Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Could you enlighten us a little bit about the suppression of bail hearing information. How unusual is it? What grounds for it?
As you'll appreciate, many (most?) of the suppression orders are being made at the request of the defendants. Certainly, the suppression is being made for the benefit of the defendants. There can be a bunch of different reasons for suppression, my guess is that in this case, the rationale will be something like this:
The defendants are charged with offences against the Arms Act, but in opposing bail the police have also presented some of the evidence they may use for a prosecution under the Terrorism Suppression Act. This is proper, there is a process the police have to follow to lay charges under the TSA and it has a week or so to run - if police have serious evidence that those involved are terrorists it's potentially relevant to whether there is a risk to the community.
However, much of the evidence that points to the defendants being terrorists is inadmissible in a trial on the Arms Act charges.*
If the evidence that points to terrorism is made public, then it may be incredibly difficult for the defendants to get a fair trial on the Arms Act charges. This is a particular concern if the Solicitor-General refuses permission to lay the terrorism charges - all the defendants would face are Arms Act charges, but everyone in the country would know all about this evidence that suggests these people are terrorists.
Any potential jury will have this knowledge and might be more likely to convict them on the Arms Act charges - not because they think there's a breach of the Arms Act, but because the people are "terrorists". This would be wrong, and incredibly unfair to the defendants.
*The evidence will be inadmissible for a couple of reasons:
**1)** that someone is potentially a terrorist doesn't help show they've breached the Arms Act - even terrorists can have lawful weapons;
2) any evidence obtained through an interception warrant (e.g. phonecalls, text messages, etc.) can't be used to prove breaches of the Arms Act - the police are not allowed to get interception warrants for Arms Act offences.
-
Didn't Phil Goff cap payouts recently?
No.
I suspect you're thinking of the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act. It doesn't apply to this situation.
And in the situations it does apply it doesn't limit payouts.
-
if the mother is nutritionally deprived, the baby is more likely to stockpile fat at the drop of a hat, while well fed mothers have babies that tend to stay slimmer
<glib>so fat people have thin children and thin people have fat children?</glib>
-
Somehow I'm trying to find a way for Tau Henare getting the wrong woman to make a difference in this thing, either way. I can't find it though.
How about ... you can't defend the honour of a non-existent woman, so the PM's recent explanation holds even less water?
-
I'm unhappy with Clark trying to spin the Mallard incident with the "lady's honour" thing. I wish she'd just left it with what he said: it was wrong to hit someone, no matter what.
And I was half-hoping that some reporter would ask: "so Mallard was defending a woman's integrity, given that we now know the woman discussed in Parliament was 'Sharon' do you confirm that she is real? Why do you no longer accept Trevor's word that there is no Sharon and what information do you have that Mallard hasn't told the public?"
[The other half was of course hoping that they'd realise it was really no-one's business]
-
Michael - my understanding of the Christchurch raid was that police were looking for a person, rather than searching for evidence. You don't need a warrant to knock on someone's door and ask if Tame is there.
I do think TV3 were just lucky. The TV3 offices are nearby and TV3 have said a cameraman heading to work notice a bunch of cops obviously heading somewhere and followed them. If it were a police source, they'd almost certainly have had a reporter there too, not least because it's reporters who have police sources, not cameramen.
-
steven - yes. Any trial for a breach of the terrorism Suppression Act has to be a jury trial (neither side has the option).
Moreover, the trial would have to occur in the High Court.
-
I mentioned treason because there were suggestions that someone had said they were going to "declare war on New Zealand". New Zealand citizens commit treason (you have to be a New Zealand citizen to commit treason) if they levy war against New Zealand (and also commit treason if they conspire to to do it).
I'm pretty sure Bishop Tamaki's behaviour wasn't treasonous, although arguably it may have been seditious. Section 73 of the Crimes Act has this to say:
Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand,—
(a) Kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or
(b) Levies war against New Zealand; or
(c) Assists an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country; or
(d) Incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand; or
(e) Uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or
(f) Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section. -
I'd note that McDonald's New Zealand is incorporated in New Zealand, and that individual stores are franchises. And that even obliterating an entire Macca's probably wouldn't constitute damage to major infrastructure (and probably wouldn't - if empty - involve danger to life or serious danger to health).
But even if it did, you'd still have section 4 of the TSA:
**international organisation** means any organisation of States or Governments of States, or any organ or agency of any organisation of that kind
It's basically the the EU or the UN, or the WHO, etc.
-
What recourse does anyone have for getting their group de-listed as a terrorist organisation?
*They can request the PM to revoke the designation;
*They can wait for three years until it is due to expire and seek to be heard in the High Court on the application that it be extended; or
*They can seek judicial review.it's not terrorism if one "unduly compel[s] or to force[s] a domestic organisation to do or abstain from doing any act"?
Unless that domestic organisation is the Government, or the act also involves terrorising civilians, then yes.