Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Graeme,
Are you sure it's not a possible case of contempt, even with the claim that the documents were altered?
The only reason I can think of to alter the letters in the way they allegedly were would be to stop the judge from realising the context in which the letters were written. Assuming they were altered, and it was deliberate, whoever did the alteration is surely guilty of deceiving a judge. No?
Quite possibly. That doesn't make it contempt of court, however.
I understand the Sunday News had a Dunne-Powell story based on a handy "leak" injuncted just recently
Injuncted isn't a word ... you're looking for enjoined :-)
-
I'm curious: could anybody name a single case in which the strategy of blaming the media has actually paid off?
Winston Peters made it an art form.
-
The guy's admitted beating his partner. It's hard to see how anything we say could damage his reputation more than what he has already publicly admitted himself.
This really doesn't fly.
And you really don't have much imagination :-)
-
I have always understood the best defence against action for defamation to be having the money to pay for expensive lawyers.
I've this hope in the back of my mind that once in my legal career I'll successfully defend a defamation suit by arguing consent .
-
"injuring with intent to wound" vs "wounding with intent to injure"?
A wound is more serious than an injury (which is more serious than an assault)
Injuring with intent to wound is where you injure someone, but were intending to do worse to them.
Wounding with intent to injure is where you wound someone, but weren't intending to go that far, but were 'only' intending to injure them.
A broken bone is an example of injury. A stab wound is an example of a wound.
-
And now I see that you have ...
Oh well.
-
3410 - this is an assault conviction. It's just a more serious one that has the injuring in it instead of the word assault.
[see my post at the top o' the page]
-
Around 20 young men a year die just in Mt Eden prison
Are you sure?
as euphemistic as it sounds, reckless disregard causing injury is likely to be (without having read this post or any other articles thoroughly) the lesser charge in exchange for the guilty plea. Repeatedly kicking someone in the back while they're lying on the floor would be intentional rather than reckless and the original charges probably reflected that.
It wasn't. It was the harshest charge with which Veitch was charged. They dropped 7 lesser charges, but that charge stayed the same throughout.
The actual offence is injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
By pleading guilty to that offence it implies that Veitch accepts that he intentionally assaulted his girlfriend, that he intended to kick her in the back, and that that assault caused an injury. It implies that he does not accept that he intended the kick to break her back.
[and of course, the charge implies that police don't think he did either, or at least don't think they could prove it]
The basic heirarchy of assaults is as follows:
Assault (1 year)
Assault on a child or by a male on a female (2 years)
Assault with intent to injure (3 years)
Injuring with reckless disregard for the safety of others (5 years)
Injuring with intent to injure (5 years)
Wounding with reckless disregard (7 years)
Wounding with intent to injure (7 years)
Injuring with intent to wound (10 years)
Wounding with intent to wound (14 years)
Attempted murder (14 years) -
I've also lost nearly any respect
Isn't this like a 'quantum change'?
It seems to imply to that you nearly lost some respect ... i.e. you nearly lost some, but in the end, you didn't actually lose any.
Maybe you "lost nearly all respect"?
-
Isn't that Contempt of Court, or even Perjury?
No.