Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
...but some of the character's casual anti-Semitism was a bit hard to take
I caught most of (searching through Wikipedia...) what must have been the TV Movie Prisoner of Honor a number of years ago, about the role Georges Picquart played in the exoneration of French Military officer (and Jew)Alfred Dreyfus.
At the end of the film one person remarks that Picquart's tireless efforts on behalf of Dreyfus show him to have been basically perfect as a human being. The other notes he wasn't perfect, because he didn't like Jews (which was shown earlier in the film). An odd case of using someone's casual anti-Semitism to show that they were in fact more awesome...
-
The idea that Parliament is the "highest court in the land" comes from the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy - if the Government ever loses is Court - even if it loses it the Supreme Court - it can get Parliament to pass a law over-ruling the decision.
-
Clinton was "tried" by the legislature rather than the judiciary, who can hardly be expected to give a fair trial to a political opponent.
The Senate trial wasn't a criminal trial, but a trial to see whether Clinton should be removed from office - by its very nature it's political. This isn't the sort of thing you can have conducted by someone else - you want both sides to be accountable to the public for their actions. If the trial (acquittal or conviction) was conducted for naked political motives you want people to be able to vote accordingly at following elections.
Plus, I note our Parliament seems to handle "no confidence" motions easily enough...
-
Come on Graeme. I expect better of you.
The Clark case was not a case of forgery, what was forged? neither the painting nor the signature.
The police determined that it there was sufficient evidence to charge Clark with forgery over the matter, but elected not to prosecute because there was no public interest in doing so. I happen to think that was the right call (as were most or all of the other decisions not to prosecute Labour MPs/ministers), but with the police determining they had enough evidence I don't think the public perception can all be put down to a political "beat up".
Also, I referred in shorthand to the the "art forgery" because the only political scandal that should even have a -gate suffix is Watergate. I wanted people to know what I was talking about, without calling it Painterga*e, or writing a paragraph.
That said, I had thought that the fellow who intially bought the thing did think it was a painting by Helen Clark. I suspect too that the chartity he bought it off had asked Helen Clark if she'd paint them something, and probably figured they'd gotten such a thing once it arrived.
You may also be interested in the following sections of the Crimes Act:
s 217 (defininition of document);
s 255 (definition of false document);
s 256 (definition of forgery). -
I think that the US abuse of compelled testimony, prosecution by politicians and the investigation of non-crimes (such as in the McCarthy and Clinton cases) has rather discredited the Grand Jury, at least under that name.
Didn't Clinton lie under oath at a hearing of a sexual harassment case? And then admit that he'd lied?
Just because he didn't get impeached because no democrats in the senate voted for it, doesn't make it not perjury. Just politics!
I had understood that the issues being raised were around the Whitewater grand jury investigation, and had nothing to do with the impeachment.
Clinton was found in civil contempt for his false testimony in the sexual harrassment case, and was fined $90,000.
-
Has NZ ever considered having an independent prosecutor in the Scottish fashion?
It gets mentioned occasionally, but I don't believe it's received serious consideration.
Or indeed going further and having an investigating magistrate after the fashion of Continental Europe?
Far less likely. The possibility that an inquisitorial system might be used for sexual offending is mooted occasionally, but beyond that germ of an idea, I suspect our only body run along inquisitorial lines will remain the Waitangi Tribunal.
-
If the purpose of the PCA is simply to recommend conviction or not, then the police have lost a powerful tool for internal improvement.
That is not its purpose. Indeed, it often waits (waited?) for criminal proceedings to be completed before making its reports.
A properly independent review of controversial police actions, whether it be a judge or a jury doing it, would serve to enhance the reputation of the police if they acted lawfully and appropriately ... The idea of in-house investigations and disciplinary action might actually be working, but the problem is there is no way the public can be confident of that.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority, the replacement of the Police Complaints Authority, is supposed to be independent, and is headed by a High Court Judge with the aim of ensuring that. When it was the PCA it was also supposed to be independent (and was headed by the same judge) but its investigators were generally seconded detectives. I'm told that the IPCA's investigators tend to be retired detectives.
-
How about the people directly affected by the actions of the individual being investigated?
So Steven Wallace could have for being shot (if he'd lived), but his family cannot (given that he didn't)?
Why could no-one have challenged a hypothetical decision not to charge Phillip Field, if they thought the police were not doing something about him because he was a Government minister?
I thought that the scope also extended to the substance of a decision in some instances. Presumably those reviews are initiated by people who disagreed with the decision.
People give it a go, but they frequently lose these sorts of challenges. The courts do tend to give quite a bit of leeway to decision-makers.
do you not think that the possibility of those things needs to be guarded against?
Yes. But for some people it will not be enough. For some people, any time a police officer (or government MP) isn't charged over something, or an opposition MP is, they will perceive favouritism, or interference, or cowardice.
We should try to avoid both the reality of a neutered police force, and the perception of it.
-
I am also interested in your thoughts on Depositions
At the moment they seem to be mostly used as a fishing expedition by the defence and seldom is there a verdict of "no case to answer"
The main utility of depositions isn't about getting to a finding of no case to answer, but rather narrowing the scope of trial. By having an initial go at the evidence, both prosecution and defence can make the trial proper - before the jury - much simpler. Without depositions (or with the more narrow depositions now in place) there is the fear the jury trials may grown much longer.
Also more often than a "no-case to answer" depositions can result in an earlier conclusion to the case. The prosecution can realise they've over-charged (either in the type or number of charges) or the defendant can, having seen some of the evidence presented in a more informal manner, have seen enough to plead guilty.
-
Is a decision not to prosecute subject to judicial review?
It is not.
If not, would it be appropriate to make it so?
I'm not sure that wouldn't be a much bigger change.
There would also be inherent problems given the scope of judicial review - it generally only looks at process and legality, and in reviews of prosecutorial discretion you may really just be looking at people who disagree with the decision.
There would also be questions of standing: who could file for review? Who would have been sufficiently connected to the case to review the decision not to charge Helen Clark over the art forgery? I'm not sure anyone would.
Also am I right in thinking that a private prosecution has a lower standard of proof than a criminal one?
You are not. The standard in a civil case (e.g. for monetary damages) is lower, but for a private criminal prosecution it is still beyond reasonable doubt.