The right to silence
Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Labour MP Russell Fairbrother have called for a review of the right to remain silent if charged with a crime.
This follows the acquittal of Chris Kahui for the murder of his twin sons.
Mr Fairbrother said New Zealand today was different from old English society, which developed the law to protect powerless suspects “against the overwhelming power of the state”.
New Zealand’s human rights-centred law had created many rights which did not exist less than a century ago.
So because we have some more rights, let’s take one away to compensate.
Sadly National doesn’t kick the idea to death, as they should:
National Party justice spokesman Simon Power said he would look at any proposal tabled in Parliament.
“It is fair to say some issues have arisen in the last few days that would warrant a further focus.”
The right to silence is a constutitonal right in the United States. It is also in the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
Look, I hate the fact that some of the absolute scum of society get off, and the fact the right to silence may sometimes help them get off. But we should not be convicting people just because they don’t want to answer every question the Police ask them.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Only to a certain extent.
I think what we’re talking about here is the right to refuse to answer questions from the Police. In the US, as in New Zealand, people can be forced to turn up to Court and answer questions, and in the US they have grand juries – which can require answers in an investigative manner. You can refuse to answer only if doing so would incriminate you.
Issues such as that which raised this – the Kahui/King Family refusing to answer questions that might incriminate their family members – are not protected by the fifth amendment, or by section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
It’s a right of course, but ancient and arising from the common law – more akin to a free speech than a trial right.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
What puzzles me about this case is that if a group of people rob a bank and somebody is killed in the process then all are responsible, yet here a family with collective responsibility for the children are treated indiviodually …. what am I missing?
May 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Mr Fairbrother said New Zealand today was different from old English society, which developed the law to protect powerless suspects “against the overwhelming power of the state”.
As I look at New Zealand today I see that the power of the state is far more overwhelming than could possibly have been conceived in Old English society. Does Mr Fairbrother think that the opposite is the case?
We accept compromises in our democratic system and some of those compromises result in shitty situations like the Kahui’s, or 300+ deaths each year on the roads. But that is preferable to a theoretically perfect system of rules perfectly enforced.
Over the years we’ve edged closer to a police state in narrow areas like traffic and child care, largely because of the populist desire for ‘something’ to be done – usually by the ‘gummint’ – and the ever present desire of politicians of all stripes to be seen as relevant and useful. The National party’s response is, sadly, entirely predictable.
But the government and all its institutions are not a society. Individuals are, and they need to stand up to cheap, popular and incrementally dangerous suggestions like this.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
In Britian, they have tempered the right of silence by allowing the Judge and Jury to make adverse inferences from their silence in court as well as telling people when they are arrested that it’ll be a good idea to say something now if its something you want to rely upon in court. Both these do not seem to be infringements on the right to silence.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The British amendment of the right to silence is well worth examining. We must remember that the abolition of the inference is something that happened in the period just after WW1- we will be removing a piece of judicial law making.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
A piece of judicial law-making enshrined in the US Constitution, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Damn those judges and their legislation!
You have the right to remain silent, but if you exercise that right you’ll go to prison. Yeah.
Something is not a right if you can be punished (whether directly or indirectly) for exercising it.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Graeme; The blanket refusal by the cunning Kahui’s to co-operate is obvious that they’re guilty by their callous actions. These despicable homicidal scum of the earth might think they’re clever invoking their common law right –protected from self incrimination, however in the real world the accused are viewed as a close-knit murderous family group guilty of “hiding behind a web of lies and deception”.
I see the super hairdresser Minister of injustice and the useless Law commissioner speaking up after another stuff up from a totally lost the plot soft cock politicized corrupt police force. Crown prosecutions are mentally unwell. I mean to say they employed Capill the kid fiddler!
The right to life of those twin babies far out weighs the protection offered by a toilet paper Bill of Rights! Pity the justice system didn’t have a moral conscience as the Kahui’s sure as hell haven’t got one!
I wonder if the Maori Party have a conscience as their silence over this is typical from a bunch of hypocrites that wank on about Australian child abuse.
Get real you moronic fools and address the serious issues of infanticide and child abuse that is running rampant amongst the Maori population.Stand up and be effective Jake the Warrior. Yeah right!!
The New Zealand law system is totally fucked and that is why Judges like John Hansen says it needs a “radical rethink”
It is absurd not to agree Graeme…..
May 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I was rather bemused by the headline run by the Herald: Ex-PM: Let’s look at the right to silence Sorry, but does this strike anyone else as a rather spurious claim to authority, based on a position Palmer held for a few months two decades ago? I guess ‘President of the Law Commission’ sounds a lot less impressive, but is certainly more relevant.
And given his professional background, one might think Fairbrother would be aware it’s totally irrelevant whether he thinks Kahui is “truly innocent” or not; a jury, after consideration of all the evidence, delivered a verdict of not guilty. Perhaps we should be looking the judicial activism of the media instead of abolishing the right to silence. Here’s the uncomfortable truth, as I see it: The Police and prosecution had a weak case (and I don’t think increasing media hysterics about the length of the investigation helped matters any), and as far as I can tell the defence established reasonable doubt. Perhaps Sir Geoffrey and the Police Association would like to weaken that standard of evidence for murder cases as well? Hell, why don’t we just say screw the rule of law altogether and turn the boys in blue into judge, jury and executioner?
May 24th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Ah yes, D4J, and not so long ago in the ‘real world’ it was ‘obvious’ that epileptics were possessed by demons or wtiches, and should be killed to protect the community. Please have a little think about why the rule of law is superior to the rule of the mob.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:20 am
A piece of judicial law-making enshrined in the US Constitution, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Damn those judges and their legislation!
You could try reading those references. The right to silence is not enshrined in the US Constitution. What is enshrined is the right against self-incrimination yet there is nothing to prevent judicial courts from making adverse inferences about that silence. Likewise the word “silence” does not appear anywhere within the NZ Bill of Rights (which is copying language from the ICCPR). s23(4)b of the BORA does give the right to refrain from making statements and to be informed of that right while s25(d) of the same simply has the right not to be compelled as a witness or to confess guilt during your own trial. There is nothing about the right not to have the judge or jury make adverse assumptions about your silence.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“Hell, why don’t we just say screw the rule of law altogether and turn the boys in blue into judge, jury and executioner?”
Craig – police already are in the REAL WORLD .Ask any white father who is accused of domestic violence or child abuse. Oh to be a bro Maori.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:31 am
D4J
“Craig – police already are.Ask any white father who is accused of domestic violence or child abuse. Oh to be a bro Maori.”
While you often sound like the classic example of a “single issue nutter” I do hope that you are not suggesting that the police should go soft on those charged with child abuse or domestic violence.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
There’s also nothing in the right to freedom of expression about not being able to be sent to prison for speaking.
It’s implicit – as Courts around the world have held: Something is not a right if you can be punished (whether directly or indirectly) for exercising it.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I am far from a “single issue nutter” big blouse. Had many police beatings yourself have you? Been forced to admit guilt Mr big blouse? Had your heart medication flushed down the toilet by cops big blouse?
I have no time for guilty animals who take advantage of vulnerable children. Get a grip blouse, as you give me the shits with your cowardly insinuations.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Screw it lets jsut remove habeas corpus because modern New Zealand is nothing like the England of King John.
Well is it?
This asumption of inocence… thats just not working either. Lets biff that too.
What the hell is this crap? First democracy and free speech now we just decide to dismantle our justice system because we’re not getting the results we want? Is this some kind of test to find out how much crap the population is willing to sit back for?
In this case the right to scilence has NOTHING to do with what happened. PC “cultural sensitivity” bullshit gave time to a group to come up with enough bullshit to muddy the waters.
One law for all is all thats needed here. And ENFORCING it.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
There’s also nothing in the right to freedom of expression about not being able to be sent to prison for speaking.
Wrong, on at least two grounds (a freedom means not being punished for speaking and b you can be punished for certain types of speech).
Something is not a right if you can be punished (whether directly or indirectly) for exercising it.
Plenty of people have disagreed with the “indirectly” – the courts of great britain through judicial and legislative means do allow presumption of guilt if the accused chooses to remain silent and their stance is thoroughly compatible with the ICCPR. Even in the states, the Miranda warning was felt for a long time to be too broad by many justices and it was only because it had become so entrenched in police procedure that the Supreme Court narrowly upheld it when they revisited the issue (Rehnquist CJ who hated Miranda nevertheless voted for it so long as he got to write the judgment casting its legality in narrow terms)
May 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Wow….I had no idea it was that easy to get a reaction from you D4J.
What you fail to realise is that your rabid and abusive responses to anybody who dares question you does not help your cause one little bit.
While I do not doubt your motives you honestly come across as a very bitter, violent and twisted person, I am not surprised that you have been arrested and I am not surprised the police have obviously had reason to restrain you.
I am not sure that you set a fantastic example for children and frankly given the level of emotion (violence) in your posts would suggest that the authorities have every right to question you.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:04 am
In fact two headlines in the Herald:
“Ex-PM: Let’s look at the right to silence”
“Party candidate on net sex charges” –
“A former election candidate for the Maori Party has been accused of grooming young teenage girls on the internet and meeting them for sex”.
Rule #1 must be identify any political link. – but at least they are not discriminating
May 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am
This is populist rubbish on the part of Fairbrother and Palmer and has nothing to do with our ‘rights based legislation’ at all. The fact is that a jury has been guilty of acquitting a man that a large part of the population thought should be convicted. This has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with retribution. Do you notice that with the Louise Nicholas aqcuittals it was the previous history of the accused (in that case simply the fact that two had a previous conviction for rape) there was again huge protest and the President of the Law Commission, one Geoffrey Palmer, is suddenly commissioned to look loosening the rules governing when previous convictions should be brought into evidence. Now it is the right to silence. We already have draft legislation on expanding the police right to search our homes and intercept our phone calls. Make no mistake, as each right ‘hinders’ someone being convicted, that right will be diminished by Law Commission reports and then legislation.
I can say that, as a lawyer, the Law Commission is considered a complete and total waste of time by most of the Profession.
Anyway, those ‘rights’ that Geoffrey Palmer referred to are not binding and can be ‘read down’ by the Courts. And they are, especially in search cases, where the police are often allowed to completely ignore a persons ‘rights’ and do what they want. Of course, it only gets examined if a matter gets to court, and in that case the Court of Appeal gives us a ‘balancing’ test of rights versus the importance of the evidence obtained. Make no mistake, we have a pro-police/crown judiciary and defence wins are actually relatively rare.
We as a nation need to decide whether the rights of the person to remain silent (and we have the right to remain silent in all circumstances, not just when it will incriminate us), to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to free speech (which in Britain is fast becoming the right to free speech as long as no-one is offended- should we follow that as well?), to a defence lawyer, to put the prosecution to proof- all of these are rights that could be easily overcome if we follow populist politics. In the States, for example, what lawyers call the ‘breathing’ test is all that is needed to see if a person’s defence lawyer is competent- is your lawyer breathing? If so, then you have adequate representation. Doesn’t matter if the lawyer sleeps through the trial, is drunk or a doesn’t know what is going on. The mere presence of a defence lawyer is enough. People have been executed on a conviction, even though their lawyer slept through the trial!
Changes to such a vital set of laws because of populist politics is exactly why defence lawyers have fought to keep those rights for their clients.
Unless you are happy to accept that you might go to prison, even though you are innocent, all in the name of reducing crime. If you are, then lets reduce or get rid of the rights we currently have. I can tell you that the Law Commission is indeed willing for innocent people to be imprisoned as a consequence. But just remember that that person might be you.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am
As I see it, the Kahui case has nothing to do with “the right to silence”. It was Police reluctance to use the laws they had because of political intervention and they exercised no force. Plain and simple. So now we have a politician ignoring the corruption of an investigation by his own kind, and saying it was really the fault of the suspects that they didn’t talk? Hardly. Palmer just isn’t that stupid to believe his own spin.
This is just another Labour guided missile to reduce freedom in NZ. The pattern is clear. Once again they hope the public are just too hysterical and idiotic to notice. Plan failed.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:09 am
At the risk of my reputation big bruv, fyi, I have full custody of my teenage daughter and both of us have been denied the right to tell the judicial system the truthful situation since family estrangement which occurred in 2001. The Kahui’s maintained their right to silence so they could get off scott free, however when the shoe is on the other foot, a white middle aged father does not get such privileges offered to him by the judicial system or any legal aid lawyer. Fyi , I work with families and children 24/7 and find to appalling that your smear my emotion as the ravings of a lunatic.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
F E Smith
Thanks for that, you make some good points.
I am still of the opinion that the government, the police and Pita Sharples in particular have got off bloody lightly.
The police should be shot for taking cultural sensitivity into account when investigating this case, the government (Labour) should be called to account for letting (insisting) that PC infests our police force and Sharples should bloody well resign for his part in the conspiracy of silence.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Oh yes, D4J, I’m sure this was all a jolly wheeze for Chris Kahui. I don’t actually want to jack this thread into being all about you, but one might think you of all people would be leery of trial by mob sentiment — ’cause if was up to people here, I think I could find a majority who’d have you committed to a locked ward in a New York minute.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Craig, the issue here is simple, does the right to silence prejudice natural justice, as the thought of the guilty baby killer remaining in the community is detrimental to the public of New Zealand. It’s hardy in their best interests?
May 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Whoever is writing headlines for the Herald apparently isn’t terribly discriminating about accuracy. When your headline (“Party candidate”) is directly contradicted by the first four words of the story (“a former election candidate”) someone needs to be pulled into an editor’s office and told to pull their socks up.
With all due respect, Dad, I don’t think its in anyone’s best interests when we have trial by media and convictions based on your assumptions. As I said above, it would be nice
And for the record, I wouldn’t trust Chris Kahui — or anyone in that family — to feed my cat, let alone care for any child of mine. But while that may make them a pack of repulsive douchebags, that’s not the point. The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law, that Chris Kahui was guilty of the charges laid against him. Or to put it bluntly: The Police went to court with a weak case that got picked apart by the defence, and the jury didn’t buy it.
I can understand why the Police want to put their spin on criticism of their handing of the case. (Criticism, naturally, coming from people who won’t engage in any self-criticism of whether weeks of increasingly hysterical stories demanding charges be laid against someone, anyone were helpful.) But I don’t see why basic checks and balances on the power of the state should go down the toilet because cops feel hard done by.
It’s also pretty sad, but not surprising, that defending the rule of law is now ‘political correctness gone mad’.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Craig
I didnt think Id need to remind Rule #2 – “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story”
May 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
D4J:
“Oh to be a bro Maori.”
What, youd like a couple of shots from the taser too loosen you up before questioning?
Murray:
“This asumption of inocence… thats just not working either. Lets biff that too.”
Don’t worry, the Sensible Sentacing Trust is working on it
I think it is good that in the face of public opinion they are willing to review it, hopefully this review will confirm that the way it currently works is in most cases the best way to go about it, and that the Kahui case was regrettable but the law need not be changed.
From my experience the police push the rules quite far, especially with teenagers, to the extent of acting outside the law in some cases. I wouldn’t want the police given any extra rights in terms of the way they deal with suspects
May 24th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
When I look at my two daughters and my six grandchildren, all of whom are loved and cherished and I look at the two poor little Kahui babes and consider their short sad lives and look at the photos of Chris, Macsyna and their whanau’s and consider that the lawyers are going for compo all I can say is what sort of planet do we live on that allows creatures like these to breed. Creatures in question being the Kahui’s and Lawyer’s.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
DPF: Sadly National doesn’t kick the idea to death, as they should:
You got this with a party that has no principles. People like Simon Power, Nick Smith and Bill English can happily argue every principle. The principle they most likely to have is the one that gets them closest to the answer “yes, we too” when a journo asks them a question.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Johnboy, you are not the only one who would love to see the scum sterilized. Bring back selective eugenics, which sadly fell out of favour a few decades ago, because a few lunatics took the principle a shade too far.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Sounds OK to me mara but I think the lawyers would put up a helluva fight once they spotted the castrating tongs.
May 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Take away the right to silence? Hell no. This isn’t Cuba, North Korea, Loas, China, Burma or Iran. Taking away another freedom will not stop child abuse! Want to stop something like the death of the Kahui twins happening again? Take a good, long hard look at the welfare system we have created which encourges lack of responsibility and happily walking away from ones responsibilities sure in the knowledge that the state will pay for any mess you’ve made. The dead Kahui twins are this systems ultimate end product.
May 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
You gotta see the sick irony of Lorraine Smiths complaint. “The Police were slow to give vital information”
May 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I don’t believe that was ever suggested.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
No doubt sooner or later there will be a lot of money paid out to a lot of people for stress, trauma, fause arrest, imtimidation.
Don’t worry, the Govt will pay.
This means the Taxpayer will pay out more of my money and your money for a bunch of Maori drug addicts.
You legal aid lawyers suck big time.
The only reason the Jury gave the not guilty verdict in ten minutes is because they where sick of Maori BULLSHIT.
They have had six weeks of lies and just wanted out.
The murderers will end up living in places like Pauanui or Gulf Harbour, do you want them there?
This disfunctional system works well if you play your cards right and wait. Bash some kids and just don’t talk. Easy way to make lots of money.
Ahhhh, only if you use the alternative form of Justice, not the white man’s form.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
While I don’t think getting rid of the right to remain silent would have necessarily have helped in the Kahui case, I’m not convinced of the need for this right.
As I understand it, the right is very old dating back to the days when most people couldn’t read or write, so needed more protection.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“No doubt sooner or later there will be a lot of money paid out to a lot of people for stress, trauma, fause arrest, imtimidation.”
No, there will be no money paid out whatsoever. The Courts order costs only in the rarest of cases, and this isn’t it. As there was a case to answer, Kahui will get no compensation at all.
“Don’t worry, the Govt will pay.”
Never does. Even if your defence lawyer is privately instructed and not doing the case on legal aid.
“This means the Taxpayer will pay out more of my money and your money for a bunch of Maori drug addicts.”
The right to defend criminal allegations is not dependent on race, gender or anything else. This is nothing to do with race. Anyway, and correct me if I am wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Kahui is a drug addict at all. In fact, a large number of drug users these days are European. In my experience, Maori more often have trouble with alcohol.
“You legal aid lawyers suck big time.”
Why? We have a legal and professional obligation to defend anyone who comes to us for assistance. Does this mean that you disapprove of defence lawyers? Or simply those who help people that are unable to instruct us privately, i.e poor people? I know I couldn’t afford to defend a murder charge privately. I doubt many of us could, seeing it would cost anywhere between $75,000 and $200,000 to do so. I take it that if you are charged with a crime you will save us the hassle and cost of a trial and plead guilty, whether you are or not, dispensing with the need for a lawyer? Or is it just non-Maori who are entitled to have a lawyer?
“The only reason the Jury gave the not guilty verdict in ten minutes is because they where sick of Maori BULLSHIT”
You’ve asked the jurors, have you? Which is, of course, an offence in itself. Or is it simply that they acquitted a man you wanted convicted? Or a Maori you wanted convicted?
“They have had six weeks of lies and just wanted out.”
OK, so who was lying? The Crown? The Police? The medical experts? Most of this trial was based on medical evidence that the family had nothing to do with.
“The murderers will end up living in places like Pauanui or Gulf Harbour, do you want them there?”
You don’t know where the person who killed the Kahui twins will end up living.
“This disfunctional system works well if you play your cards right and wait. Bash some kids and just don’t talk. Easy way to make lots of money.”
The dysfunctional system works some of the time and not on others. But it is the best we have. Bashing kids doesn’t get you any money at all and usually means you cop a prison sentence. Come on, tell us where there is money involved?
“Ahhhh, only if you use the alternative form of Justice, not the white man’s form.”
The jury system is the white man’s form of justice.
Anthony: from that fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia: “The Latin maxim nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare (‘no man is bound to accuse himself’) became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th century England. People coming before these tribunals were forced to swear the ex officio oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing what they were being accused of. This created what has been termed the cruel trilemma whereby these accused faced the prospect of either perjury (which was believed to be a mortal sin), harsh punishment for contempt of court or betraying their “natural” duty of self-preservation. After the parliamentary revolutions of the late 1600s, according to some historical accounts, the right to silence became established in the law as a reaction of the people to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts.”
Don’t forget that until 1890 or so the defendant could not give evidence on his own behalf. Indeed, the justice system then was immeasurably more corrupt than now!
The problem is really encapsulated in the saying that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The Police are only human and if we give them untrammeled powers they will use them in any way they see fit. Now, that is all very well until it is you who is the subject of an abuse of those powers. Take away the rights we have today and you get a police state. And don’t tell me that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, because Arthur Allan Thomas had done nothing wrong, so the Police manufactured the evidence to put him in court. I myself have seen the police lie in the witness box in order to obtain a conviction, and that on more than one occasion. If the Police only operated within the rules set down by Parliament, then I would have no problem with the idea of getting rid of our rights, but they don’t so I object to such a move.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Oh, and don’t think that because Lorraine Smith is laying a complaint that means Kahui will get compensation. The complaint is over procedural matters that the police did not do their duty properly on. Nothing to do with whether he was charged or not.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I am also very disappointed in National’s “me too” response. Knee jerk legislation may gain votes but a t what cost to society? How may remember the reason for the anti father Domestic Violence Act? There was a one tragic case of a father killing himself and his three children. This resulted in the many fathers being denied reasonable access to their children with no proper evidence that they will be a threat to them.
The police handling of the Kahui case was shocking. What is needed is a shake up in a corrupt and incompetent police force not further erosion of the rights of those accused of a crime. The same thing happened in this case as the Bain and Thomas cases. Once the police decide who they think is guilty they ignore all evidence to the contrary and do not disclose it to the defence in a timely fashion as required by law.
If the defence had been made are of the mother’s confession and the telephone records that were in conflict to her story the case may not have gone to trial.
I did not go to Court to see the trail. However, just listening to the news it certainly appeared to me that there was at the very least a reasonable doubt.
There should be an inquiry into the police handling of this case. If the police did not follow procedure regarding disclosure of evidence they should be disciplined. If that does not happen it will happen time and time again and innocent people will be convicted.
When I came to this country over forty years ago the Police Force was respected and relatively free from corruption compared to over other countries. This is not longer the case thanks mainly to ne individual – Helen Clark. She systematically corrupted the Police Force started with her lies that result in Doone losing his job.
If anyone doubts what I say read “Absolute Power”.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
This story in today’s SST shows the dangers of making assumptions regarding murder verdicts based on media or police reports.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4558377a6442.html (not sure how to make that a hyperlink)
The jury finds out a lot more than we do through the media, and the police only release information that suits their theory of the case. Don’t be so quick to judge a jury verdict without knowing the facts.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
This story in today’s SST shows the dangers of jumping to conclusions on a jury verdict based solely on police or media information.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4558377a6442.html
May 25th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“This story in today’s SST shows the dangers of jumping to conclusions on a jury verdict based solely on police or media information.”
Hey Mr defense lawyer, tell that to a falsely accused father sitting on remand in C block for two counts rape on minor. The jury convicted even though the complainant admitted in the witness box that she was coached by mum into making the story up. The Legal aid lawyer did his best, but didn’t call any defence witnesses, which I found rather odd? Juries do get it wrong.
The father in the case you linked is lucky the jury saw through the deception tactics employed by unscrupulous police prosecution, detectives and crown law mouth pieces.
May 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hi Dad, you’ll get no argument from me on that. I’ve seen it myself just in the last few weeks, although we had the good fortune to get our guy off. Still, he spent more than a couple of months on remand until he got bail, all because a family member made up a story for revenge. Still, I see the Crown is wanting to appeal the Gwaze conviction. They just won’t give up. Mind you , they have never seen an innocent person yet….