Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Tim: thanks for that. I've now discovered the remote login option - mwahahaha, more data!
-
When I was working at a certain government-owned corporation that specialises in housing people, Methcon were called in to give seminars on recognising the manufacture and use of P... that being an increasing problem amongst tenants and hazard for the staff.
There was an article in Scientific America last month ("Illegal drug labs leave toxic legacy" by Peter Aldhous ; 26 Apr 2008) which talked about that. It also had a throwaway line relevant to this debate; any chance of someone with access to the archive emailing me a copy?
-
Rich
If information is available on a website or in an annual report, etc, can a department answer OIA requests or Parliamentary questions by telling the questioner to go look at the website or whatever?
Yes, at least for the OIA. Section 18(d) allows them to refuse requests on the grounds that the information is already publicly available. Interestingly, such a refusal (and pointer to the cabinet paper being on the web) is how I found out about the government's plans to let the police make the law up as they go...
-
Some wag might wish to tot up the total cost of Phil Heatley's questions for the year.
They might want to, but it would be a beat up. No-one should have to apologise for the costs of holding government to account. It's a basic part of our constitutional system, and something that needs to be done in order for our democracy to work properly.
(I shudder to think what my OIA requests and the odd Ombudsman's investigation has cost the government, but it is certainly not money wasted).
-
Tea rooms? Nyarlothotep, it really is like going back in time twenty years down there.
And that baby is wearing a hoodie. Clearly they're going to grow up to be a tagger or murderer or NZ First MP or other such undesirable.
-
Steve: A prosecution would be hampered because the defence could simply say "six months ago you were dead certain that this other guy did it,and ruled out my client. What has changed? Is it simply that you did not get a conviction the first time, and are now desperately tying to pin the crime on anyone else"
Absent seriously compelling evidence (and unlike you, I do not take it as a given the police can get it on whoever they wish), this will raise quite reasonable doubts in the minds of most jurors.
-
2. The police did not hae enough evidence to convict because the case revealed sombody else may have done it. So a new case emerges from the old and the police investigate that.
As I pointed out, the face of a prior prosecution is reasonable doubt on a plate in any such case. And so justice falls because of uncertainty over whodunnit - in short, because the police failed to do their job.
That point has been overlooked in all of this. Fundamentally, the case failed because the police did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But instead of pointing the finger where it belongs - at hasty police who would not wait to assemble a decent case (and sure, it might have taken a while, but there's no statute of limitations on murder), and who went to court half-arsed expecting to get by on simple public outrage (in short: trusting the jury to be a lynchmob rather than decent citizens who took the law and justice seriously), we instead point the finger at the justice system, and start arguing over how we can undermine it and make it easier for the boys in blue to continue to do their jobs badly, and string up anyone they feel like.
Our justice system depends on the police doing their jobs properly. When they don't, people walk free. That's the lesson in all of this, and one we should all remember.
-
Lyndon: buried at number 10 on the Order Paper; its not going anywhere.
-
I think that you would be pushing it to say that she was putting pressure on the police to change anything, she was "urging" the police not to let it drop.
They can no longer charge their prime suspect. They therefore have no option but to let it drop. That's what "acquittal" means.
If the police didn't want to be in that situation, then they should have waited to assemble a better case. EOFS.
-
They could charge him again, if significant new evidence came to light. Which is what they'd need really - someone who knows to break their silence.
No they can't. s26 BORA forbids double jeopardy, and the government's Criminal Procedures Bill, which would have allowed retrials on the basis of "new and compelling evidence" (AKA "police laziness"), has been bogged down for four years because no-one will vote for it.