Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Courtesy of some uploader named duncster (who's prolific) the first minutes of TVNZ News some time in 1985.
Plane crash, school poisoning, hurting farmers - and unions holding out for a 17% pay rise when only being offered 15.5%.
But where's the cute puppy, feigned indignation or story about how someone's daughter's life was worth more that 18 years?
-
Span - wasn't Dewar's pivotal role in the Murupara case securing a mis-trial, rather than an acquittal?
There's also a difference between how many times we heard, and how many times the jury heard, and the extent to which they were told they could use that evidence.
-
Something else never satisfactorily explained is that during the Mt. Maunganui trial in Wellington someone within the NZ Police presumably paid for the beach hut to be trasnsported down to Wellingtyon and displayed on the footpath outside the court house.
You're not mistaking this for the crazy lawyer John Burrett conspiracy to kidnap trial are you? Where the police brought the bunker to court before the judge had decided whether showing it to the jury was too prejudicial...
-
Of course, this begs the question: Why weren't Schollum and Shipton tried on their own?
Ok - I'd like to hear the answer to that one.
Generally the rationale is something like - Convenience. The trial lasted how long? It's all the same evidence - do we need to tie up the courts for another similarly lengthy trial? Do we want to put Louise through giving evidence for a second/third/fourth time? etc. It's group offending you charge and try the group.
I'm also not sure Sankhoff is right. The use to which prior convictions can be put is very limited; and the usual instance - discrediting an alternative explanation/showing the bad character of the defendant - doesn't apply where they don't give evidence.
-
But surely Graeme the finding that Dewar obstructed the course of justice was relevant to the other trials, particularly in regard to the evidence given to discredit Nicholas about the Murupara case?
No. If the prosecution wants to discredit the discrediting of Nicholas they should have pointed to evidence that she was raped, not that someone obstructed it.
-
Why was Dewar allowed to even testify at the second trial if his evidence had been compromised [in the first]?
seems like a valid point.
It does. Unfortunately,
1) As the officer in charge, I'd suggest that without his evidence you wouldn't have had much of a case. Probably wouldn't have even made it to the jury.
2) You can't stop him testifying. The prosecution and defence can both call relevant witnesses, and while he will have been strongly warned to no to do what he did again, his evidence was clearly relevant (and the defence could have had a lot of the other evidence ruled inadmissible if he wouldn't front up).
If the officer in charge does not give evidence in a case then probably no interview will be admissible, and no forensics either.
-
3410 - I think the inadmissible evidence was something that Dewar just said while giving evidence. Something so inadmissible that the jury couldn't just be instructed to ignore it, but there had to be a mistrial.
Span:
Surely if Dewar had gone first we might have seen different outcomes in other cases?
And that's exactly why it wasn't first. It is completely irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of someone that there was some dishonesty in the process - especially by someone else.
It doesn't matter why any first trial failed (i.e. ended in a mistrial) - the second one didn't have that evidence and wasn't tainted by that illegality. Evidence that someone tried to pervert the course of justice is evidence that someone tried to pervert the course of justice - it is not evidence that someone else was guilty of rape.
-
Okay, I realise this doesn't quite fit in here, but one of the Herald's TV picks for today is The Nightmares Next Door.
Am I losing my mind, or do I already recall seeing this on TV2 maybe 6 months ago at around midnight?
Did it air so well post-midnight that TV2 wanted more people to see it, or were they just that desperate for something to put on?
-
Let's be fair to Ron Mark.
1. He is talking about violent youth offending - which is up per capita.
2. He's talking about extending criminal liability below 14 - and the stats don't tell you how many 10-13 yo's or 12-13 yo's were prosecuted because the answer is zero (save the odd murder/manslaughter).
3. If the number of 14-16 (youth) offences is down, we can say that the system is working, perhaps then it is sensible to extend to system so it can work its magic on those who are younger...
It'd be nice if all his bill did was extend the jurisdiction of the youth court (rather than mucking around with "serious offences" and the District Court), but he isn't without a leg to stand on.
-
I actually considered adding that caveat... but then decided that people might well complain even if they didn't watch it.