in their interests to do so), I have no doubt that the caption summary on the Court file was also seen. This is Court Reporting 101.
-
Raybon Kan wouldn’t be part of the Auckland pseudo-celeb media in-crowd though, would he?
Oh FGS LegBreak.
1. He used to be
2. He'd be great on DWS
3. Can I have a list then please? -
Methinks the Judge is making law all by himself. A suppression order is one thing, since it protects the name of the accused in all media, but an Iternet ban is another.
Making law is what judges do. When they make a ruling, they make law. They've got pretty broad discretion to make suppressive rulings, and this is an intriguing example of a very, very clued-up judge seeing if it's possible to ameliorate the "Way Back Machine effect".
It's the conversations he wants to suppress. I do find it interesting. This isn't some guy who has his secretary print out his emails.
It certainly is interesting. If it were any other judge I'd be wondering WTF they were thinking, but I'm pretty sure that Justice Harvey has actually considered what he's doing here. Even if he is just experimenting, it's an experiment grounded in an understanding of the cause/effect.
I'm curious to see how it'll be enforced. He's likely to get rather tetchy with anyone who breaches the order, but it's got potential to get horribly out of hand in terms of numbers.
-
Making law is what judges do
interpreting existing laws and applying laws is what judges do.
They don't make them as far as I know, isn't that someone else's job -
interpreting existing laws and applying laws is what judges do.
They don't make them as far as I know, isn't that someone else's jobIt's the line between judge-made law (better-known as case law) and statute law. Case law is very definitely law, though the machinations of a District Court judge don't count for much. Try telling a lawyer that appellate court judges can't make law, and listen to the howls of laughter. It might not be on the statue books, but it's still very much law. The difference is that higher courts can overrule case law, while statute law can only be overruled by way of Parliament passing a replacement piece of legislation.
-
I think I can see where Judge Harvey is coming from.
A year down the track, the case comes to court. At the end of the first day, with the case unfolding at its usual snail's pace, a juror goes home and googles the defendants' names just to remind him or her self what went on at the time.
And there it all is, the case analysed down to its last detail, the complainant's credibility scrutinised, the defendant declared guilty or not guilty, and sentence passed - all by people unencumbered by evidence but endowed with strong opinions. And that's been going on for the last year.
Well at least that would be the case if the defendant's name was Tony Veitch.
-
Thanks, Duncan. Healthy food for thought.
-
So now, is Fairfax in contempt of court?
ScreenshotWhat about The NZ Herald?
ScreenshotGranted, they are indexed in Google, but that wasn't the rule was it?
-
are not indexed in Google
-
At the end of the first day, with the case unfolding at its usual snail's pace, a juror goes home and googles the defendants' names just to remind him or her self what went on at the time.
It took me about 2 minutes with Google to get the names so I really don't think any juror is going to have a problem
-
"I think everyone has missed the boat a little bit, or been misled by the Police version of who has copies of the charges and caption summary (aka Police summary of Facts). A copy is always kept on the Court file, and unless the Judge has directed that the file not be searched (very seldom done) then it is open to a member of the media to ask the registrar (or deputy registrar) to view the caption summary. While it may have been the Veitch team who released the "glass of water" details(it was clearly in their interests to do so), I have no doubt that the caption summary on the Court file was also seen. This is Court Reporting 101."
Justin - it is not in front of the court yet therefore there would be no court file.
-
Its not so much being able to get the names, as getting access to the pages and pages of on-line discussion that could be attached to those names.
Not that there is going to be the same interest in the alleged crime of a poor person from South Auckland as there is in a top cop or TV personality.
-
Justin - it is not in front of the court yet therefore there would be no court file.
I beg to disagree. Veitch appeared in court on the 18th where the charges were laid and he was remanded on bail. So there will be a court file, and it will include at the very least the charge sheet, and possibly a summary of facts, but I wouldn't not for sure as IANAL.
-
I beg to disagree. Veitch appeared in court on the 18th where the charges were laid and he was remanded on bail. So there will be a court file, and it will include at the very least the charge sheet, and possibly a summary of facts, but I wouldn't not for sure as IANAL.
It does seem odd that no one would have pointed out that the summary was available from the court after the police said only two parties, them and the defence, had it. I've had a couple of senior journalists comment to me privately on it, and they didn't raise the issue either.
-
but I wouldn't not for sure as IANAL.
Whaddya mean you're anal?:-)
-
And therefore eminently qualified. :)
-
He appeared in court so he could be indicted but he is not yet on trial. Thus there is no court file yet.
-
Based on my experiences in the court system, you have a court file once you walk in the door.
The police summary, if that's what they're quoting, is often a shocker. The one that the arresting officer had written for my arrest was barely literate. I was tempted to demand that it be resubmitted if it was going to form part of the official record of my life when I got diverted, but thought that they might withdraw the diversion if I got uppity.
Accuracy would also be something to hope for, but they have probably taken more time with Tony Veitch's than they did for my arrest for midnight noise raids on the hotels of National Party conference attendees.
-
WTF???
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529828
Women's Refuge missed out on thousands of dollars from a charity luncheon to honour rugby league star Ruben Wiki as fallout continues over the Tony Veitch affair.
Wiki had wanted to donate some of the proceeds from a $170-a-head gala luncheon held in Auckland in his honour last week to Women's Refuge, but organisers put the kibosh on that proposal because of a potential conflict with the event's main sponsor, Radio Sport - Veitch's former employer.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.