Weatherston appeals murder conviction
I’m almost speechless. With great restraint I said I hoped to never have to blog again on Clayton Weatherston until 2027, when he would become eligible for parole.
But the sick little fucker is appealing his sentence.
No competent lawyer could have advised him that he could possibly win such an appeal. He must just be doing it to further his narcissistic ego, so he stays in the headlines, or as another attempt to blacken Sophie’s name.
I’ll be appalled if he gets one cent of taxpayer money to fund his appeal.
UPDATE: I understand Judith Ablett-Kerr will not represent Weatherston at his appeal and he is seeking a North Island QC. I’m tempted to advocate that no QC touch him, but then he would seek to represent himself in court which would be even more of a spectacle. I just hope they can schedule the appeal quickly, so we can go back to forgetting about him
October 13th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
This will be as good as sticking ones fingers down ones throat
October 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Judges make decisions about appeals, lawyers give advice and follow instructions.
I have a novel proposal, why don’t we let due process take its course. I am sure that Kiwiblog readers would all have agreed with the verdict that was rendered.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
DPF – while it’s foul, and abhorrent, without knowing what went on in the trial regarding evidence and the like it is a big call to say that “No competent lawyer could have advised him that he could possibly win such an appeal”. Don’t shoot the messenger but I’m just reminding you that appeals are restricted to points of law and something could (talking possibility rather than probability) have happened during the trial to give grounds for appeal….
[DPF: Sure if there was any doubt over him being the killer but that is not a contested fact, and the provocation defence was so pathetic and weak I don't think one can conceive a situation where the Court will rule otherwise.]
October 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
for once I am lost for words .. what a scumsucking low life.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I have some questions for the legal minds among you.
Will a judge be able to dismiss an appeal easily if there are no valid grounds for one?
He seems like the fucker will take this as far as he can. How far can he take this?
How long is all this likely to take?
I just hope this gets dealt with as quickly as possible, sophie’s family have already suffered enough.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Regrettably, I can’t say I’m surprised.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
/shrug He’s got the right to do it, you cant selectively take them away.
Personally I would have already had him harvested for his organs.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
This is good news.
Removes any shred of remaining doubt as to what a total vicious scumbag-in-denial he is.
Lets hope it’s increased to 25 years non-parole.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“I believe he felt that all along,” Angela Muir told the Herald on Sunday. “He is not a monster and he is not a killer in the true sense of the word. He might have done it but he is not a murderer in the true sense – he was defending himself.”
She added: “I am sure he has a lot of feeling that he doesn’t want to discuss.
Now I can understand a sister defending their brother, but how the hell could that be called self defence, let alone Weatherston not be a killer, some serious denial going on, if anything I’d call this case one of the most extreme cases of Murder I’ve heard of, due to the premeditated nature & extreme sick abuse inflicted.
What a sad family.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
It seems a strange move after his family said last week that he wouldn’t be appealing, and he was remorseful. What are his family saying this week?
October 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Presumably he is appealing the sentence, not the conviction. I suggest the Crown cross-appeal for a longer sentence, or apply for preventative detention.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
DPF – “I’m tempted to advocate that no QC touch him,”
Lawyers are obliged to take any client that approaches them except for extraordinary circumstances.
His choice to appeal is shocking and will be extremely upsetting to the family.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I imagine he will stick with Greg King who is better than the majority of QC’s around. King has won a number of recent appeals, specificaaly on wherterh the Judge summed up the law relating to provocation correctly. Of concern is the fact that the Weatherston trial judge, Potter J, was the trial judge in a number of the appeals King has won of thre provocation point.
The law is immensely complex (perhaps the most complex area of criminal law), and many judges struggle to come to grips with it, particularly Potter J. King, however, seems to have the law well in grasp.
A successful appeal is not as remote a possibility as many think, and a retrial is a distinct possibility. Many cases where provocation fails end up being retried.
Only slightly off topic, I would recommend Greg King if you have to defend yourself against the contempt charges Crown Law are looking at, you get the skill of a QC at ordinary lawyers rates.
[DPF: Crown Law are not looking at contempt for me. The recent story is a rehash of a story from months ago. I have been told directly they do not believe my actions amounted to contempt]
October 13th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
In terms of North Island QC’s, Lithgow or Haigh would top my list.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
His sister stated the other week that he would not appeal – his family then said this was not true. You can really see part of the reason he became the egotist he is. His family are still backing him up, they still believe his version of events, they still support him with the blind faith that probably pushed him towards narcissism when he was a child.
His family deserve much more vilification – not for supporting their brother/son – but for supporting his cruel deluded story.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Many people – Weatherston possibly included – confuse an appeal with a re-trial (that you can appeal seeking a retrial further confuses the issue).
An appeal can only be made on points of law and is not an opportunity to relitigate the entire trial. It is therefore highly unlikely to provide a chance to “further blacken the name” of a victim – though DPF is probably spot on when he posits a desire to remain in the spotlight as the primary motivation for Weatherston’s decision.
The fact that Waetherston was not found to be insane despite his actions shows a large gap between psychology professionals and the public. As a result, many a dangerous person walks the streets until such time as they commit a serious crime.
I’m trying to get a Violence Restraining Order against a man who has repeatedly stalked a young girl and who is clearly insane in the eyes of any normal member of the public, but not the law (as just two of thousands of examples: he has written what he claims to be a “5000 page letter to the Governor”, and attempted to barter accepting service of documents if we’d arrange a date with an attractive legal secretary he’d spotted (before the law firm installed steel bars on the windows, a steel door, and outside cameras to deter him coming around)).
But in the absence of a finding of insanity he’s free to walk the streets, and what’s more he can harrass his victim using the courts – he has already issued a writ of defamation, centred mainly on her testimony in a lower court, which is of course entirely privileged.
He too has Weatherston’s love of the spotlight… a web posting he thinks is anonymous (but we’re in fact monitoring him very closely) jokes about trying a Michael Jackson move “when I am on stage next week”.
The point being, had Weatherston been found insane it’s unlikely an appeal from him – particularly if he intends to self-represent – would be entertained unless special permission were granted. And even then he would likely be forced to conduct proceedings through an “ordinary friend” (if he could find one) which would deny him the opportunity to grandstand.
Perhaps it’s time we reviewed our definition of insanity, at least in terms of criminal culpability?
October 13th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
His decision to appeal is not surprising nor shocking. It is fairly standard for murder convictions to involve an appeal, notwithstanding the seniority and experience of his Counsel at the trial. Hysterical protestations about this turn of events merely feeds this person’s tremendous ego. I simply shrug my shoulders and say so what.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Just one sick fuck that’s for sure. Surely to goodness Legal Aid will turn him down. And on Legal Aid I read Taito also got some Legal Aid….. Why????
October 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
What do Clayton’s parents have to say about this? From what I’ve read they’re relatively normal. Have they talked to their son?
Is there anyone close to Clayton who can make him see sense?
Perhaps Clayton’s friends and whanua have disowned him. I know I would.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
One wonders what point of law he plans to appeal under? I don’t think that there is anything that Ablett-Kerr would have missed.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
and she pulled the pin slightlyR
October 13th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
in the movies they used to leave the cell door open, wait for the crim to make a ran for it and shoot the whucker “while trying to escape”. Am I wrong to hope for that?
October 13th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
@slightly – from some expert who was on RadioLive with James Coleman this arvo, it sounds like nit-picking with the judge’s direction to the jury is about all there is to play with.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Appeals are normally done on a matter of law not on evidence. He is a creep of creeps but he does have the right to appeal thats his perogative.
I just hope at the end of the legal process they shoot him.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I think you are right David – this appears to be Weatherston’s sick attempt to keep himself and his ego in the media spotlight.
October 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
The usual sorts of appeal grounds are:
1. The judge misinterpreted the law.
2. The judge put the jury crook during the suimming up.
3. A juror was 10th cousin thrice removed to the detective handling
the case.
4. Judith was incompetent in handling the defence (translated – Plan A
did not work so he wants a re-trial so they can try Plan B).
5. A cop could have planted evidence.
Note no. 4. That he plans to use a different lawyer gives a clue. Incidentally appeal judges do not like the ‘incompetent lawyer’ defence, especially when the accused dictated how the defence was to be run. For example an accused decided not to give evidence, then accused the lawyer of incompetence for not putting him on the stand. At that point he had nothing to lose by taking the stand in a re-trial, but the Appeal judge were not going to oblige him.
Apparently in England the risk of losing a criminal appeal was having a few more years tacked on the end of the sentence. The late Lord Goddard was notorious for this, so was his successor Lord Parker.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“Apparently in England the risk of losing a criminal appeal was having a few more years tacked on the end of the sentence.”
Can that only be done if the Crown cross appeals the sentence as he has only appealed the conviction?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
about about telling the SOB there will be NO TV cameras in the court room?
October 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
It’s a legitimate test.
Who’s paying for it?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Baffling. We can only hope they increase the sentence on appeal.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I wasn’t going to comment, but…
Chuck: no, the appellate Court has the ability to increase the sentence if the original sentence is appealed. The Crown doesn’t generally ‘cross-appeal’ as that is generally a civil concept.. The Solicitor-General can appeal, as in the Gwaze matter, but seeing as how the Crown asked for an MPI of 19 years and Weatherston got 18 years MPI then there can’t possibly be any real grounds for a Solicitor-General appeal.
I can’t see him alleging Ablett-Kerr QC ran an incompetent defence, so I suspect that it is mostly likely summing up and evidential issues.
Just a couple of other points: DPF, I note that you say above that “the provocation defence was so pathetic and weak”, I presume on the idea that the CA might give him a re-run of it. However, Justice Potter found that there was an evidential basis for the partial defence to go to the jury, so it cannot have been quite so pathetic and weak as we would like to believe. I have seen High Court judges refuse to put provocation before a jury, so it wasn’t a case of allowing the defence to clutch at straws. This article might give an idea of why Justice Potter may have allowed it to go to the jury: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article2439812.ece
Michaels: With regards to legal aid funding the appeal, if he meets the criteria for a grant of legal aid then why shouldn’t it?
October 14th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I think Justice Potter was being super cautious in allowing the provocation defence to go to the jury, so Weatherstone at least had that opportunity.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:40 am
F E Smith: “However, Justice Potter found that there was an evidential basis for the partial defence to go to the jury, so it cannot have been quite so pathetic and weak as we would like to believe.”
Sorry FES, that’s a non sequitur. Your comment shows that you don’t appear before Potter J very often, if at all. I doubt very much there was an evidential foundation and that the judge was intimidated by Greg King having bested her on appeal on the provocation point on a number of occasions.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I’m with Reid. The thing that really gets to me is that we will be paying for this self-indulgent circus.
Legal aid is fundamentally unjust – only the worst criminals are indigent enough to get aid, the general population, who also can’t afford sustained legal representation, can’t access it.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Responding to an earlier point – An appeal court in England could (I am not sure about today) up a sentence to show its displeasure at an un-meritorious appeal. AFAIK this has not been traditional in NZ.
There was a Giles cartoon years ago showing a couple of prison officers taking up a collection for Lord Goddard’s retirement. One said to another “I wouldn’t ask ‘Fingers’, he aoppealed against his two year sentence and Lord G made it six”.
A court can swiftly dispose of appeals by not granting leave. This however can in itself be appealed, and the Appeal Court will often look at the appeal itself when deciding whether to grant appeal and may say ‘leave not granted and even if it was the appeal would fail’. The Supreme Court (under its Act) is more ready to slam the door in an appellant’s face, this being usual for top level courts including the US Supreme Court. IMO the Court of Appeal will not throw this one out on its ear but give it the usual care.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am
FES, I think you missed my point. Weatherston only appealed his conviction and not his sentence. In that case can the Appeal Court increase the sentence?
Could not the fact that Weatherston’s appeal further shows lack of remorse be grounds for calling for an increase in sentence?
October 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am
DPF, it’s not often you use offensive lanuage in your posts, but in this case I can only agree that it’s appropriate and fitting. Let the $$^&$$ rot in jail. For crying out loud, what’s to appeal?
October 14th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Chuck, I got your point but when I re-read my answer last night realised that it could seem a bit unclear- I just couldn’t be bothered adding to it at that time! The answer is that if it is a conviction only appeal then the sentence cannot be touched.
Peterwn: Section 383 Crimes Actr 1961 provides an absolute right of appeal if convicted on indictment. I don’t think the CA can refuse leave to appeal. The Supreme Court could, if the CA dismisses the appeal. I don’t think that it would be good policy to increase the sentence for appealing as an offender can be remorseful for their actions but still think the judge got the law wrong. I don’t think Weatherston is remorseful, but that is a general point against that sort of concept.
Ernesto: fair point. I haven’t appeared in front of Potter J as far as I can remember. I have been told some interesting stories by those who have, though. I will have to pass your comment re the intimidation onto Greg, I am sure he would enjoy it!
Annie: your assertion is completely incorrect. In fact, the criteria was expanded a couple of years ago so more people could get legal aid and now the Minister of Justice, the media and the general public are complaining about the increase in expenditure as a result. Legal Aid now covers a fair bit of the population, but you need to be charged with an offence that can see you liable for a sentence of 6 months imprisonment or more, so many minor charges don’t qualify.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
THis guy is just as obsessed as she was.
That’s what got her killed.
He put on the smooth for ages and really had her believing him then dumped her.
I suspect his reputation was thoroughly sullied and no one was interested in him.
He blamed her and killed her.
I couldn’t even call it a crime of passion that some of us come close to committing.
He was just a cold bloded murderer and can’t face himself.
How long it takes before he takes a slightest look at himself is anyones guess.
He’ll become more self absorbed by any beatings he gets.
I just heard today from a corrections official that many inmates can’t understand why they are in prison.
At the end of the day, we have to surmise this man was a candidate for a long jail sentence sooner or later.
Be interesting to learn of his attitude in 10 yrs.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Brian
having had time to ruminate on this one, I don’t think letting someone rot in jail is humane.
My thought line is that ultimately we want restoration so that someone is no longer or will ever be a threat and becomes a nett contributor to society. not just do their sentence and carry on as before or fall into the same old same old.
Hence I’m in favour of the death penalty when there is no way we could have got it wrong.
when it’s the real person and no one else, lets remove them from the earth.
I think that is Humane.
What do you think?