I had a few suggestions, but if it's anything other than Brexit, your system is broken.
If the number of cases has fallen from 256 to 81, that is a fall of 68.4%, not 62%.
It's been a while since I wrote this, so am not sure the basis for my number. I think I accounted for the lower 1st strike offending (ie this is a proportion of those who committed what would have been first strikes who then committed what would have been second strikes). As strike crime was down, the recidivism rate per person who committed what would have been a first strike was not as great a fall.
Of course, that doesn't mean I didn't get it wrong, anyway :-)
So, contrary to that press release, what would have been the man’s incentive to plead guilty?
Plead guilty so that:
1) the judge is more likely to allow him to have parole, which could knock 4 years 8 months of his sentence (the judge would "ordinarily" be required to impose a three strike sentence with no possibility for parole)
2) in the event that happens, make it more likely the parole Board will actually give him parole, if not at the first opportunity, then still earlier than it otherwise might (accepts he's guilty, acknowledges offending etc.)
It is also of note that there is no incentive for a person charged with a 3rd strike offence to plead guilty because the sentence will be exactly the same after a costly and pointless trial which exposes victims unnecessarily to the trauma of being in court.
Odd to make this point following a case where the defendant pleaded guilty. Also, I would certainly see the guilty plea in this case as part of the reason the judge determined it manifestly unjust to refuse the possibility of parole.
Also the next time Chris Bishop says “X isn’t suitable for a Statutes Amendment Bill”, we can simply point to this, and tell him to go away?
why would a bylaw saying “Queenstown airport may sell lost property by way of an auction on the Trade Me website” be ultra vires?
I’m not saying it would. On balance, I agree with you. I’m think it would probably be lawful. Perhaps even highly probably so. The beauty of select committee consideration of legislation is that we can turn very high probabilities into certainties. And for me, that’s appropriately part of the test of when select committee consideration can be justifiably dispensed with: are we certain the legislation is flawless?
The SOP that added Doocey’s Bill to the Statutes Amendment Bill was not an opposition measure.
No, but the opposition didn't object, and it would only have taken one.
If he really believed that, I wonder why he didn’t object to Seymour’s SOP, which would have prevented the SOP being adopted?
Caucus collective whatever it is, and absence from the House at the time it happened.
What currently prevents an airport authority from making a bylaw under s.9 that allows for on-line auction sales? How is that not “providing for the sale by way of auction of any such property that is unclaimed”?
Statutory interpretation in light of similar auction laws, and the amendments to the Policing legislation needing to be explicit?
So, 2000 votes are cast. 1334 are needed to win. One candidate gets 1500. All the second preference votes are calculated and pro-rata shared into 166 votes (ie. 1500-1334) and then that amount of votes gets allocated for the next count.
Candidate one keeps 1334 of their votes. Which is made up on 1500 votes worth 0.889333... votes each (this is called the "keep value"). And 1500 votes worth 0.11666... votes get added to the second preference choices of each of the 1500 votes .
Before computers some elections have used the last 134 votes, or the a random 134 votes, but we don't. I think there was once a recount in an Australian election where the vote changed because different votes were counted last. But it cannot happen here.
IANAL. Is that what counts as ‘aggravated’?
The Assault is Aggravated because it was done with the intention of interfering with a police officer doing their duty.
Aggravated assaults also include assaults for the purpose of escaping or avoiding arrest.
putting the officer in hospital for two weeks?
That's another problem with some (although this time, not all) of the reporting. I understand the hospital stay lasted 15 hours, not 15 days.
And, of course, Delegat was it seems, originally charged with injuring with intent.
Also, Kingi isn't really in a position to argue his assault did not intend injury, given he admitted that when he pleaded guilty.