Spin on Benson-Pope
November 27th, 2005 at 8:19 pm by David FarrarG-Man has an excellent post on the David Benson-Pope issue. This is in response to David Benson-Pope saying the Police has been “bozo-ish” in their use of language.
Benson-Pope says that prima facie means:
simply that someone has laid a complaint and there’s no guilt presumption or anything else
This is a new definition for me, and I suspect most of the legal profession. G-Man provides a somewhat more reliable definition, from the Oxford Dictionary of Law:
A case that has been supported by sufficient evidence for it to be taken as proved in the absence of adequate evidence to the contrary
I also quite like Lectlaw which says:
Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted
I did feel somewhat sorry for Benson-Pope when this first happened, as I doubt any MP doesn’t have something from 25 years ago which is embarrassing. But his behaviour in responding to this has been quite simply contemptuous and outrageous. He has lied to the media and lied to Parliament, and shows a total inability to be even a tiny bit contrite.
Related posts:
- Will Labour expel Benson-Pope?
- Benson-Pope Inquiry
- Benson-Pope looks set to stand
- Benson-Pope not standing
November 27th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
My understanding of NZ legal process for criminal law is this:
The complaint is laid with the police, who investigate and then lay the charge with the court.
The court has a hearing (or hearings) to set a date for a deposistions hearing – where the court determines if there is a prima facie case based on the evidence presented by both sides. If the court determines there is a case then it goes to court with a jury.
The jury is then presented with the case for and against and decide for themselves if the accused is guilty or not guilty. The Judge then passes sentence.
So for the Police to believe there is a ‘prima facie’ case means they believed that they could have got this before a jury – well down the legal process to a conviction.
Perhaps BP got his legal advice from the immediately previous AG and Dunedin Sth MP, Michael Cullen?
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
I, like you, am concerned about the neglected art of student punching.
Just as dwarf throwing has lost many of its best practitioners to the Fabian Society and real estate speculation, we just don’t see recently downed students littering the streets anymore.
And some call it progress!
Any hypnotic regression to tap those repressed memories around this tripe yet?
23 years?
Vote:Here’s an idea, if the complainants didn’t feel the need to talk to police when it occurred or 5 years later or 10 years later, then there might be a message there for Dave.
He lied to Parliament?
So what did you expect?
More subtle lying?
November 27th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
So why is the claimed cadet abuse in Waiouru at the same time still under investigation?
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
carudo – from the few interviews the alleged victims gave at the time the stories about DBP first came out, the alleged victims didn’t really care about the police and didn’t really want DBP prosecuted.
Rodney and Judith became aware of the allegations and didn’t consider it appropriate that someone who had done that be Minister for schools – they raised it to score political (as opposed to legal) points.
DBP “refuted” the allegations and other alleged victims came out, not because they wanted criminal charges laid, or because they wanted the Police involved at all, but because they thought that DBP shouldn’t have lied about it, and they wanted people to know he was lying.
Vote:November 27th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
It means he has a case to answer. That is there is sufficient evidence for charges to have been laid. BP is very lucky indeed not to be prosecuted and then he critcises the Police. I cannot wait for the full file to be released and given BPs comments and the public interest the file will be very interesting indeed. If BP was a man he would want to have his name cleared, but instead he takes the coward’s way out and gets others to defend him. There is no way this man will be leading Labour.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Surely no-one seriously suggests this breathing twirching gargoyle would lead Labour? He has less leadership skills than Don Qixote and is about as telegenic as Ariel Sharon’s bum. Come to think of it, Ariel Sharon’s bum would make a better leader too.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 8:18 am
It has been talked about that this gargoyle could lead Labour. I hope he does, it will guarantee a centre-right Government for years.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 9:52 am
This man is one of the Dear Leader’s arse lickers. Many of his veiws on life mirror the Dear Leader’s own outlook on life and thus he will receive the full protection of the labour party.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Rest easy, though the punters regularly forgive lies and deceit they won’t wear a hyphenated name that sounds like a 1960s household appliance.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Oh, and here’s another word for David Benson Pope’s vocabulary list, courtesy of the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:
QUOTE
Vote:Main Entry: bo
November 28th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Labours track record shows a total lack of integrity. How many have had inquiries against them now? So lets not be surprised at BP’s performance. Although by other MPs(low) standards he is a right arrogant tosser. Amazing.Whats worse, a lot will believe his spin. Another win for H2
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
As the point was made at the beginning of the thread – I remember an interview on RNZ with one of the lads peripherally involved in the accusations when this hit the media.
He was compelled to step forward not because he cared to lay charges from the events of 25 years ago, but because he was outraged that BP stood up in parliament and denied the events never took place.
I note some seem to think BP was a jolly good teacher, very popular according to a forum of former students. I had a teacher like that – very popular with many and cruel to a few. This teacher excelled in humiliation, and a simple caning would have been preferable to his alternate brand of medicine.
He was responsible for one of my worst memories of the school system (and I was a pretty good kid).
There is every chance BP was a good teacher to most, and there is a chance a few students under his “care” may have had a bit of corporal punishment coming to them. But it wasn’t corporal punishment we are talking about here.
And even wiping the slate clean with the transgressions of the long past – his current decision to categorically deny/refute the claims has lowered my estimation of the man.
Was his treatment of these people such a non event to him, he’s simply forgotten it? If he was anything like “popular” teacher I once had, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Or that a few lies serves the greater good.
Of course, if you are going to unquestionably believe BP, then the whole matter is just an over-trumped smear campaign. So I can understand the reaction from that perspective.
Personally, I suspect he was a pretty good teacher, that got a bit carried away from time, and probably not cognisant of how cruel he was on occasion. He had a chance 20 years later to cop to it and ride it out, and chose not to. If that proves to be the case, he is reaping what he has sown.
Vote:November 28th, 2005 at 9:02 pm
oops, should say near the top “denied the events EVER took place” – but you folks know what I meant.
Vote: