Veitch arrested
The Herald reports Tony Veitch has been arrested on seven charges:
Broadcaster Tony Veitch has been arrested on six charges of assault between 2002 and 2006 and one count of injuring with reckless disregard. …
The charge of male assaults female carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for each count, while injuring with reckless disregard carries five years.
He will appear in Auckland District Court today.
I think it is good he has been charged, because issues of alleged domestic violence are criminal issues. This is the forum it should have gone to originally – a judicial one. I say that without indicating any belief in guilt, innocence or mitigating factors.
Martin Hirst at Ethical Martini blogged on the growing PR war between the affected parties. I am not surprised Veitch’s wife and family have started to hit back through the media, as they almost had no choice considering the campaign against Veitch that had dominated for weeks and months.
While I am not surprised, and understand why they are fighting back in public, I remain very uncomfortable at how the whole thing has played out in public. This is why it is good there will be a court process to determine the facts.
The conduct of the Police is also becoming an issue. First there was the apparent tip off to TV3 of the search on Veitch’s house, and then the accidentially recorded message from an officer who seemed to be taking an unprofessional enjoyment in bringing Veitch down.
If Veitch assaulted Dunne-Powell, he should be found guilty of the appropriate charges. However the punishment should take into account the wider picture, which is still very murky.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
And when are the Police going to arrest the former girlfriend for verbal assault on Veitch Ohh thats right Verbal assault no matter how emotionally damaging is condoned by the samne sickos who happily put the literal boot in.
No excuses for what Veitch is alleged to have done and no excuses for what the ex girl friend is alleged to have done .
Problem is the 2 faced legal system we have to put up with
August 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
thsi is going to get very nasty now… as the gloves will be off (no irony intended) I imagine Veitch’s crowd will paint Dunne_powell as a right nutter. Which I am leaning toward believing she is.
No complaints to police… then suddenly he assualted her over 4 years… not just the 1 event.
My prediction. Veitch will win. Police will look like fools (again) Dunne-Powell will come out as a bitter twisted ex.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Mr Vietch’s arrest was enevitable in view of the intense interest the media has in his past.
Hopefully things will quieten down now the court process has started, although every time he appears to enter a plea or for a mention prior to any trial there will be a media scramble.
I also hope that some consideration is given to the means by which the $150,000.00 “compensation” was extracted from him. Section 237 of the Crimes Act which covers blackmail may be relevant.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Or everyone could just stop talking about it and let the legal system do its thing.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Oh, mate… how disingenuous can you get? She’s already been accused of being a bunny-boiling extortionist around here, and while Veitch’s proxies in the MSM have to be a little more careful it’s impossible not to read the subtext that’s been planted.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’d be curious to know if “searching every draw in the house” is normal for domestic violence investigation – one that hasn’t ended in death at least. The chance of justice departed the moment the vultures got their hands on the uninvestigated story and now we get to see the circus show played out in slo-mo for however long it takes to go to trial. I wouldn’t have picked Mr. Ramble Live as a gutter snipe, but of all the stories to rush across town for, he picked that one.
And on a related note:
That domestic violence ad with the blood trail and the bloodied mobile phone asking people to dob in their neighbours, even if they merely suspect DV, is a shocker – and not in a “let’s beat crime together” way either.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
daddy in law will front with lawyers and wads of cash , cannot have his daughter,married to a women basher, not a good look in his clubs, and social scene.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Holy crap they went to town on his ass.
regardless of the merits do we think the reaction would have been the same for Joe Blogalosi of Otara who wasn’t a public figue who had just been on the recieving end of the medias complete and undivided attention?
August 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I suspect Helen and her feminist cronies are all set to make Veitch the whipping boy in their attempt to get re-elected
August 18th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Like Chris Kahui, Murray?
August 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
You mean railroad Veitch and let a blackmailer profit
[DPF: If he hit her, that carries criminal consequences not just monetary. If she blackmailed him that is also a criminal issue, but I have not seen any proof of that. She was, beyond almost any doubt, quite seriously injured and unable to work for some time - it is worth remembering that]
August 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Chris Kahui got off because of a gutless family that cared more about protecting themselves than 2 three month old twins.
And Chris Kahui got the attention, because it was about the murder of two 3 month old babies, which DID happen, not just a media beat up, where its all been about misinformation.
Veitch has already paid a far higher price than Kahui, before charges were even laid.
Someone in THAT family got away with murder, twice. And we as taxpayers covered them for it.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Not the same thing, Craig. Dunne-Powell isn’t dead or two babies – that was the media fodder, the death of two babies. Joe Blogaliosi from Otara wouldn’t have been treated like this. Now would be a good time for Veitch to claim Dalmation cultural insentivity, so he can go on holiday and have the police hold up their investigation and so defeat their own efforts. Is his family name Dalmation? I dunno, just making it up – works for the PC crowd.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Chris Kahui who GOT the medias complete and undivided attention Craig?
Different example please.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
How many demerits did you get on the ‘death on the mountain’ thread?
August 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Craig, I find your moral posturing and righteous indignation condescending and arrogant at the best of times but to use the Kahui case as any sort of comparison in this instance is ridiculous, especially given all of the scorn you have poured on people for daring compare Herr Helen with Sir Bob.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I wonder if anyone in Labour ever even considered the possibility of running a positive campaign based on policies stephen.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
You mean railroad Veitch and let a blackmailer profit
No. I mean we don’t get to decide his guilt or innocence just because the guy’s on TV.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
DPF wrote: This is why it is good there will be a court process to determine the facts.
Hmmm, your faith in the legal (as opposed to justice) system is somewhat touching. There are many cases where the Courts are unable to determine the facts. Sometimes an innocent person is convicted; other times an offender is acquitted. But the “facts” in this case may be little more than he said-she said.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The odds are stacked against a guilty verdict, because the Crown has such overwhelming resources for putting together a case, and as a society we value an innocent’s liberty over a guilty person’s punishment.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I’d imagine they have advertised the odd policy from time to time Murray…
August 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Erm
What Policies would they be Murray?
I’ve looked and I’ve looked and I’ve looked everywhere but those policies are posted I cannot find where!
ROTFPML
August 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Officers “taking an unprofessional interest” in “bringing someone down”. Hmmm… sounds more than vaguely familiar. The NZ Police is riddled with people who see the force as an opportunity to make up for all those times when they were laughed at at shool for not having the answer when called on by the teacher. Thus “smart arses” who rise to any prominence in the community might as well have targets on their backs. Similarly anyone earning enought to be driving a “flash car” etc. And at the top of the list is anyone who’s been charged but found not guilty, or against whom their “case” has collapsed.
Which is not to say Veitch doesn’t deserve to be investigated and to get whatever are his just desserts, based on the facts.
But that answerphone message is a small window into a much bigger picture of a Police force full of people with chips on their shoulder and a score to settle. It needs more than a quick apology and “move on, nothing to see here” because it’s an insight into the reason for considerable injustice and yet more evidence we need a wide-ranging anti-corruption commission in New Zealand.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Interesting comments Rex – I saw somewhere at the weekend that there are going to be some interesting announcements from the IPCA this week after their investigation of police corruption in Dunedin (as documented by Ian Wishart). And interestingly, the former DS who Annette King used to try and discredit Wishart is said to be one of those about whom there will be an adverse finding.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The ploicies of inventing a new tax every time Doc Sullen takes a dump, the dismantling of democracy to ensure eternal rule and the legalising everything they get caught at of course.
Duh, what banana republic have you been watching evolve?
August 18th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Right on Rex When the NZ Police and Judicary are able to regain the respect and trust of the citizens then they and others can start to talk about letting them get on with their job.
Until that time citizens have every right and in fact a responsibility to speak up and speak out.
Trust us we know what we are doing dont cut the mustard anymore.
So far the Police havent exactly covered themselves in glory in this matter and probably provided the defence with sone serious ammo.
there are at least 3 sides to this story His side Her side and the truth And all are mutually exclusive.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I wonder why the coppers searched every nook and cranny of his home. Did they have a warrant or did they just ask? If they had a warrant, what evidence would have been used to get it? It sounds very strange.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Dr Robotnik:
Oh, piss off. I know the fashionable meme around here is that poor Tony Veitch is a victim of a psychotic blackmailer, Chris Kahui got off because of political correctness gone mad (rather than a jury that considered the evidence and didn’t come up with the verdict you’d like), and the rule of law only applies when its to your liking. But really…
August 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I am intrigued about the search warrant and the box of documents being removed – what was that all about in a DV case. It suggests to me there is more to come in this case.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
You does the crime, you should be prepared to do the time. No matter what his ex was/is like, there’s no excuse for beating the shit out of her.
IV2 – I just hope TGIF is right about those allegations…Labour above 30% in the polls is far too high given the crimes they’ve committed and got away with! LOL
August 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Really what?
I have never offered an opinion on the guilt, or otherwise, of either Chris Kahui or Tony Veitch. I have never offered an opinion on either person, I have never met either.
The cold hard fact is that Veitch is being tried, in public, on the basis of rumour and speculation and the level of police resource being dedicated to a historical case, based on unknown evidence, stinks of political involvement.
Yet when someone questions whether the investigation and outcome would be the same if some unknown, unimportant non-celeb from the back of bumfuck were the suspect (and subject to intense media speculation) you mince in, Lord Righteous on the Pompous Pony, and offer up the murder of two defenceless premature babies whose extended family created their own publicity by refusing to co-operate with a police investigation?
August 18th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
It is of course simply unheard of for non-celebs from the back of bumfuck to be hauled before the courts on domestic violence charges – it just never happens. Clearly, poor Mr Vietch is the victim of political interference. Those corrupt Liarbore Klarkian Helengrad Stalinist bastards!
August 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Adolf, goodgod et al:
Seems pretty clear that the police have reason to believe that there was a conspiracy to conceal the truth, and that is what the search warrant was based on: past correspondence; confidential agreements; legal documents etc.
Like with many domestic violence cases (including the other horrific one mentioned above in fact, not to be connected with this one) the truth can go to ground between both perps and victims, making it very difficult to come up with charges that stick in a court of law.
If Veitch has conspired to hide what he did, there may be a trail of evidence of that. I’m sure it will be used against the integrity of his character at some point, if he fabricated layers of Stories to hide The Facts.
Not saying that he necessarily did, just that it seems clear that the police may be looking for evidence of this, and they may well have good reason…
Dr Robotnik you are crackers if you think this case is a political conspiracy, rather than what it appears: these are historic charges of violence catching up with someone. Just because you don’t know the evidence certainly doesn’t mean there isn’t any. Maybe you’re not entitled to know about it, which is fair enough, and still doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Newtalk zb 5.00pm robot talkback host seems pissed of at TV3 ,and the female cop(who dosnt give a shit) after been stood down, veitch could survive SUE every one and disappear, but hes a aggressive little shit(RUNT) and will be hungout to dry.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The police have chosen not to prosecute a self confessed paedophile. One of Labour apologist, Cindy Kiro supports their incompetence. We now have someone suspected of a political crime under this feminazi government – assault on a woman -and they pull out all stops.
We have a government that purports to care about children but they are silent on this clear case of sexual abuse of an 11 year old girl. Anne Tolley of National raised the issue but there is a limit to what a opposition party can do.
It certainly appears that there is a good chance of political involvement in the Veitch case. I was out of the country when the case broke but I heard Clark had something to say about it. Maybe someone else heard what she had to say. Men being nearly 100% to blame for all domestic violence is part Labour party idealogy.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=146&objectid=10478186
Minor has baby: no charges laid
5:00AM Sunday November 25, 2007
By Stephen Cook
Police chose not to lay charges against a 21-year-old who fathered a child with a 13-year-old girl – even though he confessed to police he had been having sex with a minor.
The pregnancy was highlighted last week by Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who used the case to illustrate “the wall of silence” protecting people who committed child abuse.
The girl had started having sex from the age of 11 and Kiro claimed that no one in her family would come forward and shed any light on who was responsible.
However, the Herald on Sunday understands the father turned himself in to police but was given only a verbal warning by officers.
Rape Crisis is demanding answers about why police never charged the man with having sex with a minor. It says the police’s failure to do so sends extremely worrying mixed messages to teenagers.
A conviction for having sex with someone under the age of 12 carries a maximum prison term of 14 years. Having sex with someone under the age of 16 carries a 10-year maximum prison term.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Sources involved with the girl’s family told the Herald on Sunday the man had been involved in a sexual relationship with the girl since she was 11. When Child Youth and Family (CYF) became aware the girl was pregnant at 12, she was removed from the mother’s care and placed with a family member. Four months ago the girl gave birth. She was 13.
It is understood the 21-year-old is still involved in a relationship with the girl and has supervised visits with his son. During the day the baby is cared for by a family member, allowing the girl to remain at school.
A source told the Herald on Sunday the girl’s mother was aware her daughter’s relationship was of a sexual nature, but chose to do nothing about it. For five months, the girl had managed to hide the pregnancy, and authorities became involved only after being alerted to the case by the girl’s doctor.
It was then that CYF intervened. CYF is understood to still be monitoring the girl, but with the refusal of police to act in the case it is hamstrung over taking any action about her relationship with the baby’s father.
Asked about police protocols in the case of someone having sex with a minor, a spokesperson at Police National Headquarters said charges were laid only if there was sufficient evidence and proceeding with a case was in the public interest.
Rape Crisis spokeswoman Sandz Peipi said the fact the 21-year-old had been involved with the girl when she was only 11 was “disturbing and quite perverse”.
Whether the sex was consensual was irrelevant because of the girl’s age and the man should have been charged by police.
The fact he had admitted committing “statutory rape” meant police had more than sufficient evidence to go on, Peipi said. She was also surprised police did not believe it was in the “public interest” to lay charges.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
What Ross said, x 10.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
No matter what his ex was/is like, there’s no excuse for beating the shit out of her.
a couple of scenarios you may not have considered
extreme Bondage/sadist relationhip which they now regret?
vampire and or zombie events which I think we all know from tv it is completely acceptable to us neccesary force to sever the spine thus rendering the zombie harmless.
other than that I can’t think of anything
August 18th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I hope Veitch opts for trial by jury.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
[Deleted by DPF for being defamatory and totally incorrect. Also 20 demerits]
August 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
chuck if thats you on early newstalkzb you sound somewhat sane, im up ready to go to work, PEOPLE LISTERN HA
August 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The conduct of the Police is also becoming an issue. First there was the apparent tip off to TV3 of the search on Veitch’s house
Its the kind of police tip reporters hang their hat on. It does happen in high-profile cases.
and then the accidentially recorded message from an officer who seemed to be taking an unprofessional enjoyment in bringing Veitch down.
Police officer utters bleakly humorous aside about the accused. Who’d have thought?
If Veitch assaulted Dunne-Powell, he should be found guilty of the appropriate charges. However the punishment should take into account the wider picture, which is still very murky
It seems clear enough that there were relatively serious injuries — the ACC spokesperson was emphatic on their view about the credibility of the report filed some time ago by Dunne-Powell, so I’d suspect they have medical evidence. Veitch has himself admitted that he “lashed out”, and that he subsequently took his girlfriend to hospital, so we can conclude there was an incident.
More knowledgeable people than me may be able to offer an opinion on likely defences — but however much some of the woman-hating freaks on this thread might dislike it, “she was a bitch” is unlikely to be an effective one.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
So what’s the greater crime here?? Him, for allegedly assaulting her…. or her, allegedly blackmailing him??
Whatever sympathy she may have once garnered from the public, has long since dissipated. Perhaps they both deserve each other??
August 18th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Seems pretty clear that the police have reason to believe that there was a conspiracy to conceal the truth, and that is what the search warrant was based on: past correspondence; confidential agreements; legal documents etc.
If there was a conspiracy to conceal the truth then surely one of the charges Veitch would be facing is conspiracy or attempting to pervert the course of justice, no? Hadn’t the simpler possibility that the police were looking for supporting documentation for the original assaults ever occurred to you? Secondly since both Veitch’s and Dunne-Powell’s lawyers were involved in the negotiations, I daresay they would have done their utmost to make sure that the agreement was legal rather than lose their law licences by participating in a criminal conspiracy.
Like with many domestic violence cases [...] the truth can go to ground between both perps and victims, making it very difficult to come up with charges that stick in a court of law.
I dunno. Domestic violence cases don’t seem all that hard to prosecute. The usual complication in such cases is that the victim refuses to testify or that she wants to get back together again, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.
On the actual case, I have to laugh every time I hear Veitch wanting to “clear his name”. I wonder if he’s forgotten that he publicly admitted to an assault and to forking out a large sum of money? How on earth does he think he can clear his name?
August 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Wow, Christine, you’ve either breeched a permanent suppression order or are just making shit up. Real class act, aren’t you?
August 18th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
So what’s the greater crime here?? Him, for allegedly assaulting her…. or her, allegedly blackmailing him??
There’s no alleged about the assualt. And given that lawyers were involved, the chances that blackmail actually occurred is a number very something close to zero.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
WOW hes got his fuckwit job back ,AFTER THE TRIAL ????? , of two halfs YER RIGHT, GONE FOREVER,ha ha ha, but the old man has money REMEMER his V is going on mortgage payments lawyers shit , it goes fast.:)
August 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Personally, I feel sorrow for the woman. I have the distinct feeling she has been urged and goaded into filing a complaint (with the police), by money grabbing lawyers, with an eye for the main chance (nothing surprising about this).
Insofar as any future employment opportunities are concerned, she may well become persona non grata.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hi- Does anyone else wonder why Dunne-Powell spoke to journalist before going to police or lawyer back in November 06. I believe she had every intention of getting revenge by hook or by crook. Poor Tony and his lovely wife…. This is simply a rather obvious case of a woman scorned….Tony traded up…. Why aren’t the police investigating her for extortion? Dunne Powell and her lawyer negotiated a price tag for her silence yet who leaked it to the press? And for all those who are saying it is not right for a man to hit a woman- think about it like this….You weren’t there, you didn’t see it yourself so know one other than tony and dunne-powell know what really happened but to intentionally set out to ruin someones life and career is pure vindictive and for that karma will catch them….As for the Police they are trying to recover some respect from the community after 3-4 not guilty verdicts and all the allegations of extremely dodgy behavior within there ranks
August 18th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Russell , I was out on a building site in Auckland and contractor had a police scanner allways on.
Wouldnt be too hard for TV3 to have one in the news room and be able to get to Herne Bay very quickly.
Clear his name!! he has to be joking. That can only come after accepting responsibility.
As for the police taking his computer, did he really think in 2008 it would all be nice a and genteel and be her word against his like they do in Inspector Morse. Theyll have his words in emails and probably some retrieved txts or voice messages..
Expect his first move to have the search warrant ruled invalid and every other decsion to try to go to the Supreme Court
August 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
So what’s the greater crime here?? Him, for allegedly assaulting her…. or her, allegedly blackmailing him??
Small but important point. One party has laid a complaint of assault, reported injuries to ACC, been medically examined and given an evidential interview to police. The other has not laid a complaint of blackmail. The “allegation” of blackmail comes solely in the form of anonymous blog comments. Such comments may not be reliable.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
First person ends up in hospital, second person admits lashing out at this person, police arrest second person. This is hardly a grand conspiracy.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I have the distinct feeling she has been urged and goaded into filing a complaint (with the police), by money grabbing lawyers, with an eye for the main chance (nothing surprising about this).
Eh? She already got $170,000 from him. In case of a criminal conviction, she won’t get anything extra and her lawyers won’t be able to make any money from it. So explain how she could be goaded into filing a complaint.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
the allegation of blackmail is acknowledged-Dunne Powell had her lawyer go back and forth with Tonys lawyer and SHE received her $100,000 for her “silence”. It will all come out in court and that being the case and Dunne-Powell being financially supported by ACC and the fact that the privacy agreement was broken….They should return some or a large portion of her HUSH money as she couldn’t stand by the written agreement.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
On the face of it, they had a ‘deal’. Deals are done everyday by people charged with offences (usually high profile individuals), sometimes with the collusion of the police. What disgusts me, is that the legal proffession are always complicit in these deals, which are always ‘arranged’ to pervert the course of justice.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
metcalph. Don’t be so nieve… Legal fees…long, deliberately, drawn-out cases… high media profile for lawyers and their law firm…. blah blah blah (Get the picture?? Thats how lawyers make their money, you twit)
August 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I obviously can’t speak for Dunne-Powell, but in her position I’d be feeling rather ‘goaded’ by the folks around here who’ve decided I’m a vengeful, lying extortionist.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Craig. I think Christine has taken her cue from the lawmakers themselves, who change laws to suit themselves, and hide behind parliamentary privilege to impune someones character, at will.
Its one of the many reasons why the Courts have lost the respect of the people in this country, and why criminals runamuck. (They just take their cues from the lawmakers themselves).
August 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
The word ‘meme’, its pretentiousness offends me verily.
Wow, this story has all the makings of great telly, no wonder TV3 are over it like white on rice.
High flying TV star, mates with the fast crowd of ridge, ellis and todd.
Beats up mrs.
mrs it is potentially rumoured (see above, not alledged by myself) has history of vexatious legal action.
Police also seem to have an angle in play.
Do you think that TV and the NZPF have history?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Craig wrote: Wow, Christine, you’ve either breeched a permanent suppression order or are just making shit up.
IMO there shouldn’t be permanent name suppression unless it applies to both sides. Tea Ropati must be presumed innocent, despite having his name and face splashed over the news. The accuser on the other hand remains anonymous.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
As for whether Dunne-Powell has broken the law by entering Veitch’s premises illegally, or by anything else she may have done, I doubt the police will show any interest. Remember in the Ropati case, the accuser had snorted cocaine on the night in question. She admitted it. The police took no action. Who said the police are biased?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Mr David farrar, kiwi blogg should have a nightly KICK THE SHIT out of ANY female or male who pisses the shit out of any male/female blogg poster who actually posts the real truth ie WHAT IS CRAP AND WHAT IS FACT????
August 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Christ, settle down people. You are sounding like woody-woodpecker on his last tree. Whatever happened to patience and quiet deliberation? Turning Veitch into a Kiwi OJ Simpson is just plain tacky and OH so Republican. What are you thinking?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Great telly.
oh, as Ross says, i missed the drugs angle. no doubt there will be polygomy thrown in soon.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Mara. A good judge will never let this case see the light of day. Amongst other matters, the police have already conceded to been vexatious (and of course, they are driving it). If anything, the police should be charging the lawyers (who brokered the money deal), with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
On the face of it, they had a ‘deal’. Deals are done everyday by people charged with offences (usually high profile individuals), sometimes with the collusion of the police.
Diversion is available to everybody with a clean record, not just high profile people.
What disgusts me, is that the legal proffession are always complicit in these deals, which are always ‘arranged’ to pervert the course of justice.
Considering the matter is a legal one, anybody that didn’t have a lawyer when making an out-of-court settlement would be extremely foolish.
metcalph. Don’t be so nieve…
I’m not even naive.
Legal fees…long, deliberately, drawn-out cases… high media profile for lawyers and their law firm…. blah blah blah (Get the picture?? Thats how lawyers make their money, you twit)
Let me spell things out to you slowly and simply in words that you may understand. In the resulting court case, there are only two parties of lawyers that stand to make money through legal fees – those employed by the crown and Veitch’s lawyers. Kirsten Dunne-powell’s lawyers will not earn a single red cent as a result of the case while the Crown Lawyers have no need to encourage people to complain – there’s more than enough high profile work already in existence. That leaves Veitch’s lawyers who are representng Tony Veitch himself. Are you seriously suggesting that his lawyers pursued a policy of deliberately goading Dunne-Powell into complaining to the police so they could earn the legal fees? There’s only a slight catastrophic flaw in your idiotic plan – that it presumes Veitch and his wife are too stupid to recognize what was going on to a) fire their lawyers and b) complain to the legal society to have them struck off (which would have a high rate of success). Have I left anything out?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Amongst other matters, the police have already conceded to been vexatious (and of course, they are driving it).
When and where have they conceded that?
If anything, the police should be charging the lawyers (who brokered the money deal), with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
I daresay that the lawyers were hired to ensure that any resulting deal was perfectly legal and did not involve any attempt to pervert the course of justice. That is what people happen to hire lawyers for.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
My Auckland mate tells me that in many communities there are two gangs; Black Power and Mongrel Mob. They hate each other terribly.
In Auckland there are two gangs called TVNZ and TV3. They hate each other also. A year or so ago TV3’s Clint got pissed and misbehaved. TVNZ absolutely rubbished him and made his employment contract untenable. The TV3 gang were morose and vowed that they would get square. Then the “runt” was outed and TV3 got their revenge. Anybody notice that it was TV3’s puffed up puff ball that was there when the cops did the search warrant. Just as the cops are aware of the hate between the Mongrel Mob and Black Power they are aware of the hate between TVNZ and TV3. It would have been silly of them to waste their time on TVNZ.
My sources tell me that there is a senior Vodafone executive that will be named shortly in this drama. Apparently it was brought to Veitch’s attention that this well hung executive was much more effective at horizontal activity than was Veitch. Just as females dislike being told that they are fat, and several of them have slapped me after I told them so, Veitch did not like being compared to the executive.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Metcalph. Don’t let my bad grammar get in the way of your ignorance. You obviously see the world, through rose tinted spectacles. Either that, or you’re a lawyer.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
While I (too) make no comment on what may or may not have happened, Veitch’s defence is rather obvious.
IF (big if) there is the possibility that ‘lashing out’ did not cause her to fall down the stairs Vietch will be able to defend the charge of injuring with reckless disregard on the basis that what occurred was the lesser offence of male assaults female. This would occur if … the fall was seperated in time from the ‘lashing out’. Vietch could attempt to raise a doubt in that respect by pointing to drunkenness or self injury after the assault. While this is uncommon, it is not unheard of for lawyers to raise such matters. In short, he would argue that he assaulted her in a minor way, but that she caused the injuries to herself to escalate what he had done.
The other charges of male assaults female could be defended on a his word against her word basis if there is little corroborative evidence.
In respect of Christine purporting to breach the name suppression order in the Ropati case, I would point out that the Ropati complainant was 36 in June 2006, where the SST reports (maybe incorrectly – maybe not) that Dunne-Powell is 33.
One should be very careful about breaching such orders as the present Sol_Gen is very pro-active about issuing proceedings in such cases. Apparently he is investigating a Herald reporter over an article about an unnamed lawyer last weekend which breached an order suppressing his occupation. That reporter is now alleged to be considering alternative employment and the prospect of defending a contempt charge. DPF be advised that if the order has in fact been breached then a search warrant will almost certainly be heading your way too. It would seem prudent to block such comments in moderation.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
In two years I can’t remember seeing Metcalfe so voluble. His last comment is the dead giveaway.
“I daresay that the lawyers were hired to ensure that any resulting deal was perfectly legal and did not involve any attempt to pervert the course of justice. That is what people happen to hire lawyers for.”
When you decide you want to pervert the course of justice, you hire a lawyer to make sure you get away with it.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Metcalph. Don’t let my bad grammar get in the way of your ignorance.
I didn’t criticize your grammar. I criticized your spelling. Who’s ignorant now?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Russell Brown says:
“Bleakly humorous”?! There’s nothing humorous in it. “Bet he’s not smiling now” is akin to what one officer said to my former business partner when they were having one of their serial goes at dragging me through the shit: “Sure, he may not be guilty but he’s got it coming“.
It’s a fact that there a police officers who do not do the job they’re paid to do, which is apply the law in a fair and reasonable fashion, having regard to the fact that charging someone can do as much damage as the conviction, especially if the person has any sort of profile so their name is remembered by Joe Average and the media report it, thus consigning it to Google forever.
You wouldn’t find it so bloody “humorous” if it were you that was on the receiving end, Russell. I’m sorry, but you seem completely out of touch with the way the Police behave in the midst of an “investigation”… in which case you’re a very lucky man.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
The other charges of male assaults female could be defended on a his word against her word basis.
Except from the unfortunate fact that he’s already admitted lashing out and paying up.
His last comment is the dead giveaway.
A dead giveaway of what? Elucidate your thinking.
When you decide you want to pervert the course of justice, you hire a lawyer to make sure you get away with it.
False. Perverting the course of justice is done without aid of lawyers (cf Dewar and the Kahuis).
August 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
You wouldn’t find it so bloody “humorous” if it were you that was on the receiving end, Russell.
Many jokes aren’t. I daresay that Helen Clark didn’t find the joke that she caused the heart attack of Gottlieb by trying to resuscitate him to be very funny but some people do.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Mecalph. In addition to been wordsmiths, stock-in-trade for lawyers, is lying.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
My dear Metcalfe. ‘A dead giveaway of what?’ Come come now, don’t be obtuse.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
[DPF: If he hit her, that carries criminal consequences not just monetary. If she blackmailed him that is also a criminal issue, but I have not seen any proof of that. She was, beyond almost any doubt, quite seriously injured and unable to work for some time - it is worth remembering that]
David, are you absolutly sure that she was so seriously injured that she was unable to work for some time, or did you just hear or read it?
My understanding is that she wasn’t working for other reasons.
The reason I make this point is because, you, like me and probably everyone else on here is guessing. That is fair on neither party.
[DPF: A fair point. I am relying on media reports for that statement and they may be inaccurate]
August 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
My dear Metcalfe. ‘A dead giveaway of what?’ Come come now, don’t be obtuse.
What you may think is plainly obvious isn’t. It is not obtuse to ask that you explain yourself.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mecalph. In addition to been wordsmiths, stock-in-trade for lawyers, is lying.
Well after parsing that statement with a charitable notion that you were attempting to express an intelligible notion but no, lawyers are trained not to lie. They are trained in representing what their clients thinks should be the case without actually telling any lies.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Metcalph: The other charges of male assaults female could be defended on a his word against her word basis.
Except from the unfortunate fact that he’s already admitted lashing out and paying up.
The male assaults female charges actually relate to the accusations pre-dating the Jan 06 incident.The lashing out relates only to the January 2006 incident in which he has been charged with injuring with reckless disregard so his ‘lashing out’ admission does not amount to accepting culpability for either her injuries, or the more serious charge of injuring with reckless disregard. it is simply an admission that he lashed out … and on one occasion.
Make no mistake he will run a strong defence. That much is clear. Whether he will escape conviction will depend on whether the Police have charged him with the appropriate offence in respect of the events to which the ‘lashing out’ admission relate. They often fail in their prosecution because of a keenness to ‘over-charge’.
If he was charged with male assaults female in relation to the Jan 06 incident, however, he would have almost no defence. The Police have upped the ante, both for him and themselves by throwing the book at him.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
David, are you absolutly sure that she was so seriously injured that she was unable to work for some time, or did you just hear or read it?
It is reported that she took time off due to her injuries and then when she tried to return to her old job, she suffered a nervous breakdown and quit. Neither Kirsten Dunne-Powell or Tony Veitch have contested this so where does the unfairness to both parties arise?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
First up let me say anyone who hits a woman is a spineless coward.
However, Tony and is former partner agreed to settle the matter out of court for the sum of $150K.
There was clearly a legal and binding contract there — he paid her, she agreed not to press charges, everyone was happy.
So now that she has laid an assault complaint with police (which is what the media tells us has happened) she is in breach of that contract.
Tony must now surely be within his rights to sue for breach of contract, claiming consequential and punitive damages for the losses he has incurred as a result.
He ought to be entitled to claim back his $150K, his loss of earnings from losing his jobs, loss of future earnings (given the damage to his reputation) and punitive damages of whatever amount the court thinks is reasonable.
Whether we agree with what he’s done or not (and I don’t), it must be remembered that both he and his former partner entered into a legally binding contract after the event and now she is in breach of that contract.
Personally, I think contracts are things to be honoured so if she has laid the complaints the media suggests, he really ought to sue the panties off her.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
metcalph (189) +0 Says:
August 18th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mecalph. In addition to been wordsmiths, stock-in-trade for lawyers, is lying.
Well after parsing that statement with a charitable notion that you were attempting to express an intelligible notion but no, lawyers are trained not to lie. They are trained in representing what their clients thinks should be the case without actually telling any lies.
Well then Metcalph, tell that to an acquaintacce of mine who is the senior partner in a very high profile Auckland law firm, who habitually introduces himself as a member of the ‘lying’ profession, at social engagements. But I am aware of much more sinister things that lawyers can get up to. Sometimes out of false allegiances, sometimes out of reckless disegard for the law, and for their own careers. I’m not dissing lawyers per se, (most are great people), just the frequent hypocrisy of law as it is in NZ. I was once told by a senior barrister many years ago…Paul, ‘law’ is only a game. Just a big game. I never forgot his words.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Sorry aardvark, for reasons I won’t bore all with, no contract which purports to prohibit a person making a complaint about an offence is either valid or enforceable and may amount to an attempt to defeat the course of justice, payment or not.
While I have not seen the contract I know unequivocably that no competent lawyer would advise a party that such a clause is appropriate.
Suing for breach of contract is not on the cards in any way, shape or form and Veitch will be well aware of this.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Then no competent lawyer should have allowed Tony to enter into such a contract — I assume he had the smarts to run it by his lawyer in the first instance.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
To Craig Ranapia
I am not talking shit – why don’t you check the records or go and ask Ropati himself
August 18th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
There was clearly a legal and binding contract there — he paid her, she agreed not to press charges, everyone was happy.
There is clearly a legal contract but we don’t know the terms. What we do know is that a contract in which a party agrees not to press charges is unlawful and unenforceable. Since lawyers were involved, I sincerely doubt that any were so stupid as to hammer out a contract which had such a provision.
Tony must now surely be within his rights to sue for breach of contract, claiming consequential and punitive damages for the losses he has incurred as a result.
If the contract had a provision not to press charges then it can’t be enforced. It would then be an illegal contract and Tony would have to sue under the Illegal Contracts act. However he would have to rely on the Court’s discretion of what was just in such circumstances (which means it’s the legal equivalent of a hail mary pass).
He ought to be entitled to claim back his $150K, his loss of earnings from losing his jobs, loss of future earnings (given the damage to his reputation) and punitive damages of whatever amount the court thinks is reasonable.
Why loss of earnings? She didn’t cause the loss of earnings and damage to his reputation – he did that from the moment he assaulted her.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Well then Metcalph, tell that to an acquaintacce of mine who is the senior partner in a very high profile Auckland law firm, who habitually introduces himself as a member of the ‘lying’ profession, at social engagements.
Obviously the concept of self-deprecating humour is something that passed you by in the night.
But I am aware of much more sinister things that lawyers can get up to. Sometimes out of false allegiances, sometimes out of reckless disegard for the law, and for their own careers.
I do know what lawyers “get up to”, but the type of conduct that is being suggested here simply doesn’t pass the bullshit test.
I’m not dissing lawyers per se, (most are great people), just the frequent hypocrisy of law as it is in NZ.
You’ve alleged frequent hypocrisy but have never given any details.
I was once told by a senior barrister many years ago…Paul, ‘law’ is only a game. Just a big game. I never forgot his words.
A barrister’s cynicism is not evidence of hypocrisy in the legal profession.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Christine, what “records”? Got a link?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Christine, if you aren’t full of shit:
1. How do you account for the fact the Ropati complainant was 36 (in 2006) when Dunne-Powell is reported as being 33 (now); and
2.Expect a visit from the Police seeking to charge you with contempt of Court, he has about 6 such cases underway at present.
Good luck. DPF you should dump this clown.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Whilst talkback radio is not an unimpeachable source of fact one contributor claimed that Dunne Powell tried many times to get back into Veitchs life and entered his home illegally. Another suggested she orchestrated the whole thing being a “Woman Scorned” and there does appear some credibility to this angle which may give weight to the blackmail angle. The police using 7 officers to execute a search warrant does seem excessive especially 2 years after the event as there is unlikely to be any evidence of the actual assault so they were clearly looking for something else so there is likely a facet to the case we know little to nothing about. If this case turns to the same kind of custard that the Rickards and Kahui cases did then an incoming National government will need to root out the incompetence/corruption/bias that the public is increasingly perceiving in the police and justice system.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Christine, if what you say is true and there is an explanation for the age difference you should let Veitch’s lawyer, Stuart Grieve know.
In general a rape victim or alleged victim in the case of a not guilty verdict plea should have name suppression. However, if an accuser has made previously complaints that have not resulted in a conviction the accused should have a right to know.
There is not an automatic suppression of an accused past. If there has been a similar M O application can be made for this to be presented to a jury.
There needs to be some balance. In the case of Nick Will the complaint had made false claims in the past. She got a small fine and permanent name suppression.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
This is from the Herald
The woman describes herself in the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly as “a career woman in her 30s
Where is the link to say she was 36?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“The charges arose from incidents at a Ponsonby bar and at Victoria Park in the early hours of June 15, 2006, involving a female complainant who was 36 at the time.”
http://peterellis.org.nz/Allegations/Tea_Ropati/2008-0130_stuff_jury_retire.htm
August 18th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Link to Dunne-Powell being 33 is here http://www.stuff.co.nz/4609673a10.html
Link to Ropati complainant being 36 in June 2006 is here http://www.stuff.co.nz/4382387a10713.html
Note to Chuck Bird – best not to use Woman’s Weekly as reference of first choice.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:55 am
I thought the sheeple had already decided that Veitch was guilty. Nothing quite like mob rule.
RABBLE, RABBLE, RABBLE!
August 19th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Its a lynchin, and lets get the dirt about TVs inability to measure up to the big wanger at VF (no doubt marketed as aggressively as VF’s products)…
Greeeeat TV.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Well, Christine, even if I had access to Police or Court records (which I don’t), I wouldn’t be breeching name suppression. Unlike you, I actually sign my comments with my real name and aren’t that hard to find. Second, unlike certain parties around here, I don’t actually think the rule of law only applies to people I approve of, and can be flouted when I find it convenient.
Finally, since you’re so tight with Tea Ropati why don’t you get his to post a properly sourced comment here?
As for the Geek chorus immediately above, the only rabble I’m seeing around here is you guys.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am
/pardon craig
August 19th, 2008 at 7:40 am
No, Expat. Veitch has been arrested and charged, and I look forward to the legal process grinding forward. He’s entitled to a vigorous defence, but it’s a little rich watching the character assassins around here screaming “lynch mob” and “mob rule”.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
No, Craig, darling.
Even the geek rabble, as you so eloquently refer to them, is allowed an opinion, its called a democracy.
Chill out.
It’s GREAT Telly.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:50 am
There are a few things that make me feel uncomfortable.
The media frenzy.
The police sentiment.
Hugely conflicting stories and hints of drug use with both parties.
Two peoples lives under a microscope, and all the collateral damage within the friends and family.
Uninformed opinion.
Copious red herrings.
Judiciary ability to hold a fair trial.
This is a sad, and lamentable situation. And no-one can possibly gain any satisfaction.
Not even at the end.
Not a case of six of one, and half a dozen of the other.
I haven’t got a clue what proportionality is involved at all!
August 19th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Craig. I think the vehement been expressed around here, is that there was a ‘deal’ brokered between two parties and their respective lawyers. The deal on the face of it, sounds suspiciously like nothing more than, ‘hush’ money, and thus, an attempt to pervert the course of justice, by all of the players involved. Now you have the police leaping on the band wagon (years later), who already have shown themselves to be somewhat less than impartial in this matter.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:53 am
And it’s GREAT Telly.
Come on!
Revel in the media filth.
You know TV did.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Lets get this straight Craig?
Criticism of criticism is criticism.
I never expected the Spanish Inquisition to pursue that line of thinking.
What is the PC line of thinking then? Veitch is guilty regardless of the facts because “all men a bastards”, woman are “always 100% innocent” and the “Man drought” is a freak statistical occurrence unrelated to the happiness or otherwise of menfolk in NZ?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
No, OECD, TV must be accorded innocent status irrespective of the fact he kicked 7 types of shit out of his missus.
Wonder who Tony f*cked off the most during the party years – the police, the media or his missus?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
So now we have all given our informed, or otherwise, opinions and “facts” surrounding the case does anyone truly believe that the police would have sent 7 officers to execute a search warrant if Tony Nobody from Otara had given the missus the bash a few years ago and kept her quiet with a tinny and a slab of red?
I’m not saying that implicit instructions have been given, but it’s all about the perception and the message. It’s not ok Tony, you got that?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:47 am
The police vexatious, unprofessional and vengeful? Really?
Two of my relatives have been on the receiving end of such behaviour so I guess it just might be possible?
The galling thing is when it is exposed the attempt to dismiss/coverup doesn’t stop.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am
In a truly democratic country do we actually deserve an impartial, and diligent police force?
Are we asking too much?
Are we truly democratic?
Or is that our perception?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“There was clearly a legal and binding contract there — he paid her, she agreed not to press charges, everyone was happy.”
Such a contract would have no validity, would not be enforceable and may in itself be a criminal act or be evidence of several.
I have been present at the execution of search warrants, one even concerning murder, and this one seems over the top in respect of mayhem.
Assuming Veitch is found guilty I would only convict and discharge him; sufficient retribution has been inflicted on him by the community in their disrepect for justice. The other parties need looking at too.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
OECD rank 22 kiwi @ 8.04am:
Let me cue up a Dixie Chicks platter — it’s the appropriate soundtrack for people who bleat that their dissent is being crushed by people… well, disagreeing with them. And I’m simultaneously delighted and nauseated by the way you think any respect for the rule of law is “political correctness”. There’s certainly so much knee-jerk cop bashing going on around here I’ve got to check the masthead to make sure I’ve not been Rick-rolled to some lefty site.
Well, Robotnik, I think the answer is yes. But what I’d love to know is whether ‘Tony Nobody’ would have the same cheer squad willing to assassinate the character of the complainant?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Craig
If we can compare Kahui/Veitch cases.
It’s difficult to assassinate the character of two 3 month old babies, but face it, we know it wasnt the fault of Kahui, his ex, or his stonewall family.
The system let them down. How were they to know its not ok to murder babies? They seriously hadn’t thought of the consequences. 2 dead babies is less welfare money. They need welfare, so why would they do that?
Those on welfare should be left alone. Only rich smarmy pricks like Veitch should get hauled before the courts.
What the hell was he thinking admitting “lashing out” before any charges were laid.
And fancy getting counselling prior to it going public.
Im outraged he was given bail. He is a danger to women everywhere. Those charges show a history of violence.
I’ve no doubt Dunne-Powell was brainwashed into not laying charges earlier. Clearly Veitch’s terrifying manner and huge physical presence intimidated her and her family into silence. At least at some stage she had the tenacity to demand money from him…..
Might be best for her safety to change her name.. and get police protection. Thank god she has her family to protect her….
Just like the Kahui’s………….
August 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I have no way at present of contacting Veitch/counsel but would hope that this would gain his/their attention.
I have approximately (I stress this for good reason) six live complaints with the Human Rights Commission on gender discrimination against men and fatherhood.
Among these is a complaint on the male assaults female, which as I remember is s194 of the Crimes Act 1961. It is gender discriminatory legislation – this is clear and gender discrimination is unlawful.
The HRC will not be able to reject that complaint given that they have accepted and on one occasion encouraged me to put in a complaint on another more obscure breach. The consideration they have to give the complaint is whether I want the HRC to simply approach the complaint from an ordinary negotiator perspective or as I remember (murky without the documents at hand) on this issue employing the broader powers of the Commission under section 5 (2) (h) of the Human Rights Act 2003. The wording of my complaint, for Tony Veitch, whether or not he or counsel decide to pick up on my comment is important. The two different causes of action have different results.
If the Commission prosecute the information under their own initiative it is better for Veitch. Once the action is engaged he would be able to move the High Court for an order of perpetual testimony. This would be extraordinary but worth its weight. I say this because there is an underlying argument (and this argument is I imagine his full defence) that he is being persecuted by a misrepresented public opinion. If he seeks perpetual testimony and evidence then he will be able to bias the Court in his favour given that the nature of the charge itself is unlawful and he is being (in part) persecuted because he is male – and not (fully) because he committed violence. The rest of his defence then remains to the fact of whether or not he kicked her and how hard. Why, has little, or nothing to do with it except for sentencing.
If my complaint was centred on my cause of action then it will be more than a year before anything is done about it because of the structure of New Zealand’s democracy where injustice and corruption, no matter how well alleged or proved can simply be ignored (or Petersed).
laos_newzealand@yahoo.co.nz
August 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Does a contract between a dealer of heroin with his distributors hold its validity in Court, especially to the degree that no crime transferring the (as a thereby legal) substance would therefore have been committed?
August 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I thought about posting a comment on how good it is that Veitch’s case is going to be tried in a proper court, rather than the court of public opinion.
But then I thought: No, that would almost defeat the purpose of the comment…
August 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Surely though, RRM, this is an issue that has to be tried in the Court of public opinion because the public opinion is demonstrably stuffed by the way the Courts have ruled.
In my comment above Veitch can only hope to be supported through the public opinion, the law is clear. He is pretty clearly going to jail – given the claims on a “broken back” – consistent to having to be covered up with a fall down a stairwell. That’s pretty serious stuff.
The point you have made is absolutely accurate and profound, yet you discourage yourself from analysing the worth of what you state. No matter whether or not he is guilty, what if the law is in error?
It will not be found out under this charge by relying on the Court.
The statistics of male violence are horrendous. This is because those statistics are bound to an immediate disadvantage of legislation that is gender discriminatory. So Veitch is saying/appealing to the public that there are two sides to every story. Under this section of law that is not true. The charge (or one of them) he is being labelled with is only about him being a man. As he is a man he is not allowed under any circumstances to hit a woman. Sex though is equal. She is allowed to goad or hit him as she wants, so if either of those components are part of his defence to the other side of the story then he doesn’t have a hope except in the sentencing. He is stuffed. He is guilty. He has admitted that he lashed out, which will obviously include physical contact because otherwise he would have stated something different.
So if you’re a bloke and you don’t want to see another bloke be treated unfairly then you should make more comments and craft the public opinion to recognise that there is a serious disadvantage to having a set of testicles. The Court have never batted an eyelid at this legislation because they don’t have a choice, but every time one of these charges come up, the woman in the circumstances is at a complete disadvantage. That disadvantage was further proved when the female police officer demonstrated how the police handle such cases on investigation and before they are tried.
So public opinion is the only hope.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Craig et al:
I have no opinion one way or the other on Veitch’s guilt. I don’t know enough and it’s likely information will come out subsequently that will make any opinion look foolish.
I do, however, have an opinion on (and first hand knowledge of) Police procedure and attitudes. Yes, they do treat certain people differently – those who would make a prominent scalp and/or those who have annoyed them in some way in the past (and I’m not talking criminals, I’m talking, for instance, people found not guilty under the system in which you claim to have faith).
Seven officers to execute a warrant isn’t normal. I had the misfortune to share accommodations with someone who, it turned out, had a bit of a drug problem (and a bit of a robbery problem to fund the drug problem). When the warrant was executed to find both drugs and stolen property, four officers was considered to be enough. And one of them kept an eye on the arrestee.
Veitch may be guilty as hell. He may be innocent as the driven snow. He may be somewhere between those two things. But one thing is evident. He’s on what I’ve come to call the Police “s**t list” and is being treated accordingly.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Craig Ranapia (1530) –1 Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
OECD rank 22 kiwi @ 8.04am:
Let me cue up a Dixie Chicks platter — it’s the appropriate soundtrack for people who bleat that their dissent is being crushed by people… well, disagreeing with them.”
You’re the only one whining craig.
TV3 are after the story because its going to make great telly. Look at all the angles, sex, drugs, famous people, sports stars, previous activities of the punters involved etc
The charges:
Injuring with reckless disregard: January 29, 2006.
Male assaults female: December 18, 2006, at Auckland.
Male assaults female: November 5, 2005, at Auckland.
Male assaults female: July 8, 2005, at Auckland.
Male assaults female: June 3-4, 2005, at Rotorua.
Male assaults female: Between April 14, 2003, and April 9, 2005, at Mangawhai.
Male assaults female: Between March 15, 2002, and April 19, 2003, at Auckland.