Give that Judge a promotion

March 6th, 2010 at 11:56 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Jim McCorkindale, 70, of Gore in Southland, told the Weekend Herald that while dropping off children last July, he saw two boys pulling the hair of a girl and got out of his driver’s seat to try to stop it.

“I went over and touched the boy on the arm to attract his attention, and that was the assault.”

When the boy did not respond to being told to stop, “I threatened to hit him in the ribs, and he flinched and let the kid’s hair go to protect his ribs”, Mr McCorkindale said.

“But I never touched him again.”

The boy had continued misbehaving after Mr McCorkindale returned to his seat.

Children on the bus called the police and he found officers waiting to talk to him when he finished his run.

When police rejected the option of diversion, Mr McCorkindale received a court summons.

Amazing. If the boys are assaulting the young girl in question, he had every right to intervene to protect her.

What were the Police thinking?

But in the Gore District Court, Judge Kevin Phillips threw out the charge.

Instead, he told the boy he should be “thoroughly ashamed” of himself and had a policeman take him to the cells, the Southland Times reported.

Clap clap clap. Bet you he was smirking the whole time, until that happened.

Well done .

Tags: ,

57 Responses to “Give that Judge a promotion”

  1. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Good to see John Keys assurences that everythign was ok are right.

    Except they aint. The little sghit should have been tossed off the bus but instead some teacher has told him he has rights. This seems to incude physical violence towards girls which will develop into what by the time he’s an adult?

    Simple failure to respect other people and thwe authority of an adult, this is want the sopcial engineers wanted so what your next step?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    Umm, as he was not the kid’s parent, the anti-smacking law has nothing to do with the case. However the fact the Police prosecuted concerns me about their discretion in cases of smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. noodle (151 comments) says:

    Murray. If I’d been the bus driver, I’d have chucked the little bastard off the bus and been sacked toot sweet; not to mention being convicted etc “… so what’s your next step?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    However the fact the Police prosecuted concerns me about their discretion in cases of smacking.

    Except that we have not heard the line spun by the kids and perhaps backed by their parents. The police would have had to base their decision on all stories they were told, not just that of the driver.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. menace (402 comments) says:

    Just good to see that justice did eventually provale

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    What were the Police thinking?

    Arrest rates, clearance rates, conviction rates. A quick morning’s excitement “solving” a “real” crime before handing out speeding tickets.

    Possibly a headline in the local paper: “Bus driver sacked for assault on child following vigilant police action”. Local newspapers tend to get a lot of easy content from police, so are rarely critical. For that matter, so do bigger newspapers, radio and TV.

    And this is precisely why I opposed the “anti-smacking” law – because 9 times out of 10 police will use their discretion to either prosecute or, at the very least, cause you no end of grief rather than saying “Oh, now we’ve heard your side, we’re just going to go away. Sorry to have bothered you”. The attitude of many officers is if there’s a complaint about you, you’re guilty… which is why it concerns me greatly that there’s an attitude amongst many of the public (and some in the court system) that if the police charge you with something, you’re guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Good point Rex

    Shame that greg o’connor complains that more people disrespect the police and assaults on them are increasing.

    Wonder why they don’t see the correlation between the perception that the judiciary give wet bus tickets and police interfere in family life, plus the law is an ass and parliament doesn’t listen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    While this is obviously not an anti smacking issue we can certainly some parallels with adults not receiving the respect due them from children/youth.

    If instead of two boys pulling a girls hair this case was a bloke punching a woman and the driver went to intervene and touched the bloke on his shoulder to get his attention – is this assault?

    I know technically touching someone unbidden is assault, but if you intervene to prevent someone else assaulting someone surely this becomes more a case of protecting the one being assaulted – either the woman being punched, or the girl having her hair pulled.

    Much in the same way if a cop was being beaten up by a couple of blokes and someone intervened to protect the cop, are they in turn assaulting those attacking the cop?
    Perhaps this should be put to police – that the public refuse to get involved to protect the police in such cases because they risk being prosecuted in turn – better to just sit back and watch the cop being murdered if it came to that.

    Is this really the sort of society we want where people cannot intervene to protect children, women, or cops for that matter, when they are being attacked?

    I really do feel that the anti smacking legislation has changed the attitudes of especially police where now every form of ‘assault’ (even if just touching on the shoulder to get their attention) must be brought before the courts because cops are now too afraid to use their discretion. This whole area needs to be looked at and clarification given to the cops and perhaps the justice system as a whole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    Pete George makes an excellent point.

    On the facts as presented in the story, I too applaud the Judge and commiserate with the driver – who has acted properly and had a miserable time as a result.

    But how were the police to know, and how were we to know that these were the facts of the case, until the court examined the evidence?

    Maybe the kids and parents did indeed “spin a good line”.

    That said, I (sadly) suspect that Rex Widerstrom is right – police have more fear of being seen as soft on violence against than of putting an innocent man through hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nicholas O'Kane (168 comments) says:

    So now we have it. If you touch (or “hit”) a child on the arms you are guilty of child abuse and assualt (or in the words of idiot/savant at no Right Turn a “monster’ and “child beater”) deserving to be prosecuted and presumably imprisoned. It is really unfortuante the bus driver wasn’t the parent of the child, as it could be grounds for huge protests about the anti-smacking law.

    And imagine what parents after seeing this will think next time they think of disciplining their children

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    This is not political correctness. It is pure communisim, and its proponents sending the message to parents and adults “We own your children”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    Nicholas, he was found not guilty.

    Hopefully parents will think twice about supporting spurious cases, and won’t support kids when they bully others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Neil (588 comments) says:

    From a local point of view, people should know that the boy’s parents actually were very supportive of the bus driver. The family made appropriate comments about the stupidity of their son’s actions.
    Actually, diversion for the driver was sought at the local level but was ruled out further up the police food tree.
    Bus drivers are an endangered species because they are “Men of War without Guns”. They can’t win. These kids would prefer suicide to safe driving conditions.
    You need to be a special type of person to drive buses, a certain basic respect must be acquired by the driver.
    What really angers me about this case is the conniving use of cell phones by some of these young mafiosi to gang up on the driver.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Rex somes it up perfectly. He is absolutely right.

    David Farrar, it has nothing to do with whether his parents were involved or not . Charges brought under the so called anti-smacking legislation are charges of assault, however caused.

    And who is going to pay his legal bills? And compensate him for the distress this must clearly have caused him and his late wife?

    It furthur evidence of a discredited law.

    John Key in talking to Michael Laws on his Radio Live programme late last year said words to the effect that ” I am not going to say black is white. The law broadly says basically you can’t smack your kids”

    If New Zealanders do not believe this is what the law should say, there is only one place to change it. Parliament.

    I feel very sorry for Jim McCorkindale and all others who have been wrongly investigated or frightended by this law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    John Key is a liar.
    Lets get that straight.
    He is the prime minister and can’t be straight with the people.
    He is a man without integrity.
    the law is supposed to be clear and not decided by a state official.

    112 MP’s are unfiit for purpose and until we get that right and vote them out we are going to be dicked around like this poor sod and his wife.

    John How can we as individuals question and get another ,look at the police officers conduct, their seniors and the prosecutors?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Johnboy (16,710 comments) says:

    “Nicholas, he was found not guilty. ”

    Fine. I wonder what it cost poor old Jim in lawyers bills and stress not to mention wasting his time and the courts time.
    Cops want respect—— sheesh. Start earning it boys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    John Boscawen:

    Good to hear you’re still fighting the rising tide of nannyist nonsense. Let me know if there’s ever anything I can do to help.

    MikeNZ:

    Thanks, but neither you nor I could ever put it better than Alan Wilkinson (whom I haven’t seen round these parts lately… hope all is well) back in July last year:

    Our laws are made by scoundrels, administered by idiots, enforced by thugs, and adjudicated by puppets.

    Apart from that, they have my deepest respect.

    I really must get round to having that embossed, framed and hung on my wall. Or perhaps on the business cards I hand out as I pass through the “justice” system :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    In the old days, the brats would have had no cell phones to call the cops, their parents would have been unsympathetic. The boy would have been quaking in his shoes at assembly as the headmaster told him to report to his study afterwards to get six of the best. The other brats would have got a detention and the headmaster would have praised the driver for the way he handled the incident.

    The cops should have recognised that the drver had a self defence / defence of others defence (sorry for the confusing language). I know the Minister should not interfere in Police operational matters, but i think that Crusher Collins would have avery reason to ask the Commissioner of Police “what the heck?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    It’s only going to get worse, with children being given the same so-called “rights” as adults when they oughtn’t have such rights until they are older. An adult in charge of children should be able to pull one child off another or break up a fight.
    Years ago, even before the so-called smacking bill came in, a friend of the family was fired from his job as a teacher because two kids were fighting in class and he grabbed one kid by his jersey and pulled him off the other kid. I think that is ridiculous.

    If adults don’t have the right to enforce their will on the children they are looking after, then that just makes them the tallest person in the room (or bus) and nothing else. It makes them powerless with no authority to back up their words. It takes away discipline from children.

    MY elderly mother said today – these children are going to be running society one day; God help us all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It does seem that instead of prosecuting an assault, the police have in this case abetted one. That is unbelievably disgusting.

    I’d have thought that he was well within his legal rights to do a lot more than touch someone on the arm to protect another person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Thanks Rex

    When my Private Members Bill to amend the anti-smacking law comes up, I will be keen to have your support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. GJ (329 comments) says:

    We need more Judges like this! Should send him a medal! The country can still have some hope. Well done Judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Give the judge a gold medal and the feminazi police prosecuting attorney a kick in the head with steel caps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    I believe that in this case the police were guilty of condoning, in fact encouraging, an assault on a female, a serious charge. I believe that the officers responsible should be charged for their part in that assault, and for attempting to pervert the course of justice by prosecuting the bus driver. What sort of fools do we put in the police these days ?

    Diversion, bloody hell, the boy was assaulting the girl, plain and simple, physical assault, in what extraordinary world is that considered acceptable ? In what peculiar world are the police agents to protect criminal wrong doers and act to discourage people from intervening to protect vulnerable minors ?

    I can see clearly what the police actions in this case mean: if you see one child assaulting another, no matter how seriously and at what risk to the assaulted child’s life or health, do not intervene under any circumstances or you will be prosecuted by vengeful police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. noodle (151 comments) says:

    So MikeNZ, get rid of National? Yeah, great, fine. Vote for the alternative who powered up this lunacy in the first place.
    Heh.. when I have the answer I’ll let you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Pete and s.russell: Sorry, I don’t accept your reasoning at all. On too many occasions, when I have asked an officer in charge of a case why they are prosecuting, they have told me that they don’t really know what happened but they will let the court decide. That is not good enough. The police are there to properly investigate incidents like this and then use their discretion on whether to prosecute or not. Part of that discretion includes considering whether it is in the public interest or not. Another part of exercising the discretion involves looking at the evidence and considering whether they will could get a conviction.

    Now, they had the complainants view (of course, the police would have called the lying little dweeb a victim from the get go), and they had the defendants view. Had they gone further in their investigation and actually spoken to the victim of the boys assault (which they would have known about after speaking to the bus driver) then they should have come to a conclusion that not only did not involve prosecuting the bus driver, but included warning the complainant.

    It is not good enough that the police are allowed to waste taxpayers time and money, and lots of it, by taking a case to court that has been investigated so poorly. Sadly, it is not an uncommon feature of the court system. That is because many people who are innocent but are charged with an offence, as this man was, take diversion out of pragmatism, or end up pleading guilty because of how much the case will cost them to defend. It happens all the time. The costs regime in NZ is appalling. The police can take cases with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the state pays their bills and the defendant will have to stump up themselves (unless they get legal aid, but hey, we want to cut that as well, don’t we? Ignoring the fact that most minor cases, especially divertable ones, aren’t eligible for legal aid). It is so hard to get costs if a case is successfully defended that most of us don’t bother asking.

    In the UK, an award of costs to a succesful defendant is almost automatic. Of course, so is an award to a successful prosecution agency. I think both ideas are good, because it means that prosecuting agencies think seriously about the charges they are considering before they lay them.

    The cost to the country of the police’s habit of simply chucking charges at a situation is huge. While legally aided counsel usually get the blame, ask for the stats from your local courthouse (if they keep them) and you will see that the police are responsible for a large number of the adjournments throughout the year. It is time that we got away from the idea that criminal charges will solve everything and actually required the cops to use their discretion properly. Unlike in this situation.

    Edit: Don’t forget, everyone, that the bus driver would have been charged with assault on a child, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. Imagine how he was feeling the entire time that he was on bail?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Charges brought under the so called anti-smacking legislation are charges of assault, however caused.

    John – how would the old version of section 59 have helped this guy? And how would your version of section 59 have helped this guy?

    Your own bill includes the words “Every parent of a child and … every person acting in place of a parent of a child”. It couldn’t have helped this guy in any way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Duxton (654 comments) says:

    Here’s a solution for the bus driver: refuse the carry the boy on his bus, on the grounds that the latter has violent tendencies. Then, if the boy isn’t removed (which would not happen immediately), simply phone in sick five minutes before his run. He should then repeat this until the bus company backs him and refuses to carry the boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Duxton (654 comments) says:

    This reminds me of a case in West Auckland in the early 1990s, when some toerag went before the Youth Court for offensive behaviour towards members of the Police.

    Fortunately the case was heard by the emminently sensible Judge Joe Brown. When Brown heard that the boy made a habit of screaming ‘pigs’ (usually accompanied by a range of obscenties) every thime he saw a police officer, Brown sentenced him to several weekends’ work. The work involved cleaning out a stalls in a West Auckland piggery on the Saturday, and cleaning police cars on the Sunday.

    Brown closed the hearing by assuring the boy that, by the time he had completed his sentence, he would know the difference between a pig and a policeman.

    Classic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    John – how would the old version of section 59 have helped this guy? And how would your version of section 59 have helped this guy?

    Graeme, MacDoctor explains it well.

    http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2010/03/06/consequences/comment-page-1/#comment-8272

    This law has further helped undermine any respect children once held for adults. This means that it is possible that if the anti-smacking law was not in place the boy might not have acted as he did. It is also quite likely that a senior police officer would not bring the police into disrepute by pushing ahead with such an unwarranted and callous prosecution of a man caring for his dying wife.

    If enough people have enough sense to vote ACT and S 59 is amended to reflect common sense rather than left wind ideology there may be some change in young people’s attitude to authority. I would hope there would also be a change in police attitude. One can only live in hope. If this is not proof that the police cannot use discretion responsibly I do not know what is.

    Your own bill includes the words “Every parent of a child and … every person acting in place of a parent of a child”. It couldn’t have helped this guy in any way.

    Do you not mean you do not think John’s bill couldn’t have helped this guy in any way? It could be argued that the bus driver was acting in place of a parent (refer to MacDoctor). I think it would be up to a judge to decide if this argument had merit. Do not forget the judge threw this case out of court.

    I cannot understand how any lawyer can support a law that gives powers to the police that rightfully belong with the court.

    For a change Vote ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    In asnwer to your question David: “David Farrar, it has nothing to do with whether his parents were involved or not . Charges brought under the so called anti-smacking legislation are charges of assault, however caused.”

    Any more willfully misdrecting questions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Mark (496 comments) says:

    It’s high time kids are prosucuted for thier crimes, with rights comes responsibilites.

    The boys assualting the girl should of been arrested, prosucted and sent to prision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Graeme, MacDoctor explains it well.

    MacDoctor explains a lot of things well in that post. But not that. There’s absolutely no argument that this guy was a parent or a person in the place of a parent. Section 59 under the old, current, and proposed form would be of no assistance to him.

    I cannot understand how any lawyer can support a law that gives powers to the police that rightfully belong with the court.

    I don’t. I oppose this, and I oppose three strikes.

    I’m just saying that the problem here was the cops, or society or whatever, and that problem wouldn’t have been solved by John’s bill being successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. John Boscawen (146 comments) says:

    Graeme,

    I have only just read your comments. However I think Chuck Bird has already summed up the response I would have made earlier perfectly.

    I would argue that the bus driver was acting in place of a parent. We have a relatively small rural community, Gore, where people pitch in to help each other. I do not know, but it would not surprise me if the 70 year old bus driver was widely known in the community. He would feel a responsibility to the young girl, the boy concerned and the rest of the children on the bus.

    More importantly I feel far too many youth today do not show the same respect to their elders, and those responsible for bringing them up. Parents are uncertain of the law, and in some cases frightened to physically discipline their children for fear of the possible consequences.

    Equally we have created an environment where our taxes in the form of police resources are put into investigating and then prosecuting cases such as this. There are surely far more important things for the police to be doing, including investigation and prosecution of white collar crime.

    My amendment to the Crimes Act will give greater certainty to both parents and police. It will make it quite clear that minor acts of physical correction will not be illegal. It will give effect to exactly what the government want the law to say, but it will achieve it the correct way, by way of act of parliament, rather than by attempting to direct the police how to interpret it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    I don’t. I oppose this, and I oppose three strikes.

    Graeme, just to be sure I have got you right, does that mean your opposed to the Bradford bill which became law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Noodle
    there already is an answer, give ACT your party vote.
    If 50% of us do that National will have to stop being Labour lite and be middle of the road centerist.

    It’s so simple is frightening.
    geddit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (2458) Says:
    March 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    Thanks for that, nice to know I was a thug once :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Mark (237) Says:
    March 7th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    mark
    there is absolute logic in what you say, maybe if enough kids are prosecuted then people will wake up to the fact that they have 112 MP’s who don’t think through the unintended consequences to their actions and get rid of them as unfit for purpose.

    personally I’d like to go back to the old days but that cat has been left right out of the bag with the liberal lefts “rights” industry in our education system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Duxton (335) Says:
    March 7th, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Of course the company won’t back him as they clearly didn’t in the first place.
    I would say that all the drivers should call in sick in sympathy and have the boys photo on their dashboard too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    F E Smith (521) Says:
    March 6th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    Had they gone further in their investigation and actually spoken to the victim of the boys assault (which they would have known about after speaking to the bus driver) then they should have come to a conclusion that not only did not involve prosecuting the bus driver, but included warning the complainant.

    which is my issue with the competency of the attending officers and then their immediate supervising officers.
    then the prosecutor.

    there is more than meets the eye here and if what you say is that it is systematic then we need it to be looked at and make clean the offending parties.
    Hence my question to John Boscawen earlier

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. jackp (668 comments) says:

    Thank you John Boscawan, you are bringing some sanity back to Parliament and you are trying to protect the future of New Zealand. Thank you. Act has my vote. I wanted to ask you one question, why did John Key defend the anti-smacking law ignoring referendum which showed how most people feel about this law. Coalition partners?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    “In the UK, an award of costs to a successful defendant is almost automatic. ”

    I would not support that but in a case of wrongful prosecution such as this Mr McCorkindale should not only have his legal fees paid but compensated for all the unnecessary stress to him and his late wife.

    FES – How hard would it be for him to get costs do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    “I wanted to ask you one question, why did John Key defend the anti-smacking law ignoring referendum which showed how most people feel about this law. Coalition partners?”

    I can answer that for you Jack. You have one of the reasons. The Maori Party would not be too happy if he changed the law.

    The second reason is internal National polling. I have been involved in internal polling in the past. The idea is to target swinging voters and see what issues would change there votes. I have heard people say that John Key must be stupid to ignore 87% of the voters. I can assure Key is not stupid.

    His internal polling tells him if he changed the law he could lose vote to the left – mainly Labour. If he keeps the law as it is voters have only one choice and that is to vote ACT. He knows a vote for ACT will help keep National in power.

    If enough people vote ACT the law will be changed. The number of concessions ACT will be able to get will obviously depend on the percentage of votes they achieve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Graeme, just to be sure I have got you right, does that mean you’re opposed to the Bradford bill which became law?

    Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Stephen Franks (54 comments) says:

    I imagine Graeme that you may share at least one of my reasons for considering the current law to be pernicious – our great constitutional inheritance (the rule of law) is threatened by law that depends for its meaning on whether the Police decide to prosecute.
    Discretion whether or not to prosecute is necessary for most offences, but the criteria are oriented around practical matters of seriousness, resources, and likelihood of proving the offence.
    In this case we had Parliamentarians solemnly saying as they passed the law that they did not want it enforced in cases where it would clearly apply, and did not know what it meant, and were happy to let the Police decide what conduct should be criminal. People who should have known much better pretended they did not know what damage this does to the fundamental principle that the law should allow us all to know in advance what is lawful and what is not.
    The NZ Law Society played its now supine part – not bothering to make plain how far this carries us away from the Anglo Saxon notion of police as citizens toward the continental model of the Police as rulers, with power to decide not only when and how to pursue wrongdoing, but also to decide what will be considered wrongdoing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Which Stephen is my issue with the 112 who voted it into law.
    1. They clearly wrote poor law.
    2. they clearly voted knowing that ordinary parents & their kids would be traumatised by the process and were happy with that.
    3. they are happy to write a law that people are going to break.
    4. they are happy for a state official to decide if the law has been broken.
    No 2 & 4 makes them unfit for purpose in my mind.
    plus by doing so they have broken the social contract but all of them refuse to acknowledge that.

    Whilst I realise that legally 80% is not legally binding, morally and practically Key and National have broken the social contract knowingly.
    Hence I am calling for people to give ACT their party vote as national and Key can’t be trusted to serve the people of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    “Give the judge a gold medal and the feminazi police prosecuting attorney a kick in the head with steel caps.

    D4J, do you know the name of the police prosecutor who made this stupid and callous decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Sorry Chuck I don’t know. I only deal with the wayward police prosecution team down here. In the Jimmy Mason case Crown law applied pressure on police to prosecute. No doubt Sue Bradford and her hateful twisted sisters were behind the case going to court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Lance (2,662 comments) says:

    I used to catch a school bus many moons ago.
    The course of action back then would have worked here as well.
    If the majority of the kids are unco-operative (as in this case) the bus driver would stop the bus and take them back to school and release them back into the teachers care. They would then have to wait until their parents came and picked them up. The parents would be very very pissed off and since they were inconvenienced the kids would get a bloody good tongue lashing (at least).
    The secret is it has to cost the parents some inconvenience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. MikeMan (172 comments) says:

    The outcome of this case was the right one.

    The case going to court in the first place was a blunder of MEGA proportions.

    Thankfully there are a few judges like Mick Brown (Now retired) and Kevin Philips out there. People with common sense and a grounded and realistic view on what is right and wrong.

    I am sick and tired of good people being punished for doing the right thing, the anguish that the defendant must have gone through for this, there is no compensation for that, being under threat of going to jail during the last few months he spent with his wife for doing the right thing….

    The person who decided that this needed to go to court should be fired and a message sent to the police force that they have a responsibility of care in making their decisions as to what should be prosecuted. They are supposed to be the custodians of right and wrong, make a call and back it FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Is this really the sort of society we want where people cannot intervene to protect children, women, or cops for that matter, when they are being attacked?

    A little story. Last year I was going to Naenae pool to watch my daughter’s team play waterpolo. In Hillary Court, Naenae, there was a fight between three girls in their teens. Well, when I say fight there were two girls wailing on a third. I stepped in and tried to intervene because the lone girl was getting a serious hiding. I ended up with all three absuing me calling me a honky, cracker and various other racist names. I left the little pigs to wallow in their own shit. I won’t bother intervening now. Not worth getting abused for, or even worse, knifed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    They wonder why the respect for the police is going down and that they are getting attacked more?
    If this type of thing is systemic around the country it is no wonder.
    Sure this is just one incident and event/thread in ther conversation, but when you add national trials of police behaviour against women (and them getting off) and the intrusive laws parliament writes it is another stick on the camel’s back.
    Does Greg O’Connor ever read this blog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    Does anyone know the name of the senior police officer who made this ridiculous decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Chuck
    Care to elaborate on your reasons for opposing an award of costs. If you are prosecuted and found not guilty being made to pay for your defence is a further insult and probably another reason why in Police cases the Police are increasingly looked on as the enemy when they prosecute in circumstances were common sense would dictate otherwise!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    freethinker, I know of a case where the defendant spent about $100k on his defense and was eventually successful. I’m almost positive he was guilty though. Would you want costs awarded in those instances? IMO no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Right Now – understand what you are inferring but that just brings too much subjectivity into it – the whole purpose of a trial is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt and if they don’t then innocence is presumed. Much rather have many “guilty persons” wrongly found not guilty then one not guilty person found guilty. The NZ Law system (it is not a justice system) resists and obstructs those who reveal new evidence or prosecution deficiencies and even when established and innocence accepted is incredibly mean with compensation and almost never holds accountable those responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    Freethinker, no one can make a legal system that is perfect. I would not be happy to pay legal costs for someone who gets found not guilty of a serious crime because they were found not guilty despite the jury thinking he or she was almost definitively guilty and it turns out they had convictions for similar crimes.

    At the moment even if a person is found to be 100% innocent after serving say 10 years they do not get automatic compenstion and NZ is one of the most generous countries for this type of compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote