Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Privately held hardcopies are one thing...
Damn straight they are one thing - they're perfectly legal. The offence of breach of suppression/breach of an order prohibiting publication occurs in the publishing of the material - in the media, or on the Internet. Having a copy doesn't amount to a breach; lending your copy to someone else isn't a breach, telling your mates or sending an email to your Mum isn't a breach, etc.
-
looks like I'm not the only one with a few drinks on the mind...
I tend to agree, but I suspect it's from a professional position. A few years ago there were news reports that following a not guilty verdict members of the jury hugged the defendant. It seemed highly improper to me, but then I can see what some jurors might be feeling [not about either case, but in some circumstances I can see it arising] ... we know more about this case now than almost anyone out there, we're just really sorry it came to this, society owes you an apology for putting you through this, we know it sucks, even though you've been acquitted...
-
But can one of the lawyers explain tome when evidence stops being evidence as to the character of the accused, and starts being "prejudicial"? I'm not clear on this.
The evidence would have nothing to do with character. Character evidence - against an accused - is only relevant if they give evidence. Bain didn't.
Juries don't sit in judgement on the question of whether someone is of good character, they try to determine whether a particular offence has been proved to have been committed by a particuar defendant. Evidence of bad character is only relevant to the extent that it impacts on this question - usually this will be in the form: the defendant his given evidence and said that he wasn't there, but the defendant is a proven liar etc...
[evidence of bad character can also be introduced if a defendant introduces evidence of good character]
When does it start being "prejudicial"? It's always prejudicial. Most evidence is prejudicial ... as noted above, the primary test for admissablity (of any piece of evidence) is whether the probabative vaue of the evidence outwieghs it's prejudicial effect.
What does the evidence help to prove that is relevant to the question that is before the jury? And is that enough to overcome the prejudice?
[you can think of "prejudice" as having a meaning deriving from its root - pre-judge. The fact that someone has 3 convictions for rape already is highly prejudicial - people will look at that and be more likely to conclude that the individual has committed the rape they've been charged with, without looking at the evidence in the particular case]
In the present case, the evidence may be seen as helping to prove that Bain is guilty, but the prejudice is pretty high, and what would it really prove? In this case, the problems with the alibi can be raised anyway, all the prosecution needs to say is "we say this was a premeditated murder, David would obviously try to set himself up an alibi, so you shouldn't put too much weight on his claim to have been delivering the newspaper". When you can get to the same point, or nearly the same point, without massive prejudice to the accused, that's the route you take.
-
Having said that, one thing that people will feel is the Nat's use of fiscal drag to effectively raise taxes for the foreseeable future. Full points for irony!
Except that for a while anyway - perhaps beyond this term - it will be lowering average taxes as wages drop...
-
It removes a defence, yes. It exposes parents to the risk of a charge, yes. But you're not guilty of a crime simply because you "lightly smack"; it's not a strict liability offence and the Police have discretion over laying charges.
Not guilty, in that you haven't been convicted; but convicted or not, charged or not, parents who lightly smack have broken the law.
If I were to rob a bank, and never get caught, my actions would be criminal, not potentially criminal .
-
I don't see how scenario 1 applies at all: Bradford et al removed the defence because they wanted criminal chargest/convictions to not be avoided simply cause the assailant was the parent of the victim.
Bradford may have wanted to make parents who lightly smack their children criminals (although I believe she's denied that), but I am quite confident the Parliament did not believe parents who lightly smack their children are or should be considered criminals.
Despite a majority in Parliament believing rightly or wrongly that light smacking should not be criminal, Parliament passed a law which made it criminal.
-
Could you mean, "passing a law that exposes people whom you think are (minor) criminals criminals, and allowing that the full force of the criminal law not be brought into play in circumstances the Police consider meet guidelines and in which the public has an interest."
If you do, then, yes, that is what I understand Parliament did, and I completely agree with it.
Not really. What I think Parliament did with its amendment to section 59 was number 1. The 2nd one was what I think they did when they passed a law banning assault and didn't include a "how's your father?" rugby-player exception.
-
It simply is not the solution people like to think it is.
Thus my preference for actually using the words "light smack".
-
So you'd have favoured a change to Section 59 that dramatically reduced latitude in the meaning of "reasonable force"? Because I think it's quite clear that abusive parents have been able to use the defence.
Yes. I think I was reasonably clear at the time this was all happening that something along the line of Chester Borrow's amendment would have been a vast improvement over the status quo ante . I probably have gone even further and adopted Joh Key's final rejected suggested (it may have used words like 'light smack'?).
I'd note that this line is also that adopted by Family First, and is the reason they've gone for the particular wording of their referendum. Their concern isn't that there was a change to the laws around child discipline, but that the change went as far as it did. They don't want to defend what was happening under the old law any more that most people here.
Frankly, there are too many parents out there who cannot be left to exercise their own version of "reasonable force".
Thus, an amendment to the law to make it a lot clearer that what some considered reasonable force is unacceptable.
But corporal punishment is only a custom, no more. Customs change. If the prevailing custom was for parents to beat their children with implements, would you simply allow for that in the law?
Again, it's a difference between a prevailing custom one thinks should be criminal, and a custom one does not think should be criminal. If there's a custom Parliament thinks should be illegal, I've no problem (from a rule-of-law perspective) with them making it illegal; it's when they pass laws criminalising things they don't should be criminal that I get a little miffed.
-
In one week of furious attendance I managed to push my average from 100-odd to 140, and bowl my best ever game of 151. It's not a patch on Graemes 222, but...
140 is probably better than my average - I tend to be all over the place. The same night I bowled my 222 - 30+ points better than my next best - I also bowled an 80-odd.