New court defences
Yes your Honour, I did kill Miss Muggins. However I also killed someone in 1999 and 2002 so it would be unfair to hold me accountable now, because I thought it was okay. Plus the law was confusing and in my own mind I did nothing wrong.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour
September 12th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
And what’s more, my mate Natalie also killed someone in exactly the same manner in 2002, but last year they didn’t have to do it themselves as they contracted it out to someone else willing to do it on their behalf instead.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
And anyhow just to clear things up so there is no confucion we will pass a law to make LEGAL what is thought to be illegal.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
“in my own mind I did nothing wrong”
Inability to tell the difference between right and wrong *is* a defence…
September 12th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Snap:http://www.nzpundit.com/archives/2006/09/12/14.42.59
Unbelievable arrogance.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Graeme – well that’s ok then, the Labour govt is just criminally insane.
Actually the defence put forward by Cullen and Hodgson was, obfuscation aside, ignorance of the law is a defence.
Strange how that doesn’t work for anyone else.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
… and anyway Your Honour, if the law finds me in the wrong I’ll just change it to suit myself because I am above it whether you like it or not.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Criminally insane came to my mind also but assuming they are then they would be disbarred from voting or standing for office.
BTW if(when) eventually found to have engaged in a corrupt activity does that disbar them from standing for Parliament and does that apply to all current Labour MP’s
September 12th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
… and if you kick up a fuss Your Honour, I have a dirt file on you. Failing that I will simply ban you and the institution you repesent.
Its all because I have a moral duty to heep Labour in power and National out Your Honour, as my expert witness Chris trotter will testify.
The end always justifies the means. What don’t you get about that?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Is Hugh Rennie QC, the same stipendiary magistrate jailed for perjury in New Plymouth, circa 1968?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
If only Myra Hindley & Ian Brady could’ve dreamt up the same defence.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
The latest Labour defence could be tested with something more practical than murder. Murder is blatantly wrong and any reasonable person knows that.
Perhaps anyone who marginally fails a breathalyzer test could claim that they only had three beers, and have always had three beers as a limit when driving. Having passed a breathalyzer test before after having three beers it’s only fair that they are not prosecuted and that furthermore the alcohol breath limit must be lifted.
Try that in Court if Labour’s defence stands. Or (I can’t believe I’m saying this in a democracy) they change the law.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Murray,
Well that was quite reasoned for you. Yes DPF’s equivalence with murder is silly. Must be late at night and the poor guy has had a long day.
Now imagine if with three beers under the belt, you had passed the breathalyser twice before. And then on the third occasion you failed because “we have lowered the limit, and no we didn’t decide by how much until AFTER we had tested you”.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
“Is Hugh Rennie QC, the same stipendiary magistrate jailed for perjury in New Plymouth, circa 1968?”
Unless it used to be the practice to elevate editors of Salient to the bench within months of their leaving university, I’m going to go with not.
I also don’t imagine that too many people with “QC” appended to their names in 1968 are still actively practising law…
September 12th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Logix
It’s burt not Murrry, if your attention to detail there say anything, and it would appear so.
The law has not changed, they have ‘got away’ with it twice before, 1 more than my three beers example. No more no less. Factors such as food consumption, duration of time said beers were consumed over, state of health of the liver, hydration levels and possibly most appropriately the accuracy of the testing equipment. These would be the factors, no more no less. The conviction would stand, such a defence would be laughed at.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Furthermore logix the PM is acting like a certain x-Police commissioner allegedly avoiding a breath test… And we know what she insists happens to people who act like that !
September 13th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Graeme. Rennie was very young when appointed to the bench. The resemblance is splitting-image and the name is not that common. Perhaps its a son or, just uncanny coincidence.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:16 am
If you are correct Paul, then he is clearly well qualified to manage his client.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Don Brash needs to win the election on election day
Maybe he does not understand that
September 13th, 2006 at 2:49 am
Try s26(1) of the NZBORA: “No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.” While they’re not facing conviction, the same principle applies: Labour’s use of its Parliamentary Services budget doesn’t seem to have violated the rules as widely understood at the time, and it would thus be grossly unfair to punish them.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:11 am
The Editorial in the Herald today was pathetic. Factually wrong. These socialist journalists will only get it when their members start disappearing into Clarkkk’s gulag. Sad.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:04 am
I/S – The principle you quoted was that someone should not be convicted for something made illegal after they did it. Not that they shouldn’t be convicted if they *didn’t know* it was illegal when they did it.
The principal still stands – just as in IRD tax cases – if the person broke the law, knowingly or not, it was still a breach and they will cop the punishment.
Knowledge of the law may be entered as a consideration in sentancing, but it has no bearing on the ruling.
September 13th, 2006 at 8:07 am
In fact it is odd how the Labourites that bring up “non-clarity of the rules” as a defence ignore that in all other areas of the law the only way to have clarity made is to have a case brought.
Tax law is the classic example again where companies frequently have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to bring a case for the specific outcome of having case law enacted that is used as a point of clarification.
But they still have to live with any consequences of having had that case made as well if it does go against them.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I disagree with DPF. See my analysis:
> LAWS179: “Killing Miss Muggins: Officially Induced Error”
September 13th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Damn. The jigs up burt, they’ve caught on to the fact that we are one in same.
Any idea where we left the socks this morning?
Either that or of his reading skills are rivaled only by his comprehension abilities.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:03 am
A weak analogy is like a leaky screw driver.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
pantera13